Category: Participatory
Editors Unite: Expeditions & Explorers
On Friday, I was pleased to co-host Expeditions & Explorers – a Wikipedia edit-a-thon bringing new and experienced editors together with focus on materials from the Field Book Project.
Below are the slides I used to introduce a few of our participants to editing on Wikipedia. Rather than a pure “How-to,” the slides reflect “How to think, plan, and execute your edits.” I welcome feedback and suggestions – send me your best practice tips for editing on Wikipedia!
This Wikipedia edit-a-thon was a smashing success! We created four new articles, fleshed out existing articles, introduced new people to the Wikipedia project, exchanged a lot of best practice tips and resources. We also had an amazing lunch, courtesy of grant money from Wikimedia DC (thank you!). I hope the participants enjoyed themselves, developed skills, and learned more about the scientists and expeditions. A more detailed review of our work is in the works, so watch this space…
The Field Book Project is a joint Smithsonian Institution Archives and National Museum of Natural History initiative that is focused on preserving and digitizing field notes from scientists and researchers. The overall mission of the initiative is “to create one online location for scholars and others to visit when searching for field books and other field research materials.” Also find more information from Smithsonian Institution Archives.
Transcription beyond Description at SIA
Last Tuesday, I shared some of the work I’ve been doing at Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA) through their The Bigger Picture blog. Find out how I’ve been researching engagement and ways audiences can help weave webs of knowledge with SIA collections through the link or here.
Keyword Round-up: April on Academia.edu
Here’s my April keyword round-up from Academia.edu, with an emphasis on “Arguably the Greatest” and imagined communities and sports fans on Wikipedia.
A bit of background: Academia.edu offers scholars analytics data, as well as the opportunity to understand the ways in which their research is being discovered. Using this data, scholars may be able to better frame their research to interested parties. It’s also claimed that this data could help an active academic seek tenure and promotion… I’ll let you know when I get there.
For most of April, I must ashamedly admit, I only had one article posted on my Academia.edu page: “Arguably the Greatest: Sports fans and communities at work on Wikipedia” – a 2009 exploration of the conflict-to-consensus process at work when fans of retired celebrity athletes go to work on framing out these athlete narratives in Wikipedia articles.**
My analytics report shows that four searches performed through Google brought searchers to my Academia.edu page. One of these searches was performed on Google.Au. The search terms were as follows:
- arguably the greatest sport fans and communities at work on wikipedia (Google search rank: 2)
- ‘arguably the greatest ” phrase (no Google search rank)
- meghan arguably the greatest: sport fans and communities at work on wikipedia. sociology of sport journal 26(1): 127-154. (Google search rank: 1)
- “imagined communities” “sports writing” (Google search rank: 1)
I found these search terms particularly interesting as two searches were directly seeking my article. How gratifying! The other two search terms suggest ways in which I could frame my research – and I am most motivated to flesh out my work in relation to imagined communities and sports writing.
Finally, the details about the Google rank of my piece were the most fascinating: this 2009 Wikipedia article is popping up as the first or second Google search result; certainly not what I expected as a referral.
In the next keyword round-up, I will discuss how adding an additional, older article about the ascription of cultural values and extension of performance for retired celebrity athletes has changed the incoming traffic for my page; affecting the relationship of profile to document views.
**Watch this space for a development and revisting of my Wikipedia research space in an upcoming piece.
AAA 2013: DANG, that’s necessary conflict
Conflict is uncomfortable… yet necessary, at least in the case of my research and submission to the Digital Anthropology group, DANG, panel for the American Anthropological Association (AAA) 2013 meeting. In Chicago this year, I’m hoping to share my findings about the ways in which a fandom encounters and uses conflict between members to refine the values they espouse.
“It boils down to respect”:
Defining the values of a fandom through conflict online
Increasingly, social media allows users to connect their online behaviors to physical practices in pursuit of collective goals. In these digital public spaces, communities of practice are able to bypass geographic and temporal boundaries. For U.S. Women National soccer team (USWNT) fans, Tumblr offers a digital realm in which multimodal communication unfolds – and quite often, conflict arises. Through online ethnography and discourse analysis, this study examines conflict as essential to refining USWNT fandom values; however, conflict also jeopardizes the participatory practices that define the fandom.
This community of practice can be explored as a collaborative project that incorporates wider discourses of gender, sport, and nation. USWNT fans share media from first-hand experiences, as well as produce user-generated content. Fan-users also broadcast requests to the fandom, display insider knowledge, and articulate meaning in belonging to the fandom. Subjects spurring USWNT fandom conflict include source attribution and rules for appropriately tagging content. Frustrations about these points of conflict threaten archiving and sharing habits, which in turn threaten to dry one data stream through which “fandom” knowledge is quenched.
Considering the future of open access and linked communities, the current justifications fan-users apply toward the perceptions of ethical responsibilities in the fandom may be instructive. This paper also considers methodological and ethical challenges in researching asynchronous communication in a dynamic digital space. The ways in which the USWNT fandom “does” conflict may offer insight into the ways digitally mediated behaviors could inform practices and discursive spaces of future engagements and conflict resolution.
Summary: 3 Features in Successful Cultural Heritage Outreach Events
The following reflections summarize features of cultural heritage outreach and engagement events I have attended during my recent fieldwork at the Smithsonian Institution. I have selected three overlapping features that appear to have contributed to the success of these cultural heritage events; in an upcoming post, I will also offer several tips for improving upon these outreach strategies.
Crowdsourcing
[Gathering or requestion information and action from the crowd, audience, or user]These engagement events have been predominately in line with a citizen-scientist model or crowdsourcing model. In other words, they have gathered participation on an avocational and/or volunteer basis. They have also operated in systematic ways to collect, refine, populate, and assign values – “doing things” with materials. The events have not necessarily been science-focused, though some have been. Most have required participants to BYOD and register for participation. Several of the events have also gathered experiential information and viewpoints from participants at the close of the event.
Participatory
[Audiences or individuals “opting in” toward a goal, either personal or collective]These outreach events have been based around the idea of a shared experience of working toward a project goal – calling upon a sense of participatory culture or being creator-consumers. That means that participants have been taking actions (“doing”) toward both individual projects and shared roles or group work toward parts of a goal, whilethe event has taken participants toward achieving a collective goal in the end.
Free but exclusive
[No charge but cost of time and some bounding on event]Each of these events were held by cultural heritage institutions and were free to attend; yet, the events were also managed in a way that was bounded in number, space, or access. Clarifying my use of “exclusive” to mean selective in this context, the events have typically accepted the first candidates for participation and allowed those individuals to feel as though they are gaining unique access in some way.
The three features discussed above appear to have subtly informed approaches and agenda; and resulted in events that appeared to be reasonably successful.* Enthusiastic and engaged participants were found at all events and activities taken toward each event’s stated goals.
Despite the appearances of success for these events, each event offered several points at which engagement or efficiency could be improved. Watch this space for an upcoming post that speaks to four ways best practice at cultural heritage outreach events can be built.
*This assumption made without knowledge of each event’s stated metrics for success.
**Image of crowds outside the entrance of the 1912 Republican National Convention held at the Chicago Coliseum, Chicago, Illinois, June 18-22, 1912 – shared from George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress) – via Flickr Commons