Firstly well done to Nick for setting some very interesting hares running!
Web 2.0 - The problem is in the name. Using a version numbering convention
implies that it replaces everything that has gone before, but as Brian rightly
points out a lot of what is 'mashed up' under the heading was envisaged by Tim
Berners-Lee in the first place .. so - Web 0.1??
The reality is that Web 2.0 is a portfolio term used to describe a number of
complementary but different technologies which have recently come to prominence.
Some or all of these may or may not be of use to the cultural sector (Museums,
Libraries and Archives and similar institutions) along with some basic Web 1.0
technologies.
It seems to me that in order to find out what is useful the sector does have to:
1. As Nick suggests, get a real grip on what it is offering to the world at
large through a National Marketing Strategy. And one of the main starting points
should be how to build on the high levels of trust which the sector has in
public perceptions.
2. In contradiction to what Nick suggests the sector needs to engage with the
new developments and evaluate how they can be used, what works and what doesn't.
A 2 year moratorium would achieve nothing other than detaching us from new
developments. The situation won't be any different after two years, we'll all
be trying to figure out what to do about Web 6.3 or whatever the latest thing is
at the time. What we need to do is figure out how we interact with, evaluate
and effectively exploit an ever changing technological environment. We won't do
that by disengaging from it.
Personally I think the biggest challenge posed by the Web is what might be
called 'The Death of the Institution'. Traditionally we work in an institution,
funding is granted to institutions, we are measured and value ourselves
according to the status of the institutions we are a part of.
But think of yourself as a web user - generally, not in relation to cultural
sites. I think what you want is easy access to good quality trustworthy
material. Whether it comes from Institution X or Y is of little concern, unless
you have to pay, or physically visit.
The way Web technology - whatever name you want to give it - is moving, is that
content can be delivered/made available to a user from a variety of sources
within a single site or page, and without the user being aware of the source of
that content; or the user can put together his/her own package of content from a
variety of sources. This means that the content creator has little control over
the way the content is presented or the context in which it is used, as Brian
pointed out with the Napster and You Tube examples. And now Sky's monopoly of
Premiership football is being challenged by sites based in China which are
streaming live matches.
The sector needs to think through the consequences of this: on the one hand
there's a massive opportunity to get content in front of much wider audiences,
in particular 'non-traditional' users. To achieve this we need to:
- Stop thinking about Institutional based sites as the way to deliver content.
They are for Institutions not users!
- Focus on developing quality content more than presentation of that content -
Make sure content is reusable - it's expensive to develop!
- Develop a sector branding based on the trust which people place in us, rather
than worrying about individual Institutional branding.
On the other hand we need to consider:
- whether we need to control ways in which our content is presented and used and
if so how.
- how we get the intellectual and commercial recognition for our content
Both of these without unduly restricting access to that content.
Chris Turner
Berwyn Consulting
0796 268 0529
[log in to unmask]
http://www.berwynconsulting.biz
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bridget
McKenzie
Sent: 10 December 2006 00:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: Nick Poole's speech to MCG Autumn meeting
Some more comments on Nick Poole's speech.
I agree with many aspects of this paper, though I also agree with Brian Kelly's
provisos, and have a few more challenges, from the viewpoint of a learning and
marketing professional:
The paper suggests that we have catered too much for the researcher, focusing on
digital catalogues a) without being certain what researchers want and b) without
catering enough for the second category of user. Two user groups are defined 1)
People who do detailed research about collections
2) Millions of people who don't visit museums of their own volition, who visit
museum websites even less. Which actually means that only one web user group is
defined (researchers), the others being mainly non-users.
We know that our users are more varied and numerous than this. Up to 114 million
people last year visited UK museums. And many millions visit museum websites
too. Surely there is a big middle ground between serious researchers and casual
accidental visitors. For those working in education the web is invaluable in
being able to converse with teachers and learners, and sustain and share the
outcomes of projects.
The analysis of markets for culture is complicated by the fact that culture is
at the top of the heirarchy of human needs, needs to do with nostalgia,
traditions, emotions, 'just looking', enjoyment, free time, conversation and
play. Cultural needs are not seen as functional. Museums are split in their
views about the main purpose of their websites, between supporting study and
business (fuelling the knowledge economy) and supporting informal popular
engagement. In many ways, multimedia & the web are offering more opportunities
to make a museum experience full of play and conversation, and reach a wider
range of visitors (potential researchers), whereas the curation of a real space
can be bound by scholarly fastidiousness and may only reach a narrow audience.
The paper contains a paradox, perhaps unintended, in saying that we focus too
much on researchers and that we are too technology-led, yet are spending too
much on experimenting with Web 2.0. I'm not so interested in technology per se,
but very interested in the educational and social potential of Web 2.0
(including trying to work out what it is!). It seems to me that Web 2.0 is less
about geekery, more about ordinary people being able to use the web because it
doesn't feel like technology any more. It helps more of us become researchers. I
disagree that we should step away from Web 2.0, mainly because there are free
services out there with information storage capacity.
We shouldn't always spend money trying to replicate those within museum sites,
but use them whenever we can, for example in education projects.
I particularly endorse the proposal for a national marketing strategy, with a
proviso that the museum sector should be well defined (museums, libraries and
archives? museums and galleries? digital cultural archives which have no visitor
building?)
A 2 year moratorium on projects is a very radical suggestion, which I disagreed
with on first sight, as major initiatives do encourage join up between several
museums. However, I believe that many national partnership projects are too
rushed, and less joined up and strategic than they should be.
If there is major investment in 3 or 4 key museum sites, it is important that
all museums (of all types, including archives) are involved and consulted in
this. If these meta-sites do employ Web 2.0 approaches, in a broad sense, it is
more likely that smaller museums, archives and heritage societies can contribute
content and expertise to these meta-sites, and that user needs can be better
understood.
Hope this is comprehensible and useful!
Bridget McKenzie
Director, Flow Associates
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Kelly" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Nick Poole's speech to MCG Autumn meeting
> Hi Jon (and Nick)
> Thanks for pointing this paper out. I think this is a very interesting,
> indeed brave, paper. Some comments.
>
> "There is no doubt that the current bubble of interest around Web 2.0 will
> eventually dissipate, ..."
> I would challenge this assertion. Firstly, what do you mean by Web 2.0
> (and
> what is meant by Web 2.0 more widely). It has been widely pointed out
> that
> "Web 2.0" is a marketing term which describes an evolution of the Web.
> Indeed this evolution describes an emphasis on user-generated content
> which
> was always part of Tim Berners-Lee's original vision for the Web. So are
> you
> saying that an interest in the Web's evolution will dissipate; an interest
> in user-generated content will dissipate (leaving content production to
> the
> experts, perhaps?) - or do you mean that interest in poor Web 2.0
> applications will dissipate. I would agree with the latter point - there
> are good Web 2.0 services and poor ones, and we should go for the former
> (just like most things, really).
>
> Or maybe you mean that the Web itself is over-hyped (as several senior
> librarians told me in the early 1990s)?
>
> "... Recognising this, it is high time to draw back from short-term
> innovations such as Web 2.0 " Well I don't agree with your premise, so I
> don't agree with this statement.
>
> "It is time, too, to reconsider the economics of our use of new
> technologies. Digital projects are expensive, and they very rarely deliver
> direct economic benefit to the museum that runs them." Well new
> technologies can be expensive (e.g. Semantic Web applications), so maybe
> we
> should focus on more lightweight applications (ask a teenager who has
> created a popular video clip, mashup some music and posted to YouTube -
> oh,
> and by the way, a universities are beginning to engage with students in
> this
> way).
>
> "Building large-scale, successful digital services costs far more than our
> sector is ever likely to be able to pay for them using public funds." So
> perhaps a new approach to development is needed. Perhaps small is
> beautiful. Perhaps the value chain lies in maximising the creative and
> interests of large numbers of people, rather than funding for a small
> group
> of experts.
>
> "We have equally to recognise that we occupy a niche, and that within this
> limited market, the cost-per-user of delivering digital services is far
> higher than in other industries." I disagree - culture isn't a niche
> market.
>
> "On the other - whether because of lapses in documentation or prohibitive
> licensing arrangements - we are actually unable to use a significant
> proportion of it." So engage in ways of changing the licensing
> arrangements. Music has prohibitive licensing arrangements and the record
> labels tried to prohibit digitisation. But Napster and millions of kids
> resulted in them changing their views - and now the dynamics of the market
> place have changed: people buy music from iTunes - and possibly the
> YouTube
> / record label dynamics are changing. For example see (and listen to)
> this
> video clip (and read the rational as to why they decided to use the
> Madonna
> song):
>
> http://tametheweb.com/2006/09/steal_this_idea_quicker_than_a.html
>
> "Licensing arrangements ... mean that it is almost impossible to develop a
> commercially viable business based solely on the online publication of
> museum resources." Well you've decided that it's impossible from the
> outset. The above example perhaps illustrates a business model which
> could
> replace / complement the exists (impossible?) licencing scenario for
> music/video mashups - user uses copyrighted song and uploads to YouTube;
> its
> very popular so YouTube make lots of money from ads; record label gets a
> cut
> from YouTube; record label sells copies of the song to a new audience who
> wouldn't have been exposed to the song. A possible win-win situation from
> what would normally have been an impossible licensing scenario.
>
> I think there are great opportunities for the cultural heritage sector to
> be
> gained from Web 2.0. This enthusiasm from the sector struck me recently
> after taking part in an MLA North East seminar. Feedback from the
> participants is available at:
> http://bits-to-blogs.wetpaint.com/page/Home/thread
>
> My favourite comments was:
> "Has changed my views regarding the potential of web 2.0 technologies, and
> how we can use it in public libraries, rather than blocking access to it!"
>
> So let's not go in with such conservative approaches. Instead let's look
> at
> some simple lightweight approach which can be provide benefits. As opposed
> to the elitist "Significant investment should be made in 3-4 high-value,
> high-density destination sites"
>
> Let's recognise that there may be risks, but also that there are risks in
> getting up in the morning. There are also risks in doing nothing - the
> comment:
>
> "We should place a 2-year moratorium on new projects, programmes and
> initiatives and focus public funds instead on sustained investment in core
> capacity building and skills development" brings home to me the danger of
> doing nothing. This could be replaced by:
> "We should place a 2-year moratorium on new projects, programmes and
> initiatives and either surrender to the commercial sector (Bill Gates owns
> the copyright on lots of paintings, doesn't he) and/or distance the
> cultural
> heritage sector from the younger generation".
>
> One final comment, Rather than:
> "If we are going to play with 'cutting edge' technologies, we should
> develop
> a 'sandbox' model in which they can be incubated until they are ready to
> be
> launched to the public"
> I would say:
> "If we are going to play with 'management' approaches we should develop a
> 'sandbox' model in which they can be incubated until they are ready to be
> launched to the public (for a period of, say, two years). Meanwhile the
> development community should engage with (dare I say it, even trust, its
> user community who should be regarded as key stakeholders and engaged with
> throughout the development process rather than patronised by cultural
> elitists :-)"
>
> (Maybe worded somewhat strongly, but intended to stimulate debate in
> response to Nick's original posting).
>
> Have a good weekend.
>
> Brian
> --------------------------------
> Brian Kelly
> UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, UK, BA2 7AY
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: +44 1225 383943
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jon Pratty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 06 December 2006 11:13
>> Subject: Nick Poole's speech to MCG Autumn meeting
>>
>> All
>>
>> To do our bit in the debate about sustainability and the
>> development of IT infrastructure the museum sector, we've put
>> an edited version of Nick Poole's speech to the MCG autumn
>> meeting up on the 24 Hour Museum, here:
>> http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh/ART41939.html. This is
>> Nick's own version, published with his permission.
>>
>> Comments and queries can be added via this list, with the
>> intention of building positive ideas and suggestions for the future.
>>
>> Jon Pratty
>> Editor
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 01273 623336 (direct)
>> 01273 623266 (main office number)
>> 07739 287392 (mobile)
>>
>> The 24 Hour Museum
>> Your best guide to museums, galleries, arts and heritage
>> www.24hourmuseum.org.uk <http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/>
>>
>> www.show.me.uk <http://www.show.me.uk/> - great stuff for
>> kids from UK museums and galleries
>>
>> Office 4
>> 28 Kensington Street
>> Brighton
>> BN1 4AJ
>>
>> Winner, Best of the Web award, Museums and the Web 2004 New
>> Statesman New Media Awards 2002, 2005
>>
>>
>> **************************************************
>> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the
>> list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
>> **************************************************
>>
>
> **************************************************
> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the
> website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> **************************************************
>
>
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the
website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|
