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
**************************************************
|
