User talk:Bdcousineau/Archives 7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

What's next[edit]

There are several tasks at several stages:

100 photos needing ARC ID's - Ford staff is getting the ARC ID's from DC. Bdcousineau will add ARC ID's/higher res images using {{Photo}}.

Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum - Smallman12q please the Working Group requests the following changes:

A) Replacing "Record Group" with "Collection" in template.For example in this Record group: White House Special Files Unit Presidential Files, 1974-1977 becomes Collection: White House Special Files Unit Presidential Files, 1974-1977.
B) Replacing language in {{GFPLM-image-ARC}} with the following: "This media is from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum [hyperlink to Ford Website], a part of the National Archives and Records Administration [hyperlink to]. It can be accessed online through the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) at identifier xyz [hyperlink to ARC ID]".

Then, after approval by Working Group (hopefully only days after final sample is circulated), category can have template inserted by Smallbot.

300 photos uploaded by NARAbot - template tweaks before Working Group approval. Tweaks include: inserting recent language changes in {{GFPLM-image-ARC}}, and changes to |source parameter. The photos will then need template inserted, via bot or by hand.

Artifact photographs-A - trial photo project runs at Museum from Feb-March. Final funding for complete artifact collection documentation (18k objects) must still be secured - outlook is good.

Artifact photographs-B - approx 2500 images to be uploaded during late winter/early spring. MUST be on Ford website prior to Commons donation - will do the quickest/lowest res possible way, no fancy page layouts, etc. Once images in both places, I will use Smithsonian example to drive viewers to Commons to retrieve high res version (previously, I've had a high res image live on our website, can see no need for that duplication anymore)..more on that as I figure it out.

WiR projects - Edit a thon and GLAM case study.

Ford Working Group will not commit to other non-artifact based projects/uploads until templates are standardized and inserted into existing files (300 NARAbot photos and Category:Documents). Working Group interested in outcome of meeting in DC between Head of PresLibs and NARA Head of Innovation - presumably some policy may be determined ...or not. Simultaneously, NARA Web Program Director is also determining the role of Wikimedia via-a-vis the Social Media sub-agency. This is all similar to the 3-d chess game that Sheldon and Leonard once played in w:The_Big_Bang_Theory. Bdcousineau (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the {{GFPLM-image-ARC/en}}. I will add the search part for the ARCid. There should be some wikilinks in there though. Did they want a link next to the term?Smallman12q (talk)
Thank you! I'm unclear what this means - "Did they want a link next to the term?" And by wikilinks in there, do you mean links that refer to articles in Wikipedia, like w:National Archives and Records Administration and w:Gerald Ford Presidential Library? If that's the case, an internal w:National Archives and Records Administration would probably be acceptable to the Working Group, while the current external link to the Ford Library would be preferred - to drive web traffic thattaway. As soon as these details are finalized, I'll 1.) pass {{GFPLM-image-ARC/en}} around, 2.) get approvals, 3.) the bot can update Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and then 4.) we can move on. Bdcousineau (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Heavy presence of w:Digital artifacts


I've responded at User_talk:Smallman12q#Ford_artifacts. The full res images should be hosted on your site as the images here can be modified. (Also, I don't think TMS gallery will let you thumbnail external urls). Regarding the WIN button, are you sure that you didn't use very w:Lossy compression? For the template, this is how it's usually done:

This media is from the Gerald Ford Presidential Library(link), a part of the National Archives and Records Administration(link).

Either way, the point is to increase accessibility. Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I get what a 'term' is, thanks. The Working Group will probably be ok with the template language and linking as you suggest above, as long as the above sentence ends with "It can be accessed online through the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) at identifier xyz [hyperlink to ARC ID]".
Yes, we will have full res images on our website. Once we move to the TMS, we won't be able to auto-generate a link to a Commons file? Frankly, it'll be a great day if PresLibs Museums get a TMS - here's hoping it happens.
I'll investigate the compression on the WIN button. Darn, I was hoping that task was done! Bdcousineau (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Once we move to the TMS, we won't be able to auto-generate a link to a Commons file?"Smallman12q (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
sorry, I misunderstood/misinterpreted what you wrote - like the Dilbert cartoon. I will not even think about the future TMS database - got enough to do now! Have a good day. Bdcousineau (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reshoot! I may create a vectorized model in the future.Smallman12q (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Checking in: Week 5[edit]

So far today, I've attempted to make contact with some assistance on Wikisource and finished proofreading our first document there. It will be interesting to see what their response is: hopefully, we can establish something like our Commons collaboration page there (which may well look like the NARA WikiProject there now). Also, I'm curious about re-organizing the photo category here on Commons: I don't know if you are satisfied with it or not, and like I've said before, it doesn't really make much difference to us Wikimedians because it is just a way to organize the source category (which is really behind-the-scenes compared to the "main" categories that describe the actual content of the images). What I'm saying is we don't even need those categories, so you (and the Ford in general) are free to decide how you want it to work. Just let me know, and I'm more than happy to move images around and delete or create categories as needed. Also, for the rest of today, I'm planning on working on my article on the Vladivostok Conference (currently in my sandbox). One last question: do you think it is fair for me to count last night's edit-a-thon toward my hours logged for the internship? Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Great about Wikisource, curious to see if anything happens over there.
Please, yes count last nights hours towards the internship requirements. I'll make sure the last minute translations of w:Inauguration of Gerald Ford make it into the article in the Ford Foundation newsletter. Good job on the event, BTW! Great turn out and loads of fun. I'll get images uploaded and msg you.
As for the photo categories, I think the Working Group would like to see any extra categories deleted. I would keep only those categories with "Media Kit" and "US National Archives" in the title.
Look for the wolf coat to be uploaded for your article in the next hour. I just got in, and have a few things to get too. I'll msg you.
Smallman12q has updated the templates in the docs - check out any file in Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum. We have two final groups of photos waiting to get ARC ID's assigned, then those 300 hundred can get {{GFPLM-image-ARC/en}}.
Edruga is uploading images to our FB page weekly - I arrange to have those uploaded to Commons, so the Ford photo collection can grow.
I'll suggest a next meeting date to the Working Group, and will CC you on the email. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That all sounds great: by the way, I'm now having Wikisource-related discussion on my Wikipedia user talk page, in case you want to follow along. Also, the wolf skin coat image looks great! The Vladivostok Summit article is still under development, but I'll be sure to use it there once it is done (it is taking a while, but this is largely because the Ford Digital Library's sources are so thorough, so I think it will make a good article!). Thanks so much and have a nice weekend! Michael Barera (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good news regarding Wikisource[edit]

Check this out: here, here, and here. AdamBMorgan has been very good to us! Michael Barera (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! Thank you v much AdamBMorgan - what a great addition to show at the next Working Group meeting, and a reason to upload documents! This is excellent work, as usual, WiR.
In the meantime, I've been invited to attend some fun in Berkeley, CA... I'll ask for the funding, most likely will not get it. Nice to be invited though.
Also posted a blog about the edit-a-thon to the NARA internal communication area.
Working with Smallman12q on the standardizing NARAbot file uploads - you can follow along on that page. Have a great day! Bdcousineau (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff. There's a lot of transcribing work on Wikisource waiting for us, though, so perhaps it would be better to get (at least some of) that done before uploading more documents. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

w:We Can Do It![edit]

Just an FYI, w:We Can Do It! is on the enwiki Main page.Smallman12q (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, saw it. Disapointed I couldn't help. Try me again on stuff like that in 6 months, please. Bdcousineau (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Status report - mid February[edit]

This is where the various arms/legs of this projects are:



  • create spreadsheets for photos with newly assigned Arc ID's, prior to upload
  • write application for funding to US OpenGLAM Launch conference
  • work with Museum Collections Department to facilitate upload of artifact photos
  • set next meeting date for Ford Wikimedia Working Group
  • ongoing: replace Upload Wizard template with {{Artwork}} on previous artifact uploads


Ford Staff:

  • Supply new ARC ID numbers to photos on Commons

Please feel free to add any other tasks not listed. Have a great day! Bdcousineau (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 WP:GRF update[edit]

Check out our WP:GRF update for February! Michael Barera (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Bdcousineau (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

US OpenGLAM Launch event[edit]

application here fingers crossed. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Contact sheets[edit]

It has come to my attention that occasionally we cannot provide Wikipedia editors with hi-res image files for their articles. This is true when the editor requests an image from the contact sheets. If the requested image is not elsewhere on the Ford website or in ARC, there is no way to provide the image for free. According to the Ford Library Snr. Photo Archivist, every new request costs $17 to scan from the negative. This user cannot upload files that are not on the website/are missing an ARC ID – and so the Ford Library/Museum misses an opportunity to serve its interested users.

Anyone got any suggestions to develop a work-around? Bdcousineau (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's something that needs to be handled on your end. Whoever did the original contact sheets (whether in-house or contract) really should have used a batch film scanner which would have allowed for better dpi 600-2400dpi. NARA obviously has the equipment so its odd that it wasn't used. Smallman12q (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know! Really, the negs should have been scanned in in holders, etc. Instead the original contact sheets made in the 70's were scanned in as sheets. It's certainly our issue - just hoping for input from the outside world.
We have anotther missed opportunity with the material that goes up onto FB - it's not on the website. Currently, there are no plans to create web pages to hold those materials, so that they might then be donated to Commons. I've started that conversation, at least. In a funny way, our FB posts are a perfect embodiment of social media - the image/textual information exists in time and space for a day or so and then disappears, never to be seen again. Huh. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
An FYI, but you should be able to download a copy of Facebook data from the settings...or request it via cd at least for personal profiles.Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That is excellent. And that's why I brought up - thanks for the suggestion. I'll bring it to the staffer holding the FB account, and see what happens. In several areas, the project is in a holding pattern; in others it is moving right along! Bdcousineau (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how that goes. The only reason FB has that option is because they're actually headquartered in w:Dublin, Ireland to make use of the w:Double Irish arrangement. However, Ireland, as a member EU state has stricter internet privacy regulations...just some trivia=PSmallman12q (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious too. Speaking of FB, The Boy Kings by Katherine Losse is worth a quick look. Now I'm assigning you reading! Bdcousineau (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks interesting. Will give it a read...possibly make article afterwards=P.Smallman12q (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

re:next Ford Museum task[edit]

Regarding User_talk:Smallman12q#next_Ford_Museum_task, the files in Category:US National Archives series: Gerald and Betty Ford Historical Photographs, compiled 08/09/1974 - 01/20/1977, documenting the period 1884 - 1974 use {{NARA-image-full}} not {{GFPLM-image-full}}. Do you want them converted to {{GFPLM-image-full}}? Where exactly do you want the source (example) Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library: H0010-2 to appear?Smallman12q (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

hello, thank you for hanging in.
  • Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library: H0010-2 should go into source/photographer location
  • {{GFPLM-image-full}} please it has to have the complete language developed by NARA/Ford, or the Ford staff will continue to question the usefulness of this project. Currently, the parameter "ARC" reads: "This media is from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, a part of the National Archives and Records Administration." It needs the following additional sentence: "It can be accessed online through the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) at identifier xyz."
  • Crap Bdcousineau (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've update the template from {{NARA-image-full}} to {{GFPLM-image-full}}. {{GFPLM-image-full}}, however, doesn't fully support all the params, (will add support this weekend) that {{NARA-image-full}} some of the data may appear missing, but it's just not being rendered atm. The "It can be accessed online through the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) at identifier xyz." shows up when an arc number is given.Smallman12q (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

this is the new NARA[edit]

NARA's new bio - exciting. I'm curious if NARA is "moving away from the broadcast model" what are we moving towards? what are open source models considered? dont know the lingo.

btw, 1300 artifact images will be released for upload in the next 10 days. The spreadsheet that the Collections Dept. created has the {{Artwork}} parameters as column headers so the files will have robust information. I'll have to somehow quickly load these onto the Ford website to create source file locations, and then they can go onto Commons - sure would be cool to include that auto-generated wiki-link feature we discussed.

After I establish a routine to get them on the website, I'll be able to project how long it'll take before web-located source files are created for all 1300. WiR, you will be busy categorizing!

tomorrw is a mtg with Ford Wikipedia group to show the the standardized templates updated by Smallman12q. Also WiR's article, and my work on the Ford cabinet members' pages (infoboxes and layout standardization). db's off the table for now. I'll post meeting summary on the weekend. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The depends on the project. Some have top-down, some bottom-up usually involving w:user-generated content and w:crowd-sourcing through w:peer-production. It depends on the type of "open-source" (see w:Business models for open-source software) or whether its w:FOSS. The auto-generated wiki-link thing is a really short snippet, essentially plugging your url into a template. No dbs is of course disappointing. Also, beyond categorizing, ultimately, the WiR should try to find a relevant home for the images or create stubs where applicable. Cheers. Smallman12q (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This is somewhat relevant. There's a w:Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Legislative Data Workshop hosted by the w:Cato Institute about integrating federal public policy into the wiki. Smallman12q (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
ok, lots to read - thank you. The best news of the day is the WiR can continue through summer, and Management is considering giving him a parallel internship in the A/v department (where he'll do the most good for Wikimedia) - as they just lost their staffer, and there is no hopes of a new hire.. NARA in a hiring freeze. The idea of the WiR concentrating on up-grading articles over the summer was a home-run. BTW the home-baked cake was also a super idea. I'll download the various tasks later, gotta get busy following the road-map above. Oh, and the group crowdsourced a simple work-around for the FB problem. Bdcousineau (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The w:Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Legislative Data Workshop brings up the usual questions about the use of primary source material. For NARA's ps materials Wikisource is relevant.. This seems like a soft spot in the GLAM model ... and something to be discussed at OpenGLAM in CA. I recognize I may be missing something obvious to more experienced users. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

-I'm not sure the usage of primary source material is the right way to phrase it. Most media is primary source material (if it's secondary as in a report, it's may be incomplete/biased). As I see it (I may be wrong) the main issues of GLAM are:

  • Establishing a workflow to include Wikimedia projects
    • When should media be included
    • How should media be attributed, how to handle copyright
    • How to best automate the workflow and efficiency (bots vs non-bot people)
    • Determining the role of the participating organization in the direct editing of related-content
    • Efficiently tap and utilize volunteer time
  • Measuring outcomes of participation
  • Wiki culture/FOSS culture
  • etc

The goal of the DC meetup appears to be to discuss the development of a way to format legislation into XML so it can be more easily used by the computer. Most bills aren't meant to be understood or easily used though=P. Smallman12q (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

ok, thank you. It seems "solving" those issues creates a structure very different to the current outcome. Part of the magic here is the culture, which you allude to. Those issues listed above could be inserted into my work place, but there no one is recommending I read w:The Hacker Manifesto or even Snow Crash unfortunately. If both real world institutions and thinkers here envision the same results, why is there such the disconnect? Bdcousineau (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
With your kind permission, I'll bring up these issues at OpenGLAM, especially 'Determining the role of the participating organization in the direct editing of related-content' which resonates. And also the question above is certainly apt, as I read further about other institutions in GLAM projects and the intimations of institutional resistance (see other OpenGLAM applicant submissions to the WMF funding support page for examples). Bdcousineau (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You're of course welcome to make use of my suggestions=P. As for why corporate culture is hard to wasn't designed for change=/...or maybe its just the people.Smallman12q (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

March to-do list[edit]

March 2013 tasks: Bdc:

  • continue upgrading templates on artifact files to {{Artwork}} where needed
  • begin uploading new artifact images files to Ford website, in preparation for donation to Commons

✓ Done complete spreadsheet for photograph image files where photo has new ARC ID, prior to donation to Commons

  • submit paperwork for WiR summer position/develop task list for summer WiR position

✓ Done design/create work flow process for uploading FB images to Commons ✓ Done attend Edit-a-thon on UofM campus

✓ Done pending decision from DC, re-link ARC ID's in select photo categories

  • continue learning Wikisource skills for fall Transcribe-a-thon
  • develop plan for staff presentation
  • develop Ford LibraryMuseum case study for GLAM


  • upload artifact image files to Commons when available
  • after delivery of spreadsheet, insert ARC ID # to photos where needed

✓ Done insert {{GFPLM-image-full}} into Category:US National Archives series: Gerald R. Ford White House Photographs, compiled 08/09/1974 - 01/20/1977 - from now, instances of ARC ID # must be a link (Working Group reverted to original decision), in addition link to website source file. Deal with any current un-linked ARC ID's at a later date.

Happy spring! Bdcousineau (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You should also read w:The Hacker Manifesto, its only a page or two.Smallman12q (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done what's next? Bdcousineau (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You should also be familiar with the tenets of the w:Hacker ethic which are shared by FOSS. Beyond that, participation in FOSS, such as through this GLAM initiative, is the best way to learn about it. Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC) the Community Memory project. Thanks, ideas now balancing tasks in a healthier way. Bdcousineau (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

NARA news and notes[edit]

NARA/DC has decided to (potentially) send a representative from DC, not a field agency, to attend the OpenGLAM conference. This is a win, as it shows that NARA is taking the conference seriously. However, it is unclear who or even if they will send anyone. Bdcousineau will attend the conference nonetheless, as a private person. WMF funding application still in play, and remains endorsed by conference organizers.

NARA/DC will also re-hire (?) the WiR Dominc in the coming months. It is unclear if this will be an open employment announcement (hiring freeze in effect). This is a win, as it shows that NARA is taking their prior commitment to Wikipedia seriously. It is unclear how and if the Ford sub-project will be impacted. Hopefully the Ford Lib. WiR position will not be canceled. Bdcousineau (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Vladivostok Summit article will be running on the Wikipedia main page tomorrow![edit]

It looks like the Vladivostok Summit article will be running on the Wikipedia main page tomorrow, from 3:00-11:00am EST. Don't miss it! Michael Barera (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Great you plan to take to GA? Also, when doing external media links, should you use {{external links}}?Smallman12q (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding GA, I hadn't planned for that initially (I've never done one before), but you're the second person who has mentioned it, so perhaps I should at least consider it. Regarding the external media links, I've been looking at the policies regarding them, and it seems that if they are under the "external links" section (which they are in this case), then using the {{external links}} template is redundant and not necessary. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Great job. I will post to the Ford staff tomorrow. Impressive! I will post to the NARA blog, too, if I can get permission. Be bold - go for GA. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


When linking from cross-wiki on another project (such as meta or Wikipedia), you should put in the namespace twice so it'd be Commons:Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum. (First Commons tells the other wiki to go here, the second one tells it to look in that namespace here).

You may find these two posts interesting:

Smallman12q (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Intrigued by the brooklymuseum's second bot. Back when I tried to write a flickr project for the Ford images, NARA had no Web 2.0 policy. Now we have an entire social media dept. And thanks too for the global account. Bdcousineau (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2013[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:President and Mrs. Ford at the RNC.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:President and Mrs. Ford at the RNC.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as you can probably see, we have a source problem on some of the files you uploaded last summer. What we really need on all of them is a direct link to the image as hosted on with all the key metadata (photographer, date, licensing, etc.). I'm sorry that my efforts to upload higher-res versions of these has brought this issue up at this moment (and it may result in more similar messages about other files), but it really is an issue that needs to be taken care of, the sooner the better. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think that I have resolved the immediate issue, but the question of sourcing the files you uploaded last summer is still on the table and is something that needs to be addressed, hopefully in an elegant and systematic way. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Smallbot will be adding more robust source information to this group of files this week (?). These are the photos that have new ARC IDs assigned to them. In the Ford Commons project, these are the photos in the "media kits". I just completed the needed spreadsheets with all the source urls etc, and forwarded them to be uploaded. Hopefully, this is take care of the problem. Bdcousineau (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Will do this week.Smallman12q (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Measuring impact/metrics[edit]

A discussion has come up at w:Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Boot Camp as to how metrics/impact of partnerships are measured. I'm interested in how you/NARA are/plan on measuring the impact of the collaboration. Specifically, what is more/less important. I intend to be expand User:Smallman12q/Tracking_usage to provide better coverage on collecting metrics for future GLAM projects. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is so interesting! There are many nuanced levels of impact: trackable data, social interaction, project continuation/expansion, crowd response, press coverage, institutional response vs. real world response, and so on, Truthfully, not all the impact is positive and this needs to be looked at as well. And the impact would depend on the institutional management model, and where the partnership originates (my experience is very different from Dom's for example). There are no current plans to measure the project's metrics. Although NARA/Ford may be an intriguing case study (grassroots activity vs top down simultaneously and separately), we may not be a balanced one. Going over to the discussion to peek in. Now I'll be up all night! Bdcousineau (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my input over there did not answer your question. Maybe this will be helpful: the Ford does not course correct based on web metrics - instead our response is based on social contact: how many researchers call/write with questions, how many people attend exhibits, talks and events. I can report an artifact is in an article in a foreign language wikipedia article, but it only becomes "real" if a researcher from that country contacts us. Our quarterly reports only began to include social media metrics last month. Perhaps federal cultural institutions (not the Smithsonian-they have always been curve-breakers) are an incorrect sample in that we do not have to earn our keep. Ultimately, reporting is done to ensure we follow the agency mandates on collections management: certain numbers of pages processed by scheduled dates. Pretty sure you'd get a different response from the Walters. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response...even if you guys are behind the curve, it represents the lower limit. If you're interested, the WMF actually publishes their metrics/activities reports at meta:Metrics_and_activities_meetings...but these are more in line with web centered services. Smallman12q (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

of interest[edit]

this was on the NARA forum: GLAM training Bdcousineau (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks interesting...the English link should be .Smallman12q (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
did you go deep enough to get to the mail list? Bdcousineau (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And then led me here. Sounds amazing. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely interesting...though it seems to be an overseas effort. There's also .Smallman12q (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
yup, that's where the email signup led eventually (and where Sarah blogs). And oh! working my in via Torvalds/Raymond - The Ford Working group=cathedral/release when done vs. ya'll out here=bazaar/improve as you go. Lots of fun. Bdcousineau (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You've read The Cathedral and the Bazaar?! Very cool!! Michael Barera (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
hey I have A LOT of catching up to do. Bdcousineau (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Tracking usage of uploaded files[edit]

Here is the permanent link for keeping track of total file usage for Ford-donated materials. Since the last time I ran this, Wikisource use of the documents has become fairly prominent. As of right now, a total of 106 of the files are used on Wikimedia projects of some sort (which represents 0.9% of the total uploads). Hopefully this is useful to you in your quest for metrics! Michael Barera (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There was another tool that graphed usage over time...will have to find or write my own. There's also related changes for tracking activity.Smallman12q (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Related tools are listed at outreach:GLAM/Tools & Requests.Baglama tracks usage over time.Smallman12q (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, these will be very helpful with the upcoming project. Bdcousineau (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First task for today completed[edit]

I've just completed the first task for today: check out this and this. I've noticed that the NARA equivalent serves as the main WikiProject for their collaboration, whereas we already have WP:GRF. Therefore, I elected to go for a smaller, simpler, and cleaner design based largely off of the New York Public Library's collaboration with Wikipedia. There are also extensive links back and forth between the new WP:GLAM/GFPLM and WP:GRF pages. I believe the former will be more informational in nature while the latter will be more of a space to collaborate and work, but I guess only time will tell how they're both used. Hope this helps! Also, I haven't heard or seen anything about spreadsheets in a couple of days: what is the status on that? In the meantime, I'm going to take Smallman12q's advice and get to work on pages for the Library and (especially) the Museum on Wikivoyage. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a great start. I can fill it in too. The spreadsheets have been delivered to Smallbot; just waiting for upload. This is our last standardization task, now we can figure out what comes next! I'll try to schedule our next working group mtg for Friday April 6. Bdcousineau (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've been taking a crash course in Wikivoyage, and I've just learned that institutions do not have articles, but instead cities and towns have articles and the attractions are listed on those pages. Therefore, the pages in question for us are Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor. I've already edited the Grand Rapids article, where I've checked the hours given for the Museum (they were correct), added admission price information, and updated external link to "" (it was "" before). I haven't done anything yet for the Library on the Ann Arbor page (it currently isn't listed) because I suspect it might not be appropriate: most of the Library isn't open to the public, and I'm not really sure what section to list it in ("see", "do", "learn"?). Any advice would be great. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the Library has the free exhibits in the lobby that are open to the public during the Library's regular hours. The Library can def be included in the Ann Arbor entry... under "see" or "learn". The permanent lobby exhibit includes timelines on GRF and EBF's lives, and the 20 min. intro movie narrated by Ford. The temporary exhibit right now is on Betty (EBF). The Ford staff would appreciate being included in Wikivoyage. Hope that helps. Bdcousineau (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've just updated the Ann Arbor article on Wikivoyage: let me know what you think! Michael Barera (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
um, yeah, my first edit war. We were working at the same time! Bdcousineau (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing[edit]

I'm about ready to move this write-up from my sandbox to the Outreach wiki (in part so I can create the redlinked pages and give it more detail), but it is missing some important information from the Ford/NARA perspective that I don't have. Could you perhaps flesh it out the "background" section a bit to explain exactly why the Ford (and NARA before it) became interested in collaborating with Wikipedia and how exactly both institutions got there starts working with the Wikimedia projects. I think it would be really valuable to have the majority of the background content coming directly from Ford/NARA. Let me know if you think there is a better approach. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: While everything else seems to be out of my hands at the moment, I'm going to head over to Wikisource and continue working on transcribing documents. If I'm not responding here, that's where I'll be. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done for now. Can be moved over. Bdcousineau (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Libraries box[edit]

You may be interested in this: From Wikipedia to our libraries (found via w:Boing Boing). I'll add the stuff from the excel sheet tmrw.Smallman12q (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

yes! I was interested but not convinced. However, in drilling down, I saw w:Elizabeth Cady Stanton which lists 'primary sources' in the biblio - a section I had not yet seen in articles. Perhaps that's more common than I'm aware of. Thanks for the upload in advance. Bdcousineau (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
ok, I see that the Library boxes resonate with them as well. Bdcousineau (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
got these boxes on the brain...reading how the Wikipedians address/grapple with an outside "innovation" that goes against the established structure is a beautiful and strange thing. Bdcousineau (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You can see the discussion at w:Template talk:Library resources box. To see how things get resolved on-wiki, feel free to browse on Noticeboards or the the w:Wikipedia:Village pump. For drama, see w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, w:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I'm working on the spreadsheet...was busy with w:Education Program:Davidson College/Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q1), part of can see a new article at w:Telescoping effect.Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
When I first read about this I thought about a toolserver too, specifically this except for books. Is no one picking up on the privacy concerns that Stuartyeates brought up? I can't see how the "resources in your library" link works without needing more info than some users might want to share. But that might be in the "magic" (The Magic Caldron/Raymond) that a non-techie like me misses. Also, would that link geo-locate if you are traveling? A better option might be to input zipcode into the Library infobox, and go from there; that changes the article page into a directly editable space which is prolly impossible ... but users might "feel" more in control of their privacy.
w:Education Program:Davidson College/Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q1) is very impressive. I first thought w:Irrelevant speech effect was about me (read the words, not the concept, =P), but luckily it isn't!
Once the final spreadsheet project is completed, the Ford Working Group may consider moving forward. Off to Cali for OpenGLAM. Bdcousineau (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the libraries box, w:IP address location could be used or an xml sheet with the relevant data could be fed to the browser, and the user locally determines where they are. Congratz on getting funding for OpenGLAM...have fun! Not really related, but you may be interested to see how the wiki responds to misleading coverage such as with this CNet article and w:Talk:BP. Smallman12q (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your time in California! Michael Barera (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

next small project[edit]

Hi Michael - check out the bibliography in w:Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton. What do you think of the list of primary source materials included there? Is it spamming?

Let me know your thoughts... if this seems like an appropriate bibliographical entry, on Friday, I'd like you to add something similar to Ford related articles (please). At the very least, primary source info could be added to those cabinet member's entries whose papers are at the Ford Library. At the best, primary source info could be added to articles about issues, policies, summits, etc.

This will be considered a win by the Ford working group. And certainly a way for the papers to be useful on the wiki. But first, is it spamming? Bdcousineau (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Stanton article is an article that used the "notes + references" format for citations, not the simpler "references only" format that I use (the primary sources are a subsection of the "references" section). What this means is that citations are in two parts: this is not just a list of primary source materials, it is the "more detailed" part of the citations (the "less detailed" part is under the "notes": essentially, the advantage to this is you can use separate page numbers in the "notes" and then give the full bibliographic citation in "references", so it is a good choice for an article that draws heavily on written sources). But, please not that these "primary sources" are just like any other citations in this (or any) article. They are not an arbitrary list, they are part of a carefully organized bibliography. So, what we need to do is use Ford sources as references (just like I did for the Vladivostok Summit article): "spamming" pages with lists of primary sources (which, again, is not what is happening here) is out of the question. Hope this helps. Michael Barera (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Got it, and followed a few refs through to the biblio, which I hadn't done before, and then followed those to the online book ref'd in the "primary source" area. Thanks for the clear explanation. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

breaking NARA news[edit]

a VERY pro-Wikipedia person was just named Deputy Director of the Presidential Library system. He could really get all the moving parts moving together. Now there is representation the top, bottom and finally, the middle. Bdcousineau (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that's a plus...any news as to whether Dominic will resume uploading?Smallman12q (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No clue. Dominic is here - see staff - perhaps it's time to contact him. Maybe there will be a delay, since NARA is operating under this as well. Here we are no smiling allowed. Bdcousineau (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple list of accomplishments for today[edit]

Alright, I began today by going through Ford source categories on Commons and inserting photos into relevant Wikipedia articles. The following articles now have new Ford-provided images in them (listed in chronological order of edits): Betty Ford (multiple images), whistle stop train tour, observation car, 1976 Republican National Convention, Gerald Ford, Gulfport, Mississippi, Marine One, bumper sticker, and Sino-American relations. Then, I moved along and did some more intensive work with cabinet members. Using the Ford Digital Library (as well as a second source from, I was able to expand and add references (formerly there were no references) to the article on John Albert Knebel (see improvements here). Then, I found that article on Edward H. Levi had plenty of citations, but all in the super-ugly and not very useful "raw URL" form, so I fixed it by using the cite web template for each of the references (see improvements here). I was also planning on continuing on Wikisoure, but I'm out of time this week. I also had my informational interview with Geir today, which went very well, and he even seemed to enjoy it. Anyway, I hope these improvements today were successful in your eyes. You can already see the impact of the image placements in these statistics, although the further the Wikisource project develops the more it will dominate the stats. Have a great weekend! Michael Barera (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is perfect. We will be able to deliver the metrics to the group and show that even over the short term (days) this kind of activity has a big impact. Great job! Thank you. I'm hoping to have the mtg next Friday but still need to send out the email. Most likely we'll do a conf. call, as travel is now rstricted. More on open data coming up. Berkeley not what I expected so far, but the sunshine is welcome! Bdcousineau (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

OpenGLAM day one[edit]

Learning about

  • linked open data. The idea Uzma had of combining the daily diary and the images takn by the WH photgraphers is an example of this. Then throw in the transcripts of speeches and press releases. I'm not sure how the results would be useful, however. We are attempting to do this already, by uploaing an artifact (a dress for example) and linking it to the occasions it was worn. This is linking the surface, not the data. I've seen several museum websites that do this, creating a 360 view of an artifact by placing it into a context that includes, photos, anecdotes, papers, dates, times. The Ford Museum aspires to this.

after looking at here I see how it actually looks. We talked about getting past the the "thiis so cool" factor, and moving onto usefulness.

  • NARA is part of the DPLA.
  • OCLC and public libraries. My plan to use the local public library system as a Wikipedia classroom and meetup space is very fundable apparently. Since I'm volunteering my time, I can't see what there is to fund, but I'll bet the library district won't turn down any money - as they shouldn't. If I show up with a suitcase full of hundreds, they'll be happy to extend the project betond the summer. The quest to add value to Wikipedia beyond the Ford project has found a focus!

and on to day two. Bdcousineau (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hope you had fun at OpenGLAM. DPLA looks promising [1] [2]...hopefully they intend to make the metadata available. The NYTimes also has an api, with some interesting uses. Ultimately, once the data is available in a structured way, its easy to work with...but first you have to make the data set structured. I've uploaded the higher-res pics, I'll move the files sometime with the bot. The rest, I'll have to manually enter as the w:regex required to parse the files would take longer to write. Good luck setting up a wiki meetup space=). Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

OpenGALM Day 2[edit]

There was a tele-con with w Emily the DPLA Director of Content. Funny, the NARA press release does not mention metadata, while this focusses on it. From the tele-con I undrstood that NARA was handing over the metadata. Bye-bye Ford working group, this erases their usefulness. And changes the landscape of this project too, in fact. We'll know 20 April. At that point a WiR at NARA does what? Anyone could be it - so that's a win and a lose.

  • The Smithsonian is doing something similar here I'll show this to the collections guy, especially since we are slated to get TMS soon. bathlander reported that this project was super $$$ but will get less so as more GLAMs do projects that help USC work the bugs out.
  • We also heard about a Library at UC Boulder building a similar open data project, but in a specific time/place - WWI Belgium. They are partnering with Aalto U in Finland.
  • And for those institutions still working to open their data we worked on a a toolkit and another doc I'll link to later (iPad doesn't support Etherpad).
  • Also several case studies on the GLAM-Wiki have been expanded to include metrics, so the Ford one is going to need to expand too.
  • P2PU is a Creative Commons project.

Thank you for the additional work on the template fiddling. That was the last bit of it. Next up will be the 2k artifact images (and waiting to see if the DPLA launch makes the Daily diary/image link project easier) I have the images, getting the spreadsheet soon. I realize the Conference reviews are out of scope, but they are useful for me to process/remember the highlights. Back to the snow covered midwest. Bdcousineau (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

w:Linked data isn't new (it's existed for a while in different models such as w:relational databases, but it's gaining ground today, especially with w:Big Data and affordable processing. (Some Big Brother concerns have been raised with various public/private entities linking Big Data to form predictive profiles). The cost should primarily be with the generation of the linked data...unless you're doing something fancy and need uber-expensive Oracle licenses. The processing of the data shouldn't be the primary factor unless you have a really really massive dataset. As I stated when we first started, once you get the data organized, you can do whatever you want.Smallman12q (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Not really related, but NASA suspended its NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) [3][4] which contained 1 million+ files (and I had planned to upload at some point). Most GLAM institutions don't have to worry about sensitive material....but you should be aware that once out, you can't put it back, especially since open data is often mirrored/used in various ways.Smallman12q (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)