Collections Are For Use, but Is Wikipedia the Prime Outlet?
ARL/CNI session on digital collections prompts discussion on trade-offs between control and use
Josh Hadro -- Library Journal, 10/22/2009
| Go back to the Academic Newswire for more stories |
- Why isn't more content put up on popular sites?
- Issues include licensing and the added value of curation
- Sustainability and stewardship important
- University of Washington sees boost from Wikipedia
"Special collections are for use"—reminiscent of Ranganathan, this was the frequent refrain at a session last week held jointly by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), "Building on Our Strengths: Opportunities for Special Collections in the Digital Age."
However, opening up digitized special collections to the broadest possible usage isn't always easy, according to participants, though others stressed the importance of libraries making their collections' presence known on popular sites.
Why not the public domain?
The session centered on a keynote by G. Wayne Clough, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, about broadening access to and increasing engagement with the nation's historical artifacts through digital initiatives. Following the address and reactor comments—from Alice Prochaska, Yale University Librarian, and Ian E. Wilson, Librarian and Archivist of Canada Emeritus—Stephen Rhind-Tutt, president of Alexander Street Press, addressed the panel and asked why pointers to digital collections aren't added to sites like Wikipedia, among the most-trafficked sites online.
If the end of all collections is use, he wondered, then why aren't there more efforts to expose these to the public domain? "What I wanted to elicit was the implicit trade-offs between control and use and how to deal with them," Rhind-Tutt later told LJ.
In response, Clough pointed out that part of a research institution's responsibility is curatorial, and that these efforts make the collections "much more vital than just passively putting information out there." Clough also observed that, in many cases, copyright and other restrictions prevent libraries and archives from using materials on sites like Wikipedia which require content to be in the public domain or openly licensed.
Rhind-Tutt reflected that there are no easy answers, given the impact of issues like licensing, donor wishes, and even revenue generation. So, while increased traffic may be an easy number to cite when lobbying for funding or new collections, Rhind-Tutt concluded that "use is very important, but it is not the sole mantra. Sustainability of the archive, stewardship of the content, adding value to the content—they have their place too."
Where the users are
Still, many institutions are exploring outreach, such as via the popular Flickr Commons project and, yes, even on Wikipedia. These efforts aim at passive web users interacting with popular sites in contrast to projects like those of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) and the WorldCat Digital Collection Gateway, which are geared more toward active researchers specifically looking for digital collections.
In mentioning Wikipedia, Rhind-Tutt's comment echoed a session from the 2007 Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) conference regarding libraries and the "free encyclopedia." There, Jill McKinstry, Director of the Odegaard Undergraduate Library and Special Assistant to the Dean of University Libraries for Undergraduate Education and Programs at the University of Washington (UW), said that traffic to the library's digital collections had "skyrocketed" since it began seeding images into Wikipedia articles.
UW has since continued the practice, and one of its librarians this year published an updated case study as a follow-up to a 2007 article in D-Lib Magazine entitled "Using Wikipedia to Extend Digital Collections." About 5% of the library's collection traffic comes via Wikipedia, according to the study. In certain cases, up to 15% of the visitors to a Wikipedia article click through to a UW collection item.
Conflict-of-interest exceptions
Ann Lally, author of the case study, said that, despite some head-butting with Wikipedia moderators over "conflict of interest" edits—including questions as to whether it is appropriate for a library to seed links—"it is definitely ... worth the effort to include links to Library collections in Wikipedia and other online venues."
In fact, Lally pointed out recent amendments to Wikipedia's editorial policies that give libraries greater leeway to "make certain kinds of non-controversial edits," including "adding pointers to primary sources in archives, special collections or libraries in the Research resources section of an article." As one blog post puts it, it may be time for archivists to "go crazy" linking their content to articles.
UW is exploring other avenues, Lally said, but nothing so far has paralleled the reach content has on Wikipedia. "We do have a Twitter account and a blog, but, to me, those efforts, while useful, are still more about people coming to you, rather than you meeting them where they are, which is how I see Wikipedia."
Contact the author: josh.hadro@reedbusiness.com
Read more Newswire stories:
Scientific American Price Change Defended; Oberlin Group Not Convinced
No, Abu Dhabi Is Not Paying To Digitize All of NYU's Library Holdings
Open Access Week Highlights Advocacy Efforts Worldwide
Indiana University: More Than 25% of Audiovisual Materials in Jeopardy
Placements & Salaries Survey 2009: Jobs and Pay Take a Hit
Columns:
It Was Nice Knowin’ Ya, Special Branch Library | From the Bell Tower
A Long and Winding Road for Open Access: Are We There Yet? | Peer to Peer Review
LJ Design Institute Dallas
Best Sellers in Literature
