electronic museum

Entries categorized as ‘folksonomy’

King Knol

December 18, 2007 · 5 Comments

(^ That title was vaguely supposed to be a play on “King Knut” but it didn’t really work out…)

Seb has posted about an article on OpenCulture where the author compares Google’s Knol project to Wikipedia. OpenCulture ultimately comes down hard on Google, reckoning that the Wikipedia “editing by masses” model is a better one.

A dog in a bowl. Irrelevant, but I liked it.
I’m veering around on this one. On the one hand, the Wikipedia model is clearly very powerful. If it wasn’t, then Wikipedia wouldn’t be the phenomena that it is. On the other, Google have at their disposal an extraordinary arsenal of content (most of the web) and users (most of the web-surfing population). These shouldn’t be underestimated.

Google have shown time and time again that they are willing to disrupt “traditional” models of content delivery. Stuff like “suggest a better translation” on Google Translate or using their massive user base to tag images in real time show that although Google aren’t “content” people, they actually understand the power of crowd sourcing around content as well as anyone else. Better than anyone else, in fact, because: 1. They’ve got the biggest user base (bar none) to test against and use to hone the model and 2. They’ve got the brightest people (bar none) working for them…

The criticism seems to be that Google might not use crowd volume in the Knol model and instead we’ll end up with a bunch of articles written by demi-experts which will remain unmoderated and of dubious authority. I can’t ever see this being the case, even if that is what’s hinted at in the original Google blog post. Google do crowds in a big way – be in no doubt that they have a very, very good understanding of who the “authorities” are around subjects as well as having at their disposal a reasonable-sized catalogue of content…Google will find a way of promoting “good” content and demoting “bad”.

Back to Wikipedia for a moment, which gets a load of bad press about non-authority content – a comment on the OpenCulture post echoes the apparent concerns of many:

…the reality of Wikipedia, where articles created by knowledgeable authors are more likely to be degraded over time by hordes of inept users…

I’ve never been sure that this is actually the case. Yes, if you’re an academic or museum curator then you’d probably spot errors in some of the detail, but let’s not forget who the normal user is here – if you want to know general stuff, Wikipedia is an outstanding source of information. If you want academically-inclined, peer-reviewed, 100% “accurate” information (whatever that might be), then hey, go look in a journal.

This is scratching at the surface of something a bit deeper which is about how important rigorously researched information really is to our audiences, but that’s another post altogether…

* thanks to Waldo Jaquith for the picture. Irrelevant, but I liked it :-)

Categories: community · content · folksonomy · innovation · museum · social networks
Tagged: , , ,

Mashed, rehashed

December 6, 2007 · 2 Comments

I love it when I find something which re-uses a technology which has been around a while in a totally new and innovative way…

Opinion mapGoogle maps, right – mashups – all that? Yeah, I know some of us (me too) are still pretty excited about the whole thing…but how about plotting incoming opinion in real time on a Google map and watching how it evolves, spreads, changes…?

That’s what Ask500People does – as I write this the question is “Should the US be democratic or Republic” but previous questions have ranged from “Do you like the job you have?” to “If you won a trip to space or $100,000, which would you choose?“*

The site apparently has a network of widgets distributed around the world which simultaneously ask the question, gathers votes (at the moment, 100 not 500 while they are in beta..) and displays the result on a Google map. It’s incredibly compelling to watch the results coming in and also pretty interesting to look at some of the past results, too. Although it’s free as it comes, you can see why you’d be interested in upgrading and paying for your question to be distributed to their network too – you get total privacy over the results and it’s an incredibly quick way (minutes, not days) of gathering responses to a burning question you might have.

The only other site I’ve seen in this space is BuzzDash but it’s much less realtime and not nearly as compelling.

* in case you’re wondering, 75% of people chose the $100k. Are they f* nuts or what??? SPACE, obviously… Maybe they had a problem with their widget ;-)

Categories: community · content · folksonomy · social network · web2.0

Au revoir, Science Museum…

September 23, 2007 · 4 Comments

The 14th September 2007 marked the end of an era, for me anyway. I’ve been at NMSI, the National Museum of Science and Industry, for just over 7 years, and that was my last day.

I move on, as anyone does from a job they’ve lived and loved for that length of time, with a huge range of emotions. I’m terribly sad to no longer be attached to an institution with such vast public kudos. I’ll miss the people hugely – I’ve never worked with such an interesting, creative and open-minded bunch before. I’ll probably never work on such a huge range and variety of projects. But it’s time to go, and I’m delighted and excited about the future I’ve got coming up in Bath.

As part of this post, I thought I’d jot down three or four of the key developments in the history of NMSI online since August 2000 – mainly this is indulgence, but I thought it might also cast some light on how and why things changed over the years. Personally, I’ve learnt hugely important things about the web, people, the complex set of politics which exist in any institution of this size and scope, not to mention museums online and the vast range of technologies available to us.

This is, by the way, an entirely non-exhaustive history. One day I’ll get round to charting everything out, but today is not that day ;-)

I first started at the Science Museum back in August 2000. I’d left Waterstone’s online at that point in any job when you start twitching: It was hugely hard work, but I wasn’t learning anything new. At the time, I was massively excited by the opportunity of working at the best museum in London (sorry, but it’s true..), but also arrogant enough – the dotcom boom providing 2 or 3 job offers each week – to negotiate quite hard with the museum prior to an offer. I told them I wasn’t going to come along unless they increased the pittance of operational budget which was then allocated to web, and also find some additional people to help make it happen. They agreed.

The first few months were terrifying, but exhilarating. There was a lot of blagging on my part: at the time I knew nothing whatsoever about how to put together an agenda or chair a meeting. I’d never managed a budget (having just negotiated a bigger one, this was particularly daunting…). I had a server to look after (and knew nothing about server-side technology). I couldn’t code. I had a vision, but no people who could help me do it. The museum had just reached an impasse with an agency who will remain nameless who had built them an interestingly exotic(!) “CMS”. The site had just been re-designed but loads of snagging issues remained from the old site (wait for images to load for full effect!).

I muddled through. I bought books on ASP. I junked the CMS system the agency had built and installed my own homebuilt version (not particularly popular, that move, given what had been spent…). I patched up the server as it memory-leaked and limped its way from day to day. I did frightening things like find and replace the file extensions on the entire site to convert it to .asp…(and yes, I backed up first…)

Shortly after that, I persuaded Daniel Evans to come to the museum from Waterstone’s Online. He proved an incredible asset. Just after that, the dotcom boom crashed into the world of online bookselling and the 60-strong staff at W/O was “consolidated” into 3 or 4. We felt good having escaped.

Rolling out the CPS, or Content Publishing System – a simple VBScript application which let users around the museum edit their own content – was the first major milestone for us. It marked the point at which we seriously began handing ownership of the content to the organisation. At last, people started to appreciate why they should own and change their stuff. At the same time the system largely side-stepped the “resource bottleneck” which so often exists in web teams, but also left publishing control with the web team. We tried hard not to edit too much, and it also gave us a chance to prevent Comic Sans showing its horrible face on our site…

At around this time, I started working with Ann Borda (now at JISC) to develop a concept for what would later become Ingenious. It started life as “Science & Culture”. It’s interesting to note, given the vast remit (the first cross-NMSI project) and the huge timescale (over 3 years), that the very first sketches we presented were pretty much what we finally delivered in June 2004. This was the first lesson for me, and the first real resistance I developed to that all-pervasive museum treacle: projects are better done over short bursts, with small groups of stakeholders who are capable of moving fast and deciding quickly. It took huge energy (which to everyone’s credit, they retained over 3 long years) and quantities of strong coffee to make the site happen. Although it has very obvious shortfallings (second lesson: less really is more…), I’m still proud of what we achieved.

Making the Modern World Online followed soon afterwards. For the most part, this project ran outside the web team, but we had input on accessibility and design, and helped steer it (mostly) in a strategic direction which roughly followed what we wanted to achieve for the museum online. During this time, we worked hard on developing web policies and strategies to support us in everything we did. The key lesson we learnt here (it looks obvious now, but it was a revelation at the time..) was to align – 100% – all our strategic thinking with the goals of the organisation, literally drawing lines between what the wider business wanted to achieve and what web could do to support those goals. We coupled this with incredibly close work with the Visitor Research team. Third lesson: end users are the best friends you can possibly have, and will provide you with endless ammunitation to throw at the internal politics..

Next up was continued development of Sciencemuseumstore and then the launch of the Dana Centre. The original website for this was put together out of a small budget and little time, and this time we pushed forwards with more efficiency – although a small project we did it quickly with just a sidewards glance at the politics. The site was later re-built and relaunched by Frankie Roberto, the museums second Web Developer, and by gum it looks and works a whole lot better than it did the first time around…

Meanwhile, Daniel and Joe Cutting had started working on a vision for Antenna, our rapidly changing science news section. Initially, I have to be honest, I wasn’t 100% sure what exactly they were banging on about: XML and XSLT were new and mysterious things to me, and I couldn’t really see how they would help (cue sheepish grin..). Luckily they just got on with it rather than trying to explain it to me, and ended up writing a content system which revolutionised the way that the Antenna team edit and publish content. In brief, the system allows creation of a single XML-based content source which is then re-purposed to both web and gallery kiosks. Dan did some tests at some point and found that entire gallery stories could be built and published in around 12 minutes, a huge resource saving to the 2-3 days it was taking prior to that. The system is still in place today, and was really the pre-cursor to our understanding of how a good CMS system should capitalise on XML to deliver content to multiple channels. A similar approach was used by the agency who developed the fabulous Energy website, and continues to be the end-goal for Content Management at NMSI today: one “pot” of content delivering to gallery, web, mobile and anywhere else we choose…

Meanwhile, we were working hard on the Science Museum website, consolidating content, tidying up bad code, trying to CSS the whole thing. Behind the scenes, I was rallying for budget to re-develop it. Note “re-develop” rather than “re-design”: we knew we wanted to do something radical with the entire thing rather than just re-skin it: this is what we’d done in 2000 and apart from making it look better, it had still remained badly broken under the hood.

Eventually we got budget. The entire re-development project probably took about 3 years – again, far too long – but we remained incredibly enthusiastic with the vision we put together and the agencies we took on to do the work. The energy remained pretty high, which is always the most important thing. The new site went live on 26th March 2007. Beautiful, isn’t it?

At the same time (and looking back I can really see that we took on far too much in one go..) I was also working on putting together a vision for Content Management at NMSI. After a long procurement process we bought Sitecore, a fabulously powerful, standards-compliant .NET system. The ultimate, organisation-wide vision of building in Enterprise Content Management to everything content-related is still in its infancy at NMSI, but Web CM is the first, very visible starting point on that journey.

Of course we also continued to build in user generated content and new technologies wherever we could. Our web strategy took the organisational direction and applied UGC, drawing parallels between what our stakeholders wanted and what the web can usefully deliver. This ranged from SMS messaging during risqué Dana debates, encouraging visitors to bring in toys, a range of RSS feeds, allowing users to Ask Glenn – to mention but a few…

Next?

I have no doubts at all that web will continue to grow in importance and stature at NMSI. The vision, the environment, the beginnings I’ve had the privilege to be involved in – all point to an incredibly interesting future. I’ll be watching (with only occasional twinges of regret..) and undoubtedly blogging about it too.

The next huge thing on the immediate radar is the launch of Launchpad, the flagship hands-on gallery at the museum which is due to re-open – much bigger and improved – later in the year. I’ll be posting very, very soon about the online element of this. I’ve had the privilege of helping develop the concept for this and have watched it grow into something absolutely outstanding. It’s one of the best things I’ve seen for some time. But you’ll have to wait a little while before you too get to see it…

Categories: collections · community · content · experimental · folksonomy · innovation · mobile · museum · sms · technology · ugc · web2.0

Freebase is live

August 26, 2007 · Leave a Comment

Freebase logoFreebase has now opened its doors to anyone, at least for those who just want to browse and search. Looks like you’ll have to wait a while longer if you’re wanting to contribue. I’m still really interested in what Freebase brings to the party; how it compares and is different to Wikipedia – but most of all what such an open API can do for those of us mashing up data from across the web. When I get time (in about 2028 at this rate..) I’ll have a long hard look at their API and try a few ideas…

Meanwhile, there’s some lovely mashups already built – see for example CineSpin which is not only elegant and rather beautiful to look at but also extremely content rich, and (gasp) useful, too. There are more examples here.

Categories: api · community · folksonomy · mashup · web2.0

Mashed museum

June 19, 2007 · Leave a Comment

I’m getting very excited about the UK Museums on the Web spring school – this year Ross has asked me and Dan Z to help organise. We’ve come up with the concept of Mashed Museum. This will be a kind of hack day unconference type thing – a bunch of like minded museum tech types getting together and thinking about what the distributed web can do for us. Hopefully we’ll also get to build some stuff too – the whole idea is to show that this approach requires no funding and just a bit of time to produce interesting results.

We’re looking pretty much full for the day now but if you want to peruse the agenda (itself pretty experimental and subject to *cough* any user-generated input..) then I’ve published a Google Doc with details.

The conference itself is on the Friday – don’t forget to book and I look forward to seeing you there!

Categories: experimental · folksonomy · innovation · museum · programming · technology · ugc · ukmw07 · web2.0

Freebase: I’m in…

May 19, 2007 · 3 Comments

I got a sign-in for the alpha release Freebase a few days ago and I’m pretty interested in what I’ve seen. Freebase is, to quote a couple of commentators: “possibly the most exciting thing to happen to the web for some time”. Or, as TechCrunch put it: “This is cool, unless it achieves consciousness and kills us all”…

type “museum”From the museum perspective this is particularly pertinent – anyone who has spent some time in the sector will be aware of the talk about the Semantic Web and what that means to us. I was invited to sit on one of the sessions of the UK Museums and the Semantic Web thinktank a while back and we talked a lot about the need for real examples and the issues around building this stuff from the bottom up rather than the top down.

Well, Freebase is aiming to fill a big hole in the Semantic Web world. As Tim O’Reilly says in his excellent article:

“[Freebase is] a wikipedia like system for building the semantic web. But unlike the W3C approach to the semantic web, which starts with controlled ontologies, Metaweb adopts a folksonomy approach, in which people can add new categories (much like tags), in a messy sprawl of potentially overlapping assertions. “

Or, again, as TechCrunch put it:

“Freebase looks to be what Google Base is not: open and useful”

So what does it actually do? Well, apart from being a “shared database of the world’s knowledge”…

Metabase (the company behind Freebase) has grabbed a bunch of existing databased content, including Wikipedia – as well as this, >22,000 films, >350,000 albums, >300,000 people are also apparently available. For starters, this is a formidable searchable resource (the startup hell of “great concept, no content” really isn’t an issue here)…

personal profileUsers can edit content, wiki-style, but – crucially – Freebase gives people the power to connect bits of content. And this is one of the things that makes it different. The concept of a “type” is central to the site – already a bunch of types (film, computer, astronaut…) – about 700 of them – are already defined. And users are encouragd to add more as they go about editing content. The data is structured – semantic web styley – but, as Tim O’Reilly says “in a messy sprawl of potentially overlapping assertions”. The power will come about as the community begins to hone these assertions into a more meaningful shape.

This is an interesting slant on Wikipedia, which has a pretty unstructured approach: Freebase hopes that this collective approach to creating connections is not only attractive to end users because it is much like the way the brain works, but will also lead to connections that can be tapped into in a very powerful, semantic way.

All the data on Freebase is made available under a Creative Commons license, and (here’s where it gets really exciting), there is an incredibly feature-rich and well documented API. This means that developers can begin to hook into this wealth of information and incorporate relevant content into their own web applications.

I’ll have a play and as soon as I’ve built something interesting, will let you know :-)

Categories: community · content · folksonomy · museum

metacrap, plam pilots, implicit and explicit miscellany

May 8, 2007 · 3 Comments

My god you can make a blog post look good if you just bung in some random words into the title…

I just stumbled across a great interview between Cory Doctorow of boingboing fame and David Weinberger whose book “Everything is Miscellaneous” is due out in May.

Cory says some fascinating things – as usual – about what metadata means for us nowadays, and also gives some hints on how us purveryors of fine taxonomies might go about approaching the apparent challenge of the folksonomy.

His original article on metacrap is based around a bunch of realities which will seem remarkably familiar to anyone who has ever spent any time with a museum collections management system. People, he argues, are lazy, tend to lie, are stupid, don’t have a neutral schema, etc etc. The net result is, essentially, that explicit metadata needs to be taken with at least as big a pinch of salt as implicit metadata.

The really interesting point he makes about tags is summed up as follows:

“But as you point out, the most important thing that tags do–the most important, effective tags–is the implicit effect. It’s the effect of noticing that these people treat this kind of information in same way, and then deriving some conclusions from it in the same way that Google has this implicit ability to understand the Web by looking at links that are made.”

Essentially, Google starts to break down when its implicit nature is challenged, either by google bombing, link spamming, etc. It works hard to maintain the fact that they don’t want users to think that when they add a link to another site that they’re essentially voting for it.

The big bit of non-news here – but something that isn’t stressed often enough in museums – is that you really should do both – tagging and taxonomy have a place for different audiences and purposes. Both stand up well next to each other.

The final part of the interview covers ground about IP. Cory talks about folk copyright – the set of rules which govern how we use other people’s materials – without needing to resort to lawyers, contracts or rules. As he puts it:

“the single most important thing that we can do to insure our on-going use of material and the on-going cultural production of material is to bifurcate the rules again, so that we have a set of rules for commerce and a set of rules for culture”

update: I just discovered how to do this:

wayhay!

Categories: content · folksonomy · museum · objects · tagging · web2.0