Talk:GLAM (cultural heritage)

Origins

Heh, I thought Liam Wyatt had actually invented the term! Can its precise invention be nailed any better? - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought he invented it too! Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2003 Australian event is confirmed. here is an April 2003 use, again Australian. 2008 Australian newsletter. 2007 Kiwi council agenda. Is there instances of the acronym in common use in other counties? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just ran into this use on Wikipedia in April 2009 about an Australian organisation, which was just before the wmau:GLAM-WIKI page was created in May 2009‎. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WMUK GLAM-WIKI 2010

The article uses the WMUK wiki as a source for their GLAM-WIKI 2010. We really should have an independent source to demonstrate notability. I've quickly looked, and I can only see blogs about it, but even they dont appear to be independent sources. e.g. even http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/04/galleries-libraries-archives-museums-with-wikipedia-glam-wiki-insights-interview-with-lori-phillip/ is an interview with a GLAM-WIKI person. Is there any WP:RS for this event? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WMUK GLAM-WIKI 2012

I am very disappointed by this addition on 1 April 2012 to the GLAM (industry sector) article, which is advertising for a WMUK event. It is inappropriate to add "planned" events per WP:CRYSTAL, especially if you don't use reliable sources that are independent, _especially_ when you have a conflict of interest (user:Johnbod was announced as a WMUK trustee nominee four days after that edit, and became a WMUK trustee a month later). I checked and couldn't find any online newspaper articles for "GLAM-WIKI 2012" or "GLAM-WIKI 2013", so I have removed this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably best - I've removed the whole section, as I doubt any of the events are really notable. Thank you! Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a decent solution, at least for the short term. As a terminology article, "GLAM" appears to be most prominently and prolifically used by Wikimedia, and you've removed that aspect completely. There were three WP:RS in that block, there are a few other independent news stories about the WMFR event, and there are two google news hits in the last day, one mentioning the British Museum (unfortunately it seems to be saying that there is a GLAM-WIKI event planned to be held at BM in the near future ("que se celebrará"), but my understanding of Spanish isnt very good)[1][2]. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

When

The term GLAM might already have been used mid eighties previous century within the sector itself. Citation needed of course. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it was, or not widely. When Wikipedia (Liam Wyatt) started using it around 2010, none of the UK museums seemed aware of it. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Not an "industry"

The page is currently disambiguated using "industry", which makes no sense in this context. "Industry" is "the automated production of material goods". This page needs to be moved to a more appropriate title. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's silly. GLAM (cultural heritage) maybe? Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnbod: Sure; I'm happy with that. Do you want to move it or should I? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You go ahead, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, Wikipedia has a huge problem with this sort of thing – essentially none of the fields of work in Category:Industries (economics) are industries. I know that this is a wider-world problem, and Wikipedia just follows the sources, but it's still frustrating. DesertPipeline (talk)

Actually, I don't at all agree that "Industry" is "the automated production of material goods" - it's more a term for a commercial economic sector. Neither automation nor material goods are necessary. See also Industry (archaeology) - no automation there! Our article Industry (economics) begins:

In macroeconomics, an industry is a branch of an economy that produces a closely related set of raw materials, goods, or services. For example, one might refer to the wood industry or the insurance industry.

- neither of these examples are "the automated production of material goods". But the GLAM sector falls down on "production", being more about conservation & display. Plus it isn't often called an "industry" - more usually a "sector", I'd say.

References

Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnbod: "Wood industry" is too far from the proper definition of "industry" and reduces the precision of the term. "Insurance industry" is nonsense and turns the term into some vague buzzword which essentially means "revenue-making activity". The worst are things like "entertainment industry", though – an attempt to turn art into just another "commodity" to make revenue. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, the definition I gave in my original comment comes from the European Parliament, which voted to define the word that way in 2003. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting - but UK usage does not follow that. Probably it reflects usage in French & maybe German. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, but I'll note there is a curious difference in usage between the noun and the adjective. The insurance industry does not operate from "industrial buildings". Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnbod: So back to the point of this section: do you want to change the article name, or should I? DesertPipeline (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I said you above, since you offered. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnbod: Oops. I didn't notice that comment; sorry. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Useful reference from Creative Commons

The following Creative Commons policy paper could be of use. It covers the reform of the copyright law to allow better use of collections in a digital age. And has a half page on AI trained on GLAM materials and some of the issues that presents. Perhaps someone could working this material in? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References