This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic
coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page. Please remember to
avoid self-references and maintain a
neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
- 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
^"Industry". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. 4 August 2020. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
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)reply
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)reply
The following Creative Commons policy paper could be of use.[1] 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)reply
References
^
Vézina, Brigitte; Ånäs, Susanna; Craig, Carys; Giblin, Rebecca; Hollich, Shanna; Kefalea, Revekka; Keller, Paul; Margoni, Thomas; Matas, Ariadna; Petrasova, Kristina; Poritz, Jonathan; Rimmer, Matthew; Terras, Melissa; Thomass, Harry; Zeinstra, Maarten (2022).
Towards better sharing of cultural heritage: an agenda for copyright reform — A Creative Commons policy paper(PDF). Mountain View, California, USA: Creative Commons. Retrieved 2022-12-22.