A busy morning was spent working together to build a 'reliable' map of the new Web 2.0 environment that museums find themselves within today. With reference to current practice (and, crucially, our own experiences) we tried to pinpoint as well as we could what makes these new technologies and practices so distinctive and so deserving of such a tag. The following terms and examples emerged, and each group assessed the risks and opportunities that each perhaps offers the museum.Blogging and social networking:
Subscription and syndication:
User-generated content:
Collective intelligence and wikis:
http://museums.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Pagehttp://postalheritage.org.uk/wikihttp://postalheritage.org.uk/wiki
Aggregation:
Folksonomy and tagging:
Virtual worlds and gaming:
5 comments:
Using Web 2.0 - Blogs (amusing irony - discussing the value of blogs on a blog!)
Can be used effectively, Science Museum of Minnesota uses it well, and seems to attract a lot of comments (one article I noted had 25 replies). A museum blog does need to be moderated to ensure that not only comments but articles written reflect the views of the museum and are not simple ramblings of museum staff.
They must also be updated regularly, which can be time consuming. The article mentioned above noted that some blogs have little to no activity for months on end. They also show that the time spend on updating a blog is generally 1-3 hours over a 30 day period.
A blog is a useful tool for engaging the museum web visitor, though they can be abused and precautions must be taken to minimise this.
Giasemi and I looked at User-Generated Content and discovered a lot of opportunities for museums using the examples we were given.
The first was the chance to submit photos and memories with the Brighton and Hove project. Visitors register and can then add their own photos and stories to the website, adding to knowledge of their local area.
The Dana centre allows people to contribute comments and encourages debate and dialogue on a number of issues relevant to topics in the centre and the Science Museum (environment, evolution, technology etc)
Finally, in the case of the ICONS website, visitors select what they consider to be the icons of England to help to create a reflective community portrait. The red telephone box is a great example of an icon that has connotations for people in England.
However, there were a number of risks that we thought were associated with this kind of technology. There are issues of moderation of this type of content, especially considering that the opinion of visitors is being broadcast under the museum's name. For instance, is it a good idea to encourage people on the Dana Centre Website to criticise evolution theories and science in general when that challenges the very foundations of the institution hosting the debate? But if they don't allow it, is that restricting freedom of speech?
There were questions of copyright - particularly of photos, but also of people's comments (can the museum quote them in 5 years time?) - and challenges of what to do with all this digital material that we create.
Finally we wondered about relevancy - How long is the life-span of a post, does it have an expiry date? (some of the posts were 3 years old - are they still relevant?).
Stephanie and I looked at the potential of using wikis on museum websites.
We looked at these 4 website:
www.britishmuseum.org
www.danacentre.org.uk
www.archimuse.com
http://museum.wikia.com
http://postalheritage.org.uk
From looking at these examples, we concluded that wikis have the benefit of allowing the visitors to contribute the the site. It was thought that this had the benefit of potentially bringing in specialist experience and added information outside the realm of knowledge of the curator and the museum staff. Contributing to the website could also produce a sense of onwership for the visitor.
However, we also noted that it was possible that not all entries could relied upon and that some might be viewed by the museum as compromising their credability.
All in all, we were in favour of museums having wikis on their websites, but with some method of "quality control", ensuring that the material on the site remains accurate and reliable.
At the risk of repeating Shona:
The usefulness of blogs in museums (for museums, about museums etc) varies based on the resources available, the people resource in particular. There has to be enough happening with the museum/research to warrent regular updates, there has to be an audience and most importantly there have to be people who can dedicate time to maintaining the museum's Web presence and brand via the blog.
Buzz is particularly effective because blog technology (i.e. commenting and user feedback) is integrated with the rest of the (highly interactive) website which is in turn integrated with the physical museum via kiosks.
James and I looked at Subscription and Syndication on the Tate Modern, and Natural History Museum websites.
The Tate Modern offers 'Modern Paint Podcasts' free of charge, that visitors can download either for listening while exploring the website or on their visit to the gallery.
Overall, we felt this was an excellent service! Some concerns included:
- Loss of revenue (not charging visitors for audio guides)
- Excluding those who do not own / cannot afford and ipod
- Costs associated with producing podcasts to a high standard
- Selecting appropriate actors to represent the 'voice' of the museum
The Natural History Museum offers news feeds, which allows users to see when new content is added(without actually visiting the site).
While this system requires regular updating by museum staff to be relevent to users, we felt overall it is an excellent resource. RSS can encourage subscribers to read more museum web-based content.
Post a Comment