Wikidata talk:WikiProject Cultural heritage
- Collect further case reports; make a synthesis of collected reports
- Develop a model WikiProject for one of the heritage related areas. Update: See WikiProject Heritage institutions --Beat Estermann (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Collect show cases for the use of the data in Wikipedia and beyond
- Improve generic instructions for data ingestion and data modelling
- Create an overview table of different types of heritage data, present coverage, and coverage that should be reasonably aimed for (cf. notability criteria)
- Brainstorm the project's success factors
- Check the navigation table for completeness
- Propagate the navigation table to the various cultural heritage related WikiProjects Done
- Come up with further tasks and add them to this list
- It would be good to indicate the tools that help people understand the data and its structure. One tool that is unsurpassed is Reasanator. It provides at a glance understanding on items something that cannot be had in any other way. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you really need to take over the old name, breaking all links, and to create yet another project with a confusingly similar name? --Nemo 08:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Nemo, the scope of the former WikiProject "Cultural heritage" did not correspond to its name, as it was exclusively about built heritage. Furthermore, there are three projects on built heritage that will need some coordination in my opinion and some overhauling of the project pages: The one about ingesting monuments data, the one about wikifying WLM, and the Connected Open Heritage Project run by Wikimedia Sweden. For now, I have listed them as "Related Projects" on Wikidata:WikiProject_Built_heritage. I think some housekeeping is needed once in a while if we want to involve more contributors in the tasks related to the ingestion of heritage data. Cheers, --Beat Estermann (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
National Library of Wales
I just wanted to say that this looks like a great idea, and that i am happy to support this project in any way i can. The National Library of Wales has over 10,000 related Wikidata items and we are constantly looking to add more and expand existing items. We also have the worlds first Wikidata Visiting Scholar. Perhaps some of our work would make a good case study? Like others i am also having difficulty in getting community help with uploads, specifically where a bot is needed. I hope this project might help connect cultural institutions with community members who can help them share with Wikidata. Best Jason.nlw (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Notability and inclusion of replicable, non-artistic objects in heritage collections - input requested
I have been approached by a (new to me) group of smaller Flemish museums who want to look at ingesting their collections' data in Wikidata. Most of these museums, however, don't collect visual art objects but rather objects of everyday use, non-unique and replicable objects, etc. Think design objects, bicycles, tiles, textile samples. What is our current position on notability of such items on Wikidata? I know that our notability criteria allow inclusion of any item that is described in serious external sources; and the museums have a shared online collection portal where each item is described. But in a previous project with Flemish museums, we did exclude non-visual art items from one museum (religious heritage items e.g. chalices and chasubles, stained glass fragments) because we didn't consider them 'special' enough. And there's the mythical 'maximum 100 million item cap' that is looming here on Wikidata. Maintenance issues, etc. I'm interested in seeking many perspectives on this issue and hopefully arriving at consensus.
- What makes this more complicated: we are talking about very diverse types of objects.
- Visual art items that are produced in series, of which heritage institutions might possess a copy. Think prints and video artworks. As far as I know, we don't have a solid solution for these yet either. Can each copy be a separate Wikidata item?
- Notable designs (fashion, furniture...) - not visual art, but objects for personal use - that were produced in smaller or larger series and of which a heritage institution possesses a copy. A Rietveld chair, a pair of 'hoof shoes' designed by Martin Margiela.
- Mass-produced products of which a museum possesses one item which may or may not hold special meaning (a typical helmet of an anonymous WWI soldier; a helmet used by a specific well-known soldier)
- Mass-produced 'carriers of knowledge' of which an institution possesses one or more copies. Books, photographs...
- Unique items for everyday use that may be very special (e.g. a very unique salt shaker) or very mundane (an everyday handmade salt shaker produced by an anonymous artisan)
- Objects that can be considered archaeological relicts (pot shards, pieces of flint...), some more special than others
- And I'm probably omitting many different categories. Spinster 💬 10:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I am a big proponent of increasing Wikidata (and Wikipedia) coverage of material culture. Wikidata is in a unique position to provide a central hub for study and understanding of these items across multiple museum collections on many continents. I can imagine all sorts of online presentations of everyday cultural objects in their historical and regional contexts powered by Wikidata and Commons. In my experience, small and special-purpose museums have rich collections of this sort but little money to develop an online presence. As far as dealing with "repeatable" objects, I think the approach used for books ("works" and "editions") offers a solid model for prints, photographs, etc. - PKM (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think we'll have to apply subjective criteria, since it's a subjective question.
- Do you mean non-visual art or non-fine-art (eg decorative art)? Non-visual for me means textual (Eg manuscript without illuminations), intangible (traditions), etc.
- I think that interesting decorative arts objects are definitely fair game. Important manuscripts too. Traditions also.
- Pot shards, pieces of flint, scraps of manuscript, etc: should not be in: IMHO they hold only limited professional interest (eg searching for "jug" or Europeana returns tons of shards that can overwhelm you and prevent you from seeing the whole jugs).
- Copies of mass-produced items: if it's an interesting object, we want a copy, but if many second copies are posted, we'd like to prevent this. How to prevent such duplication is a hard unsolved problem, eg libraries have not fully solved it, and they've worked on cooperative cataloging for maybe 20 years. We may also need some extra props along FRBR (eg "copies of this design are are held here and there and there") --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would approach the issue from the point of view of "completeness": When you start a given inventory on Wikidata - when will it be complete?
- First of all, the focus of the inventory should not be on one (or a few) institution(s) alone (i.e. if the answer is: "The inventory is complete when we have described all the items in one institution's collection." - I wouldn't go for it. Have the institution publish their inventory on their own website instead.
- Second, the goal of achieving completeness should be reasonable in the sense that you can expect a critical mass of contributors to join the effort in achieving completeness (I think the "Sum of all paintings" project is a good example: the goal is ambitious, but there is also a critical mass of participants ensuring that the project is making substantial progress over time).
- Third, the level of granularity in the description of items should be meaningful to (potential) users. I agree with Vladimir Alexiev and PKM in that for mass-produced items, we should aim to describe the items mainly at the level of the product type. FRBRoo V2.4 defines a class "F3 - Manifestation Product Type". It's scope is presently limited to publication products, but I don't really see why it couldn't been applied to other products that can meaningfully be approached from a Work-Expression-Manifestation-Item perspective. If an item is thought to be notable at the level of the individual item, it can of course be described at that level as well.
- --Beat Estermann (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- When a serica is produced, it means that the object itself may have an item. It may have all kinds of properties including manufacturer. When multiple GLAM's have one such item, they do not have to have an individual item for the object. An image at Commons can refer to this object. No problem as far as I can see.
- Given the way the wikidatification of Commons is likely to go. For every object at Commons there may be an item at Wikidata. So we will have loads of jugs already to start with. So we will get a high influx of data from Commons to begin with. When a GLAM offers us meta data and certainly when we also get pictures, we will have much more data. That may bring us a user interface problem but that is no reason not to have the data. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I am just dropping a line to tell you about the COH Challenge that is arranged by Wikimedia Sverige and UNESCO, and that I wrote about at the Project Chat earlier today. I hope some of you want to join! Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Mapping of South American datasets
I wonder if there is anyone here with good knowledge on cultural heritage in South America and/or Spanish? While working with the Connected Open Heritage project, we have found the following datasets (on Spanish Wikipedia), on South American cultural heritages:
- Argentina: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/ar_(es)
- Mexico: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/mx_(es)
- Salvador: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/sv_(es)
- Uruguay: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/uy_(es)
- Panama: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/pa_(es)
We have, however, some questions on them which are hard to know without background knowledge:
- How were the ID numbers of the monuments chosen, i.e. do they come from some official source (in which case, what is it, is it available online?) or were they invented exclusively for WLM
- What is the heritage status of the monuments? For example, National Monument of X, Regional Monument of Y. There are two relevant parts
- Do all the items in a certain dataset have the same heritage status (it's implicit, can be batch-assigned) -- if not, how is it indicated?,
- Do Wikidata items for the heritage status(es) exist?