Use of Louisiana's Digital Cultural Heritage by Wikipedians

Kelly, Elizabeth Joan

doi:10.1080/19322909.2017.1391733

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assessing the impact of digital libraries and evaluating the use and reuse of digital objects for educational and personal use are growing areas of research interest. The case studies evaluating the reuse of digital objects involve analysis of user requests, tracking the use of images on the Web using reverse image lookup (Reilly and Thompson, 2014, 2017), or examining the reuse of digital library objects in Wikipedia (Kelly, 2018). The “Measuring Reuse of Digital Objects” project, undertaken by members of the Digital Library Federation’s Assessment Interest Group, focused on exploring the ways digital library materials are employed and reused (Kelly et al, 2018; O’Gara et al, 2018).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital library evaluation measures in academic settings: Perspectives from scholars and practitioners

Xie

Joo

Matusiak

2020

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation criteria and appropriate measures are critical to the success of digital library evaluation. The key problem is a lack of specific measures, especially from a heuristic perspective, corresponding to diverse dimensions and criteria. This study explored a variety of measures for digital library evaluation focusing on their appropriateness. It also compared the similarities and differences in perceptions of the appropriateness of digital library evaluation measures of two groups. Sixty-one participants were recruited representing scholars and academic digital librarians. The participants were instructed to fill in an in-depth survey consisting of 174 measures associated with 10 evaluation dimensions and 82 criteria. The findings of this study highlight the most appropriate measures in each dimension and show significant agreement in identifying appropriate measures by digital library scholars and librarians. Differences in the rating of the measures were found between the two groups in the dimensions of “interface design,” “system and technology,” “effects on users,” “administration,” “user engagement,” and “context.” The significance of this study lies not only in the integration of the perspectives on measures from both researchers and practitioners, but also in providing an inclusive list of measures to guide practitioners to effectively evaluate digital libraries in academic settings.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital library evaluation measures in academic settings: Perspectives from scholars and practitioners

Xie

Joo

Matusiak

2020

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples of cultural heritage media reuse could include images downloaded from digital library collections and uploaded onto a Pinterest Pinboard, as well as those reproduced in commercial projects like artwork or included in official government reports . Reuse of digital cultural heritage media on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia Foundation projects has also received scholarly attention in the last year (Kelly, 2018;Morley, 2018).…”

Section: Media Reuse Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A ready-made platform for sharing digital cultural heritage media and encouraging reuse can be found in Wikimedia Commons (commons.wikimedia.org), the Wikimedia Foundation's repository for photographs, artwork, video, sound, diagrams, and more. Many cultural heritage institutions have developed programs to upload their digital media to Wikimedia Commons and enhance Wikipedia articles with links to their collections and finding aids in order to increase traffic to their websites and repositories, typically with impressive results (Kelly, 2018). Digital cultural heritage media is added to Wikimedia Commons in a few ways: institutions" research project (GLAM standing for Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) noted that for cultural heritage organizations, "donating media to Commons is a means to an end.…”

Section: Cultural Heritage Wikimedia and Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reuse of Wikimedia Commons Cultural Heritage Images on the Wider Web

Kelly¹

2019

EBLIP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective -Cultural heritage institutions with digital images on Wikimedia Commons want to know if and how those images are being reused. This study attempts to gauge the impact of digital cultural heritage images from Wikimedia Commons by using Reverse Image Lookup (RIL) to determine the quantity and content of different types of reuse, barriers to using RIL to assess reuse, and whether reused digital cultural heritage images from Wikimedia Commons include licensing information.Methods -171 digital cultural heritage Wikimedia Commons images from 51 cultural heritage institutions were searched using the Google images "Search by image" tool to find instances of reuse. Content analysis of the digital cultural heritage images and the context in which they were reused was conducted to apply broad content categories. Reuse within Wikimedia Foundation projects was also recorded.Results -A total of 1,533 reuse instances found via Google images and Wikimedia Commons' file usage reports were analyzed. Over half of reuse occurred within Wikimedia projects or wiki aggregator and mirror sites. Notable People, people, historic events, and buildings and locations were the most widely reused topics of digital cultural heritage both within Wikimedia projects Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2019, 14.3 29 and beyond, while social, media gallery, news, and education websites were the most likely places to find reuse outside of wiki projects. However, the content of reused images varied slightly depending on the website type on which they were found. Very few instances of reuse included licensing information, and those that did often were incorrect. Reuse of cultural heritage images from Wikimedia Commons was either done without added context or content, as in the case of media galleries, or was done in ways that did not distort or mischaracterize the images being reused.Conclusion -Cultural heritage institutions can use this research to focus digitization and digital content marketing efforts in order to optimize reuse by the types of websites and users that best meet their institution's mission. Institutions that fear reuse without attribution have reason for concern as the practice of reusing both Creative Commons and public domain media without rights statements is widespread. More research needs to be conducted to determine if notability of institution or collection affects likelihood of reuse, as preliminary results show a weak correlation between number of images searched and number of images reused per institution. RIL technology is a reliable method of finding image reuse but is a labour-intensive process that may best be conducted for selected images and specific assessment campaigns. Finally, the reused content and context categories developed here may contribute to a standardized set of codes for assessing digital cultural heritage reuse.

show abstract

“…The article "Use of Louisiana's Digital Cultural Heritage by Wikipedians" detailed the ways in which Wikipedia is increasingly used as a research tool by students and professional researchers (Kelly, 2018b). More recent scholarship by librarians posited Wikipedia as an important resource for academic informationliteracy instruction by illustrating ways in which using Wikipedia as a pedagogical tool aligns with the Association of College and Research Libraries' Framework of Information Literacy for Higher Education (Dowell & Bridges, 2019).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Cultural Heritage and Wikimedia Commons Licenses:

Kelly

2019

JCEL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural heritage institutions can contribute to public knowledge and increase awareness of their collections by uploading digital objects to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. However, prior research has established the difficulty of and/or hesitation by many cultural heritage institutions in clearly and accurately labeling the copyright status of their born-digital and digitized collections. With this knowledge, how likely is it that digital cultural heritage will be findable and usable on Wikimedia Commons? This study seeks to determine how accurate rights statements for cultural heritage objects on Wikimedia Commons are, and whether inaccuracies can be linked to problematic rights statements in cultural heritage digital libraries or whether the inaccuracies stem from Wikimedia Commons. By evaluating the rights statements, licenses, and sources for 308 Wikimedia Commons objects from 57 cultural heritage organizations and comparing that information to corresponding licenses from digital libraries, we can begin to develop best practices and educational needs for digital librarians, archives, museum curators, and Wikipedians alike to improve the user experience for those using digital cultural heritage on Wikimedia projects.

show abstract

Use of Louisiana's Digital Cultural Heritage by Wikipedians

Cited by 9 publications

References 26 publications

Digital library evaluation measures in academic settings: Perspectives from scholars and practitioners

Digital library evaluation measures in academic settings: Perspectives from scholars and practitioners

Reuse of Wikimedia Commons Cultural Heritage Images on the Wider Web

Digital Cultural Heritage and Wikimedia Commons Licenses:

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About