The Great Conservation TwitterCon
Dilbert by Scott Adams
Introduction:
It seems that the first ever conservation twitter discussion can be judged to have been a great success. This then is my short report back, for my blog readers, on the who, why, what, when, and how… of the great twittercon of conservation.
The conversation was announced, and publicised, as a discussion of Richard McCoy’s article ‘Conservation in the Public’s Domain’ which appeared in CeROArt, which I have previously reviewed here on this blog.
The conversation followed the hashtag #AIC20 and so the checking of the information presented below is based principally on looking back through the records of the hashtag, if you failed to tag a tweet… I failed to find it (or you). The structure for the discussion was laid out by @GOKConservator:
“The only structure for the discussion is best coined by McCoys last sentence: If an idea fails find out why and start again!”
Unfortunately, twitter only archives tweets for around 23 days, so a ‘Google Search’ for aic20 site:twitter.com might be the most long lasting archive of the discussion.
The participants represents 26 individuals from 3 countries. (1 Australian, 3 UK, 22 USA).
In addition the twitter account for the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) took part, and several museums retweeted points, but, I have chosen not to include them in the figures above as they are identified only as institutions, it is therefore difficult (impossible) to know who or what they are representing.
The active participants in this discussion were overwhelmingly from the United States of America, so, although this first event was somewhat international in scope, the US centric nature of discussion did unsurprisingly occasionally take over proceedings. This is something to remember for the future; Web 2.0 is international, how can we encourage greater internationalisation of the discussion? – I suspect language will be a barrier to a truly international discussion.
All in all for a first attempt at such a discussion it was a good turn out, and a good discussion. As an experiment it set out to see if it would be possible to have a serious conservation discussion online, in which participants were limited to 140 character comments, I think it showed that it was possible, and worthwhile.
A Summary of the Discussion(s):
Starting as a discussion of Richard McCoy’s article, it very quickly veered away from directly discussing the article as an article, and focused more consistantly on the implications and potentialities of Web 2.0 for the conservation profession, the discussion lasted for more than the EST day I believe initially envisioned, although most of the participants were American (or working in America) there were participants from around the world, and it is unknown how many more followed the discussion without posting comments themselves. If you followed the discussion but did not post I am sure everyone would love to hear your thoughts on the proceedings.
During the day a whole series of discussions took place, in many instances consensus was not reached as to the best ideas, approaches, and aims, however, for a first discussion this should be seen as a good thing, ideas were raised, a discussion was held, in many ways the discussion was more a test of the technology than an actual discussion of a topic in conservation – so the lack of conclusions is in itself no bad thing.
What follows is my attempt to summarise the main points of discussion, there were in total around 27 pages of tweets to look back through, and rather than repeat them all, or the detail in each tweet, what I have attempted to do is summarise the main points of discussion and any key ideas that were discussed, and any omissions are entirely by accident. If anyone notices anything missing please include it within the comments and I will add it into this report. (With a comment to say added/edited).
So here is my summary:
* Access: Many places of work do not see the use or worth of Web 2.0 (facebook, myspace, twitter, ning, flickr, etc) and such sites are often banned. The question was raised about how to gain universal access. The idea of ‘cost benefit’ was suggested as a key factor in demonstrating the worth of access to the profession. It was also suggested AIC (and other associations) should advocate for work uses of Web technology.
* Why people not involved/interested: During the day this question seemed to reappear regularly, and several potential thoughts were raised, including: fear of technology, feeling that conservation is of specific and not of wide public interest, fear that putting methods and techniques in the public will lead to wannabe conservation of poor quality, it was reported that some conservators had suggested there’s a “fine line of glorifying conservation treatment over object”, it was suggested that maybe conservators are too used to old style handiwork, or just plain old luddites, it was also discussed as to whether if conservation is public work would there be issues of privacy rights for private collectors, it was suggested that perhaps conservators saw nothing worthwhile getting involved in yet. Several variations of all of the above were suggested, I don’t believe any idea was picked out as being ‘true’ but perhaps they all hold a little bit of truth.
* Public and Conservation: Strands of the article that dealt with the public interface of conservation were discussed from a variety of angles. The experience from Publicly open labs was suggested to show that the public want to know more, furthermore it was suggested that the increase in Conservation as a subject for TV programmes would suggest this too. Conservation projects that work with local communities, such as Historical Preservation Societies also bring public into the discussion, and it was also noted that we could learn from public input, the idea that a more educated and informed public are more likely to ask for specialist help rather than doing work poorly themselves was also discussed, as was the idea that an informed and involved public are more likely to want to participate.
* The public: Inevitably, and importantly, the question of definition was raised, and this revolved around discussing who are “the public” when we use that term? The buyer of conservation services, the casual museum visitor, everyone, or specific groups of people? A variety of opinions were shared, generally the net was considered to be cast as wide as possible.
* Worldwide Catalogue Raisonné: an idea specifically taken from the Richard McCoy article, was agreed to be an interesting and potentially achievable idea.
* Public Documentation of Condition: Save Outdoor Sculpture (SOS!) was raised in the article, other potentially comparable projects were suggested to include; the Portable Antiquities Scheme, Rescue Public Murals, and Flickr was suggested as the Web 2.0 equivalent. The idea itself of public documentation of condition appeared to be widely supported as an approach.
* DiY: In regards to starting Web 2.0 projects in conservation, several suggestions were made to just try stuff, and see what happened, and not wait (or seek) institutional support. There was a fear institutions would slow things down. Question were raised as to whether the internationally the various conservation groups could co-host sites, or, if one group should ‘just do it’.
*Transparency: It was widely agreed that transparency in conservation would be a good thing, but, that it must go along with advocacy for profession and public education. There was a feeling that information without knowledge could be detrimental for cultural heritage.
* Ownership: There was a repeating conversation discussing how people might feel ownership of Web 2.0 (or any) projects, and how this might be important for involvement. Views Differed. Although it was variously noted that an open and global wide approach is important.
* Peer Review and Authorship: It was suggested that wiki’s are the ultimate peer review, if all authors record who they are. There were several suggestions that not everything is of value, so, the question was raised who decides what to publish? It was further suggested that as a profession we also like to keep information to ourselves as often we are unsure. Creative commons was also discussed as a being a “good thing”. It was noted that Nina Simon is writing a book using a wiki, creating a peer review as it progresses, in which others can contribute to editing and additions as it is being written rather than waiting till the end.
* Writing Style: An active rather than passive voice is the norm for online writing. This would be a new/different skill for conservators to undertake. Was also suggested that offline reports, etc, could potentially benefit from writing in active voice. Twitter was suggested as a good place to practice making concise opinions/points.
* What role for Organisations: Several suggested organisations have less and less role, some suggested that Web 2.0 was the new organisational model through growing communities. It was suggested they is still a need for professional development workshops, it was suggested that organisations could become grant bodies and we could collectively run our own professional development workshops.
* Wikipedia: Idea of morphing CoOL into wikipedia was discussed. However, morphing into mediawiki rather than wikipedia was seen as a more likely possibility. It was noted that a version of the 50,000 top searched entries of the German language version of wikipedia has appeared in print.
* Copyright issues: Copyright is a complicated issue, and one that would need to be fully worked through. Copyright inheres in a work of original creation from moment of fixing in a permanent media, which even includes writing to a computer memory. There are also a variety of issues of fair use and re-use. Potential pit falls and possibilities were suggested, it is clear that this area needs some serious consideration.
* Tech Issues: Open Source software for web design (such as new AIC site, AICCM site) and issue of “brownout” of the web could happen by 2010.
* New Tech: Idea of tech forecasting, or, tech scanning, was suggested as something we should be doing, or keeping an eye on. Knowing what’s coming up and reacting quicker. Although it was noted that this is an extremely difficult task even for those who work within the tech industry.
* Spam and vandalism: Various experiences with spam and vandalism were discussed as potential issues, and also off putting issues. It was noted that tech solutions to this are and continue to improve all the time, although it was admitted that it can sometimes be a time consuming exercise to get rid of both. Although the bigger the community the lesser the time each individual will spend doing this.
* Documentation and Evaluation: An excellent point was raised questioning how we can document and evaluate Web 2.0 experiments. [note: this is my attempt for this experiment].
* Workshops: Were discussed in a variety of different contexts, it was considered that online discussions are a form of workshops and replicate the provision of mentorship and ‘face to face’ sharing of information.
* Suggested Projects: It was suggested AIC should host a database of Oddy testing, or, material testing results. A second life project was raised as a possibility. Wiki-based research forums for discussing and sharing information. Perhaps most significantly as an immediate jump out of Web 1.0 the planned addition of an RSS feed to consdistlist was certainly widely supported.
*What next: It was suggested that AIC and others should blog a report (this is my effort) of the discussion. It was suggested to tweet with next development ideas in a few days once people had a little distance to think it all through, the possibility of workshops at AIC Annual Meeting were suggested, alternatively the idea of Guerrilla training (laptops in the bar) at AIC annual meeting, topics for such meetings were suggested as twitter/web 2.0 workshops. However, others felt that just trying it out was best way to learn, others felt that people would only try when they were shown. It was suggested that the publications committee of AIC discussion on Wiki’s should include more Web 2.0. It was also suggested that in future twitter discussions could break down points by subject hashtag’s within the wider conversation. It was suggested also that posing questions is more important than imposing answers. It should be noted that most of the ‘what next’ issues were discussed nearer the end of the day, which was well past the close of business for those outside of America.
During the discussions some interesting websites were referred to:
* AIC Flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/groups/782697@N20/
* ECPN Blog: http://www.emergingconservator.blogspot.com/
* CAA: College Art Association. Conference Blog. http://conference.collegeart.org/blog/
* Museums and the Web. 2009 Conference Blog: http://conference.archimuse.com/blog
* UCLA & Getty Storage Symposium Blog Posts. On IW&A Blog: http://iwa.univie.ac.at/2008_06_01_archive.html
* Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS): http://www.finds.org.uk/
* PAS: Conservation Advice Notes: http://www.finds.org.uk/conservation/
* Museum 2.0. http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/
* Nina Simon’s book development site: ‘The Participatory Museum’ http://museumtwo.pbworks.com/
* Conservator Conclave Ning group: http://conservator.ning.com/ (Problem’s with spam have reduced its usefulness though)
* Clay Shirky lecture: Institutions vs. collaboration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQViNNOAkw
* Singapore Asian Civilisations Museum. http://www.acm.org.sg (for their Virutal tour guides)
* Conservation online forums: prorestauro and e-conservationline forum.
* Rescue Public Murals. http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/about.html
* Conservy Award for Online Conservation Work. http://dancull.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the_conservy/
* Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material. (AICCM) http://www.aiccm.org.au/
* American Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works. (AIC). http://conservation-us.org/
Book Suggestion (in regards to active/passive voice discussions):
* Barbara Appelbaum. 2007. Conservation Treatment Methodology. worldcat link
Conclusions and Comments:
In the discussion section above I have attempted as best I can to tease out the most information possible, without necessary repeating all the detail (it’s surprising how much detail can be passed on in 140 characters), I have included information as it was presented (although I have often reworded it), and attempted not to put my personal bias in (unless stated). I have tried to reserve my thoughts and opinions for this conclusions and comments section.
In my opinion there is actually one crucial element that should be addressed first of all, and that is access within the workplace. It was noted that many sites are blocked and removing these blocks is a prerequisite for any kind of involvement from across the field. With this in mind it is crucial that those of us who have the interest and drive to push the Web 2.0 approach develop a strategy for advocating for total access at work for all conservators. This should be an immediate priority.
So, although access may have prevented many being involved or knowing about the event at all, I personally think the discussion was a success, principally because it happened, and conservators, and related museum professionals, from several countries took part. I don’t think it can be underestimated just how important it was for a public, open, accessible discussion about the future of conservation and its relation to Web 2.0 to happen using an open, public, Web 2.0 application.
I believe Web 2.0 is a significant part of the future of Conservation practice, I also believe that democracy is a necessary part of current practice. It is my belief that Web 2.0 can facilitate a more democratically functioning conservation profession, but, perhaps paradoxically, in order to achieve that democracy, the development of these ideas will have to be undertaken by smaller autonomous groups of self selecting individuals who have the desire to explore these avenues, because waiting for the whole profession to be ready to do so will result only in stasis. Those groups have a responsibility to continually discuss and report on their experiments in the field of Web 2.0.
The discussion highlighted a whole host of ideas and issues, many of which will need further work and clarification. However, this discussion in many ways highlighted for the first time just what the issues are for conservation. So the above list to my mind can form somewhat of a mission statement about how to move forward as conservators in cyberspace. I am in total agreement with the several conservators who pushed what I call the “DiY ethic” of just having a go and learning by trying, and the creation of community around people teaching each other from their triumphs and failures. I find this approach truly empowering.
One major problem with the discussion that wasn’t really raised, or at least not widely discussed, is that we were only 26 individuals we don’t represent even a very small percentage of the profession. Without a much larger discussion it’s hard to ascertain whether we are just the first to be discussing this way, or what the wider the consensus actually is. In fact it could be, for whatever reason, that the wider field think that conservation should have no involvement in Web 2.0 at all. We need to work out a way to feed these discussions to the wider audience and gather feed back on the wider perceptions and opinions. In order to do this I believe we need to tackle the first issue… that of access.
Participant List:
The following people took part in these ground breaking discussions in some way. Thanks should go to all those who took part, as it is their contributions, big and small, that made this Web 2.0 project work.
@GOKConservator = Dale Konkright, Conservator, NM. [USA].
@RichardMcCoy = Richard McCoy, Conservator, IN. [USA].
@conservators = AIC [unidentified] [USA].
@NancieRavenel = Nancie Ravenel, Art Conservator, Vermont. [USA].
@vmuros = Vanessa Muros, Conservation, LA. [USA].
@marialgilbert = Maria L. Gilbert, Digital Media for Museums, LA. [USA].
@5easypieces = Koven J. Smith, Museum Technology, NY. [USA].
@walterhenry = Walter Henry, Stanford University – CoOL, [USA].
@lowengard2 = Sarah Lowengard, Consultant, Researcher, Writer, Editor, NY. [USA].
@MontanaR = Victoria Ryan, Painting Conservator, Rocky Mountains. [USA].
@KansasWildcat = Susan Lunas. [USA].
@LauraBrill = Laura Brill, Vermont. [USA].
@QueenSuzy = Suzy Evanston, IL, [USA].
@contrarotating = Katy, Archaeological Conservator, PA. [USA].
@RPArenstein = Rachel P. Arenstein, Partner A.M. Conservation, LLC. NY. [USA].
@AmberKerr = Amber Kerr-Allison, Paintings Conservator, DC. [USA].
@jgmikulay = J. G. Mikulay IND/MKE professor, IN. [USA].
@JoePadfield = Joseph Padfield, Conservation Scientist, London. [UK].
@thevesiary = The Vespiary, Missoula, MT. Book Conservator/Maker. [USA].
@mhearnsbishop = M. Hearns Bishop, Venice Beach, CA. [USA].
@jessicasjohnson = Jessica S. Johnson, Conservator. [USA].
@libpres = Kevin Driedger, Librarian/book Conservator, MI. [USA].
@pinknantucket = Alice, [Australia].
@hjconservation = Helena Jaeschke Conservator. [UK]
@rosedaly = Rose Daly, Conservator. [USA]
@shelterbooks, = Amy borezo, Orane, Packing, MA. [USA].
and me: @DanielCull – Conservator, Somerset. [UK]
Here is an excellent wordle made by Maria L. Gilbert that provides a lovely visual representation of the most frequently occurring words within the discussion; thanks Maria.
Excellent summary, Daniel. I read it through once, but will have to look it over again.
Clearly the first hurdle is to make it so that more people can use social media applications at work, and for those that are interested in them to try them out.
What’s so fascinating about these applications is that there really aren’t any rules associated with them. We can invent how they can become useful for conservators to share information. Maybe Facebook will continue to evolve into a true professional resources, and things like print newsletters will become a thing of the past. Clearly, associations can use blogs much more effectively than print Newsletters ….
Also, before I get too far off track, I think that this discussion proved that it’s easy to get people together on a global level to discuss an issue. Pretty damn cool, if you ask me.
I concur with Richard on this! I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dan for your hard work in putting this discussion summary together and for doing it in such a useful format. I especially appreciate the lists of websites and participants that you put together. In all, it is a fabulous resource for us to use moving forward.
My only regret from the experience was that I wasn’t able to participate as much in the tweets as I’d like to have, but I was grateful to be able to go in-and-out of the discussion and to look over the history to recap where the conversation had gone while I was away from it. I’m very excited about the possibilities discussed and the collective enthusiasm this is producing.
Kudos to all those involved and I look forward to the direction and potential these open dialogues can lead us!
Excellent job, Daniel! You’ve distilled the discussion of the Twittercon proceedings wonderfully. The helpful links and thoughtful evaluation are also terrific. You are very gracious to take the time to do this–you’ve evened things out on the UK vs. US side of things
Thanks so much for putting together this summary. Hopefully those who couldn’t join the conversation on Twitter can read it and then get involved in the discussion.
I found a peer reviewed wiki called Scholarpedia (http://www.scholarpedia.org) where submissions are made by invited authors who are experts in their fields. All contributions are anonymously peer reviewed and each page is overseen by someone assigned to maintain it. Interesting idea and perhaps a model that can be adapted for a conservation wiki.
Thanks all for your comments, I hope it serves as a reasonably accurate record of the discussions.
The scholarpedia wiki is interesting, but, to my mind its got major draw backs. In that each entry is written by “an expert”, in this respect it really doesn’t differ much from a traditional encyclopedia. To my mind then this fails to draw on the wider community of either the field or subject in question, and the wider world as a whole. In this respect the community it creates is exclusive. Thus it is unable to draw from new and differing potentials from outside that self selecting exclusive field.
My thoughts on the idea… however…. If it became a popular site, then, of course it would be well worth having conservation content on it, in fact it would probably be worth that anyway.
I found nothing for either ‘conservation’ or ‘restoration’ in a search. Intriguingly it links to amazon searches for unfound items, something I found a little worrying.
Cheers, Dan.
This is a very interesting project. I believe that the reason why it was not international is not the language barrier but the fact that not a lot of people outside the us use twitter. I am a conservator from Greece and when i saw your post i wanted to participate but i gave up the effort after entering twitter. Maybe facebook could be easier.