Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport
Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” as Juliet said. (Although it was in her interest to think that: her parents thought there was a great deal in a name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about love. We are talking about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles on the Olympics (and I make no distinction between the Olympics, the Paralympics and women’s participation in either of them) are articles about élite athletes and the organisations designed to help them achieve that impressively high level are sporting organisations, not GLAMs. They are sports and should be categorised as such for the reasons I give below. WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. There certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but the epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are sport or GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what will help the project to achieve its purpose and what will help it achieve its objectives on the way to its grand vision? Those objectives are simply to write and maintain good articles. In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in the sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that *G*alleries, *L* ibraries,* A*rchives, *M*useums,* S*port, *H*istory, *E*ducation, *E*ntertainment, *P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we could keep going and call it GLAMSHEEPS. However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have to start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, the appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. Projects need to control their scope. I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after things (the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each other and similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage with us because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking after. So we needed to understand their needs and they needed to understand our possible contribution in order to fill gaps in the encyclopaedia's content - its articles. To do that we made them a special category. What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill sets, context and the mission - that’s probably the most important thing as we try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this sense, seed banks such as the one here in New South Wales http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Horticultural_Research/nsw_seedbank/about_the_nsw_seedbankwould, somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or Opera Companies. At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation. However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists the project to make sense to the people whose contributions and support we seek. It would not matter except for the effects on contributions and credibility. If we want contributions (of labour or money or images), we have to be credible and make sense to them. So if we went to the Art Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the National Trust or the National Library or the Natural History Museum, seeking some form of partnership with them and saying we were already working with the Olympic Movement, I daresay they would not easily accept that their organisations were similar. It would be better to say that we were working with known Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. As you say, sport is intensively followed in Australia and it is easier to get popular and financial support for it than it is for the arts, or for “culture” in the narrower sense, and that is another reason for separating it out from the broad culture and paying attention to it, all the more reason to be careful that potential GLAM supporters do not feel betrayed by the usual diversion of attention to sport. Politicians in particular are terrified of arts organisations and artists in case they do something scandalous (again) that is incomprehensible to the voting public. Sportspeople and their organisations on the other hand, are readily excused for their scandals and have easier access to sponsors and champions. So these differences in funding and understanding make a difference to the way we approach partners. Thus, if everyone knows the Olympics as sport, then I guess it’s sport. If you asked people in similar industries – for example, if you asked a publisher, a curriculum developer, a reporter or writer, athlete or politician whether the Olympics was sport or culture they would say: “sport.” If you asked Priya if she was contributing to Australian culture or sport, I think she would say “sport”. I am glad someone is paying attention to sport and especially to women in sport as I am not much interested in it. Personally, I wanted to help WP with articles on the kind of culture that is found in GLAMs which I have been devotedly visiting and studying all my life.
Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport
It looks like this conversation has moved beyond the concept of gender and into the question of sport versus GLAM. Whiteghost.ink and Laura, I'd like to forward/move this conversation to the Cultural Partnerships Mailing List, if you two don't mind? I think it's a pretty valuable conversation! -Sarah On 1/16/12 5:59 AM, Gillian White wrote: Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet as Juliet said. (Although it was in her interest to think that: her parents thought there was a great deal in a name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about love. We are talking about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles on the Olympics (and I make no distinction between the Olympics, the Paralympics and women's participation in either of them) are articles about élite athletes and the organisations designed to help them achieve that impressively high level are sporting organisations, not GLAMs. They are sports and should be categorised as such for the reasons I give below. WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. There certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but the epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are sport or GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what will help the project to achieve its purpose and what will help it achieve its objectives on the way to its grand vision? Those objectives are simply to write and maintain good articles. In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in the sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that *G*alleries, *L*ibraries,*A*rchives, *M*useums,*S*port, *H*istory, *E*ducation, *E*ntertainment, *P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we could keep going and call it GLAMSHEEPS. However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have to start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, the appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. Projects need to control their scope. I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after things (the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each other and similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage with us because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking after. So we needed to understand their needs and they needed to understand our possible contribution in order to fill gaps in the encyclopaedia's content - its articles. To do that we made them a special category. What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill sets, context and the mission - that's probably the most important thing as we try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this sense, seed banks such as the one here in New South Wales http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Horticultural_Research/nsw_seedbank/about_the_nsw_seedbank would, somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or Opera Companies. At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation. However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists the project to make sense to the people whose contributions and support we seek. It would not matter except for the effects on contributions and credibility. If we want contributions (of labour or money or images), we have to be credible and make sense to them. So if we went to the Art Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the National Trust or the National Library or the Natural History Museum, seeking some form of partnership with them and saying we were already working with the Olympic Movement, I daresay they would not easily accept that their organisations were similar. It would be better to say that we were working with known Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. As you say, sport is intensively followed in Australia and it is easier to get popular and financial support for it than it is for the arts, or for culture in the narrower sense, and that is another reason for separating it out from the broad culture and paying attention to it, all the more reason to be careful that potential GLAM supporters do not feel betrayed by the usual diversion of attention to sport. Politicians in particular are terrified of arts organisations and artists in case they do something scandalous (again) that is incomprehensible to the voting public. Sportspeople and their organisations on the other hand, are readily excused for their scandals and have easier access to sponsors and champions. So these differences in funding and understanding make a difference to the way we approach partners. Thus, if everyone knows the Olympics as sport, then I guess it's sport. If you asked people in similar industries -- for example, if you asked a publisher, a curriculum developer, a reporter or writer, athlete or politician whether the Olympics was sport or culture they
Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport
No, I don't mind. I am not on the Cultural Partnerships list but have always had a big interest in culture. I think Laura is a leader of things to do with sport and she seems to know what is needed and be driving it along. Others could perhaps join in to make similar improvements to sport and sports history. Presumably, sporting organisations could assist WP, the way that some GLAM organisations now have, if their needs were worked out. I don't follow the progress of sports in WP but it seems that Laura is applying what has been learned in GLAM to a different field and her championing of it is producing results that could be built on. Whiteghost.ink On 17 January 2012 05:35, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like this conversation has moved beyond the concept of gender and into the question of sport versus GLAM. Whiteghost.ink and Laura, I'd like to forward/move this conversation to the Cultural Partnerships Mailing List, if you two don't mind? I think it's a pretty valuable conversation! -Sarah On 1/16/12 5:59 AM, Gillian White wrote: Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” as Juliet said. (Although it was in her interest to think that: her parents thought there was a great deal in a name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about love. We are talking about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles on the Olympics (and I make no distinction between the Olympics, the Paralympics and women’s participation in either of them) are articles about élite athletes and the organisations designed to help them achieve that impressively high level are sporting organisations, not GLAMs. They are sports and should be categorised as such for the reasons I give below. WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. There certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but the epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are sport or GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what will help the project to achieve its purpose and what will help it achieve its objectives on the way to its grand vision? Those objectives are simply to write and maintain good articles. In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in the sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that *G*alleries, *L* ibraries,* A*rchives, *M*useums,* S*port, *H*istory, *E*ducation, *E*ntertainment, *P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we could keep going and call it GLAMSHEEPS. However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have to start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, the appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. Projects need to control their scope. I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after things (the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each other and similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage with us because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking after. So we needed to understand their needs and they needed to understand our possible contribution in order to fill gaps in the encyclopaedia's content - its articles. To do that we made them a special category. What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill sets, context and the mission - that’s probably the most important thing as we try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this sense, seed banks such as the one here in New South Wales http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Horticultural_Research/nsw_seedbank/about_the_nsw_seedbankwould, somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or Opera Companies. At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation. However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists the project to make sense to the people whose contributions and support we seek. It would not matter except for the effects on contributions and credibility. If we want contributions (of labour or money or images), we have to be credible and make sense to them. So if we went to the Art Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the National Trust or the National Library or the Natural History Museum, seeking some form of partnership with them and saying we were already working with the Olympic Movement, I daresay they would not easily accept that their organisations were similar. It would be better to say that we were working with known Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. As you say, sport is intensively followed in Australia and it is easier to get popular and financial support for it than it is for the arts, or for “culture” in the narrower sense, and that is another reason for separating it out from the broad culture and paying attention to it, all the more reason to be careful that potential GLAM supporters do not feel
