Jump to content

Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network/2021-12-08

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This meeting

[edit]
Wed 2021-12-08 - 17:00 UTC
  • 12 noon – 1pm Eastern Time - New York
Join via Google Meet: https://meet.google.com/asi-hpms-pxv

Attendees

[edit]
  1. Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado) - USA
  2. Albin Larsson (User:Abbe98) - Scandinavia
  3. Larissa Borck (User:Tulipasylvestris)
  4. Tore Danielsson (User:VisbyStar)
  5. Douglas McCarthy (User: CultureDoug) – Netherlands; also Europeana
  6. Ryan King - Smithsonian Open Access - USA
  7. Stella Wisdom, British Library (User:Stellawisdom) - UK
  8. E ?
  9. Z. Blace, (User:Zblace) Croatia
  10. Dee Harris, Creative Commons, @deeharriscc
  11. Kelly Doyle, Smithsonian Institution (AWHI), User:KellyDoyle
  12. Richard Knipel (Pharos)
  13. Tochiprecious (User: Tochiprecious) - Nigeria
  14. Ben Vershbow (Wikimedia Foundation) (User: BVershbow_WMF)
  15. Mia Cariello (AWHI Intern), User: CarCai
  16. Cliff Anderson (User:Clifford_Anderson)
  17. Doreva Belfiore - Philadelphia WikiSalon (USA) (User:dorevabelfiore)
  18. Giovanna Fontenelle - User:GiFontenelle or User:GFontenelle_(WMF) - Wikimedia Foundation - Brazil
  19. Jake Orlowitz (WikiBlueprint for Annual Reviews, etc.) User:Ocaasi
  20. Susanna Ånäs User:Susannaanas, AvoinGLAM
  21. Jason Evans User:Jason.nlw - Wales
  22. Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry University of Virginia
  23. Effie Kapsalis - Smithsonian User:digitaleffie, Wikimedia DC member
  24. Tarmo Toikkanen - Open Knowledge Finland
  25. Jim Hayes - Wikimedia DC
  26. Bart Magnus - meemoo, Flemish Institute for Archives
  27. SJ - WMNE

Agenda and Notes

[edit]
  • Special topic related to the recent news of a "Wikipedia NFT" auction by Jimmy Wales; a recent Twitter interaction with Creative Commons about NFT; and a larger discussion of the open GLAM space as it relates to NFT and the crypto community.

See Etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WREN_notes_2021-12-08

Announcement

[edit]

From Andrew Lih - We are having a special open meeting of the WREN (Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network) today (Wednesday, December 8, 2021, 1700 UTC, 12 noon Eastern US) to discuss "Open GLAM as it relates to the NFT and crypto space" which was prompted by the recent NFT auction of "Wikipedia's First Edit" by Jimmy Wales. We felt it was an ideal time to discuss the greater issue, and will have a number of special folks join beyond the regular Wikimedians-in-residence crew including Douglas McCarthy, Creative Commons representatives, and those from the greater open GLAM community.

Those interested in the issue are welcome to join and do not need to be a Wikimedian-in-residence. However, issues related to GLAM Wiki and Wikimedians in Residence will be given priority.

Douglas McCarthy has been on the front lines of debating the use of NFT in the GLAM space, and this piece is a good backgrounder: https://apollo-magazine.com/should-museums-be-dabbling-in-nfts/

Meeting details here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network

Opening statement

[edit]

(read by Andrew Lih at start of meeting) Thanks for joining a special open community meeting of the WREN (Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network) today to discuss "Open GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) as it relates to the NFT and crypto space." We welcome those who are new to the WREN meeting, which is a monthly gathering of Wikimedia community members focused on cultural and heritage partnerships and the open content found on Wikimedia projects. Some of us with the WREN community are doing this in a volunteer capacity while some hold professional positions doing this type of work. What we have in common is the furthering of Wikimedia's mission as it aligns with GLAM organizations worldwide: "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

So it is against this backdrop that we felt the recent NFT auction of "Wikipedia's First Edit" by Jimmy Wales warranted the first formal discussion of our community on this topic. This appeared to be an ideal time to discuss the greater issue with the extended open GLAM and Wikimedia community. You do not need to be a Wikimedian-in-residence to participate. However, we ask that you understand that issues related to GLAM Wiki and Wikimedians in Residence may be given priority.

We remind folks that by participating in this meeting, you agree to abide by the friendly space policy for Wikimedia events. The policy aims to provide a welcoming experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, appearance, race, religion, or preferred free license (and not limited to those aspects). We do not tolerate harassment of event participants and those violating these rules may be asked to leave the event at the discretion of the event organizers. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy

We thank you for understanding these policies and abiding by them.

With that understanding, we would like to especially welcome those from the greater GLAM community including Douglas McCarthy and representatives from Creative Commons.

We know there may be a lot of folks here, with a lot to say and ask. Therefore, we'd like to also like to make a space for anyone to record their thoughts or questions around this. There is a section at the bottom of this Etherpad document for that feedback, which you can contribute to anonymously, with a general description of your background, or attributed to a username. Whatever you feel comfortable with. This way, we can exchange as many viewpoints as possible throughout the call, and you are free to contribute at any time.


Discussion notes

[edit]
  • Non-fungible tokens -
    • en.wp: "A non-fungible token is a unique and non-interchangeable unit of data stored on a digital ledger. NFTs can be associated with easily-reproducible items such as photos, videos, 3D models, audio, and other types of digital files as unique items. NFTs use blockchain technology to provide a public proof of ownership."
      • Opinion - the English Wikipedia article is not very good and hard to understand
      • Agree en:NFT not great
    • But, that's not really a complete explanation.
    • Anyone can issue an NFT for anything else in the world. What? Yes.
    • en.wp: "Ownership of an NFT does not inherently grant copyright or intellectual property rights to whatever digital asset the token represents.[11][12] While someone may sell an NFT representing their work, the buyer will not necessarily receive copyright privileges when ownership of the NFT is changed and so the original owner is allowed to create more NFTs of the same work.[13][14]"
    • I see this as a good thing. Nothing drives me crazier than when we open up assets and others copyright it after.
    • But even this is not true, as I could issue an NFT for the Brooklyn Bridge and try to sell it
    • Think: International Star Registry or en:Extraterrestrial real estate
  • Implementation of digital uniqueness/scarcity
  • Common and popular examples
    • Cryptokitties
    • NBA Top Shot basketball tokenized collectibles - digital collectable sports cards
  • Notes of related topics:
  • Generally part of the cryptocurrency landscape, and all that entails
  • Public understanding about what exactly an NFT is and what rights come with it
    • What constitutes "ownership?"
    • Analogs and comparisons - International Star Registry, zoo animal sponsorship/pseudo-adoption
  • Copyright
  • Promotion of cryptocurrency as a phenomenon
    • Indirectly supporting the rise of Ethereum because NFTs run on this technology and support it
    • High transaction/gas fees because of the cost of computation
  • Environmental impact
  • My opinion: feeds capitalist consumerism culture
  • Douglas speaks, see the reading below:
Douglas at the meeting speaking
With Europeana
was approached by editor of Apollo to write something about NFTs and GLAM
opinion - there is a high barrier to entry to understanding this field and joining conversations about it
Most of the conversatino is about questions rather than answers
Some parts are easier to understand, like cases where artists use NFTs to sell certain usage rights of their work
It is more difficult to explain the value of NFTs for art which is otherwise widely available elsewhere, such as works from the 19th century which have been mass reproduced since their creation
'Confected scarcity' is my go-to phrase for NFTs and Open GLAM content.
Douglas: This is the article by Andres Guadamuz that I mentioned: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpab152/6449489#
  • Dee Harris from Creative Commons is visiting this meeting
Dee: Like Douglas, when I hear about NFTs, some parts are incomprehensible to me also

"We at Creative Commons are listening right now to learn how people are using them

We are grappling with many of the big questions
Last week we joined a conversation on twitter and there were multiple perspectives and people became aggressive
  • Effie:
Purely from our institutional perspective, when I was adopting OA at the Smithsonian, we always said we were releasing raw materials and it did not prevent us from doing commercial things with the raw assets that add value. I also don't see how NFTs add value to something. We are a public institution, we are free to walk in our doors and this doesn't gel.
I also am grossed out how much kids are bought into buying digital things. It makes a parents job really hard to tamp down rampant consumerism.
  • Larissa:
Organizations of course have a mission to make their content accessible. If an organization is focused on its mission and can recognize that NFTs get their content to people who want it, then it is not necessary to understand every part of the technology. :There is a money motive linked with parts of the NFT discussion. For some organizations, they do not participate in this, for others, they want to explore options for fundraising and NFTs are among those options. There are people who want to support institutions and in the same way that people will buy posters from a museum gift shop, some of them will buy NFTs. For organizations which have marketed themselves as open or open access, they gave digital copies of their holdings as part of their brand. :Similarly now, there may be organizations which become more closed because NFTs are an opportunity to create something scarce to sale.
  • Effie - many organizations have had major layoffs due to COVID and are looking for revenue streams
  • Jason Evans I'm still trying to get my head around NFT's but it seems to me that they are simply not compatible with our mission (National Library of Wales) especially as our government move towards measuring our success in terms of social and economic impact rather than 'income generation'. However we live in a world where people increasingly trade in virtual 'things' so perhaps there is a market for this that we don't yet fully understand.
  • anonymous comment: I am frustrated with this conversation. We all agree on the Open GLAM principles in these conversations but then when we leave the conversation that's not the case for others -- GLAMs don't necessarily support the activist values and principles in this space. I know that in many aspects there is no agreement or consensus, but it is helpful to have conversations. Another issue: if we were in a position to seek some kind of change. I am not sure if we need a white paper, but we do need some kind of document to guide our community in thinking about what this is and how it is going to run.
  • Clifford Anderson
I also think about New Media artists like John Gerrard, where what is acquired by museums is not always clear--is it the computer code, or the idea of the installation, or something else. Could NFTs clarify and provide value for such artists?
  • Larissa Borck
One thing I forgot: GLAMs are fighting hard in many parts of the world to survive not only financially, but also in a climate of fake news. Engaging with a technology that a knowledge institution does not understand in depth might turn out catastrophically.
  • Tarmo Toikkanen
Whenever doing something, it's good to consider what would happen if everyone would do it. Essentially any entrepreneur could start minting classical art work images into a series of NFTs and sell them. The price will depend on the credibility and sales skills of that entrepreneur. But we might have thousands of Mona Lisa NFTs from thousands of issuers. And we most likely will. Will a museum-minted NFT be more valuable than let's say Elon Musk's "Da Vinci Series" of NFTs?
The snake oil salespeople are collecting galleries of open access art, generating NFTs, and selling them.
  • Albin Larsson
It's a gold rush and someone is making the shovels. The gas fees is such a clear example of it.
Some large players are banning NFTs as well, Valve who runs the game store steam comes to mind.
  • Clifford Anderson
Yeah, my understanding is that Steam banned NFTs whereas Epic allows them.
  • Lane Rasberry
My views:
  1. NFTs are not an art thing, they are a financial technology thing, and controlled by the finance industry.
  2. Fintech bros are amoral and aggressive. This is the demographic controlling the narrative.
  3. Blockchain / crypto might be the most active field of misconduct in the Wikimedia movement.
  4. I have been solicited as a Wikimedia professional by blockchain people more than by any other industry
  • Z
Most of the push in this is from marketing people in the field, and this is not coming from art curators.
  • Larissa
All institutions are financially struggling, but small institutions are particularly vulnerable.
Seeing this from a leadership perspective, the leader of an organization has an effect on what strategic chances an organization will take with its limited resources. If a leader is interested in new technology then an organization may explore options that an art-focused leader may not. For many small organizations they are still considering whether to invest more in posting with more established technology, like social media platforms.
Small museums seeing others in this space: "could [NFT] be the one thing that saves us?"
How can we digital make us more captialist and make
Adds more bias to our collections if it is more capitalist
  • Andrew: Artificial scarcity to bring in the dynamics of "rival goods"
Yochai benkler described in Coase's Penguin/The Wealth of Networks the idea of rival and nonrival goods
digital = nonrival, physical = rival
NFT/blockchain bring in "rival goods" dynamics to digital - scarcity/capitalistic tendencies and adverse environmental impact
  • Douglas: There are a few traders who control almost all of the trading activity. Among all the trading, only a small amount of it is museum collections. It is hard to imagine how anything other than the most famous and well-prepared museum can be successful investing in NFT setup and generating a financial return.
  • Main reason for convening at this time: Jimbo Wales just started selling an NFT
suggested reading: In about 2016 the French Wikimedia chapter went into an agreement with a cryptocurrency organization. From that regional Wikimedia community's perspective, this was a small collaboration. The crypto firm instead portrayed the relationship as a high-level partnership between them and the whole of the Wikimedia project. There was media confusion and negativity to the Wikimedia community as a result. Based on this precedent, we should be careful in managing the partnership.
The current media story is about Jimbo's auction. Many news stories are way off. "Wikipedia auctioning off first edit" - wrong, "Wikipedia's creator puts NFT of first edit up for auction" - this is more correct but has problems also.

Reading notes and written comments

[edit]

Concerns for open GLAM and free culture community

[edit]
  • Copyright
  • Reputational risks
  • Environmental impact
  • Ethical concerns concerning creating an illusion of scarcity

NFT in the GLAM space

[edit]

Readings

[edit]


Douglas: digital surrogates in the public domain Trying to find the value in something that points to digital file of a widely available image of an open glam object Cannot find a useful reason for this

this is the massive spreadsheet in case someone doesn't know it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WPS-KJptUJ-o8SXtg00llcxq0IKJu8eO6Ege_GrLaNc/edit#gid=1216556120


    • The British Museum is one of several leading museums selling non-fungible tokens (NFTs) of works in their collection. But what are the institutions really selling – and do they understand what serious buyers want?
    • Wieder: "At Vastari [an online platform that connects private collectors with public museums], we have noticed that the institutions we work with are reconsidering decades of pumping content on to the internet for free. Monetisation using blockchains and NFTs, when done right, allows for the circulation of the asset while also generating income from it."
    • McCarthy: "Like many museums around the world, the British Museum, to take just one example, uses copyright to restrict reuse of its digital collections... Claiming copyright in these digital surrogates allows museums to erect a legal scaffold upon which restrictive reuse policies can be built. It enables their attempts (however vain they may be in practice) to monopolise the supply, publication and monetisation of digital collections... To market limited-edition NFTs of public domain works is to confect scarcity where none exists."
  • Crypto Collectibles, Museum Funding and OpenGLAM: Challenges, Opportunities and the Potential of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) (24 October 2021)
  • The Treachery of Images: Non-fungible Tokens and Copyright
  • John Gerrard to Release NFT in Support of Cryptofund for Climate and Soil Regeneration
  • Speculative Values: Between the Institution and the NFT
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3UriT1onxM
    • "Collecting art, making grants, and other functions long performed by arts organizations are increasingly being taken on by blockchain-based digital cooperatives known as DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations), which are organized using tools such as NFTs (non-fungible tokens, a means of certifying digital assets on the blockchain)."
  • Modern Dream: How Refik Anadol Is Using Machine Learning and NFTs to Interpret MoMA’s Collection
    • https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/658
    • "And so I think the blockchain allows the image to be as mobile as it was before, everybody has access to it all the time. But also, you can point to one instance of that data, or a reference to that, and that becomes something that somebody can collect. So the work is every bit as accessible as it was before, but it can be collected. And that’s been this major shift in the last couple years, in my opinion, that people are okay collecting something that is so...I guess, available in the network."
    • "I was thinking about some of the early crypto artists who really pushed and fought for 10% of resales. And now that’s basically instituted across most NFT platforms. That’s something that artists and other realms have been pushing for, fighting for, building contracts for that were never enforced for decades and decades."
  • DACS launches NFTs events series, Tokenomics: A New Economy of Art in January 2022


British Museum

[edit]

According to ARTNews: "The British Museum will sell NFTs of Hokusai’s works, including The Great Wave Off Kanagawa (1831), with the help of a new French start-up, LaCollection... The British Museum is not the first museum to offer NFTs. The Whitworth Gallery in Manchester, the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, and the Uffizi Galleries are among those to have recently minted works in the medium based on art in their holdings." https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/british-museum-hokusai-nfts-1234604998/

Creative Commons

[edit]
  • Summary: Creative Commons tweet pointing to an article about "how museums are starting to use NFTs" spurs online exchange around how the NFT phenomenon aligns (or not) with the free culture movement.
  • "We know the recent article we shared on NFTs is sparking some debate. We want to be clear that we are not promoting NFTs—the articles we share are meant to inform & drive discussion rather than persuade. Third party articles do not reflect the mission & values of CC." (Nov 25, 2021)
  • Discussion of disclosure of crypto holdings


Wikimedia and crypto

[edit]

French chapter and crypto Started with this: 

   https://web.archive.org/web/20180427182357/https://blog.request.network/request-network-project-update-april-27th-2018-partnership-with-wikimedia-woocommerce-plugin-c598372e9b58?gi=83c8be225da9
   Alarming subject: "Partnership with Wikimedia, WooCommerce plugin, ERC20 and BTC update and more!"

Example of over-conflation of association with Wikimedia/Wikipedia https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/989942931950854145

"No, Wikipedia is not in a crypto partnership with the Request Network — don’t believe the hype" - David Gerard https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/27/no-wikipedia-is-not-partnering-with-the-request-network-dont-believe-the-hype/

https://coin.fyi/news/request/request-network-partners-wikimedia-france-produces-woocommerce-crypto-plugi-8fzcpv#! Ended with criticism around wording from crypto firm, and eventually cancelled https://www.reddit.com/r/RequestNetwork/comments/8mxdxh/clarification_on_wikimedia_france/ "We mistakingly reported our partnership to be with the Wikimedia Foundation using the Wikipedia logo in our April 27th blogpost. After getting notified quickly about this mistake by both the French team and the broader crypto community, we updated the announcement within 24 hours on the 28th of April. The updated article changed all Wikimedia Foundation references to the actual partner, Wikimedia France, and changed the incorrect use of the Wikipedia logo to the correct logo of Wikimedia France. Unfortunately, if we understand correctly, this wasn't quick enough for Wikimedia France and is the reason for this partnership to end."

Wikipedia's First Edit NFT

[edit]

commencing today and closing on December 15th. We’re auctioning two things - the original Strawberry iMac that I used during the founding time period of Wikipedia, and an NFT artwork that I created to commemorate the earliest moment of Wikipedia."

  • Inspired by Tim Berners-Lee NFT
    • Jimmy: "I saw earlier in the year that Tim Berners-Lee did an NFT of “the original source code of

the web”. In his own words: 'I’m selling a picture that I made, with a Python program that I wrote myself, of what the source code would look like if it was stuck on the wall and signed by me.' I thought I should try to push forward from that and so instead of just doing a picture (screenshot) of what Wikipedia looked like when I first installed the Usemod software and typed 'Hello, World!' I would prefer to do something interactive."

Jimmy Wales


Details

[edit]

Reactions

[edit]

amuses me. " https://twitter.com/josephseddon/status/1467309744503373827

Liam - Fundraising emails traditionally go out from Jimmy (in December in the English language), may be confusing for this to be happening at the same time as he's associated w/ the auction


Media confusion

[edit]
  • In a landscape where a nontrivial chunk of the public thinks "Wikileaks" is a Wikimedia project, we can expect popular confusion around reporting this topic.
  • News headlines - none of which are 100% accurate
    • Fully accurate headline should likely read like this: "The rights to edit a page that is a copy of one of Wikipedia's first edits is available for auction as an NFT"
  • Examples:
    • Wikipedia's first ever edit is being auctioned as an NFT-
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-edit-nft-scli-intl/index.html

Jimmy Wales is selling his first Wikipedia edit as an NFT - https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/3/22808679/jimmy-wales-nft-first-wikipedia-edit-imac-christies-auction

Jimmy Wales is auctioning off an NFT of his first Wikipedia edit - 

https://www.engadget.com/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-nft-auction-171330170.html
**

The First Edit to Wikipedia Is Being Auctioned as an NFT - https://gizmodo.com/the-first-edit-to-wikipedia-is-being-auctioned-as-an-nf-1848156387

"Jimmy Wales Is Auctioning His First Wikipedia Edit As an NFT" https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvvpe/wikipedias-co-founder-is-auctioning-his-first-edit-as-an-nft

Wikipedia creator's computer and NFT of first edit up for auction - https://techxplore.com/news/2021-12-wikipedia-creator-nft-auction.html

Congratulations ScienceX publishers <-- ??

Liam: Christie's should correct the implication that the NFT is of ['the first edit'] rather than a reconstruction

Critical evaluation

[edit]

Arguments

[edit]

Possible arguments the Open GLAM advocates might find consensus over. Or ones that divide opinions.

In favor

[edit]

Against

[edit]
  • Values alignment of digital scarcity with an open content and free knowledge project?
    • Open GLAM and open access ... making money from a digital scarcity phenomenon?
  • Indirectly promoting cryptocurrency when it is still under major scrutiny
  • Wikipedia brand being associated with NFT/crypto constitutes endorsement of the space
  • Fundraising confusion - Jimmy Wales is the "sender" of WMF fundraising appeal emails
    • Does this have collateral issues for fundraising if there is public confusion?
  • NFT with inefficient energy usage, has climate change impact
  • GLAM space is debating legitimacy and appropriateness of NFT, does the "Wikipedia NFT" affect the climate?
    • Evangelism and outreach activities impact
  • In the Special Collections/archives/small museums sphere, there still remains a hestitancy to open up collections under Creative Commons licenses or even public domain works freely on WIkimedia Commons, DPLA, Inernet Archive or other DAMS. There is still a fear of "lost revenue" or "control" from rights and reproductions, especially at very small institutions. There is also a continual lack of technology support for very small GLAM institutions, and having to learn about NFT's/Crypto will be another technical hurdle for already overworked staff and management. This situation is improving, but I would be concerned that NFT's would add more confusion around copyright and reproductions than already exists.


Open questions for discussion

[edit]
  • General values alignment of NFT and open content and free knowledge movement
  • What other peers or case studies should we be tracking?
  • Is disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings of involved parties warranted?

Feedback free writing area for participants

[edit]

(Questions, views, metaphors, parables, and position statements from attendees can be contributed at any time)

  • View of a wiki editor (anon 1) - insert here
It's an autograph, with more bits added. There isn't much "there there", but maybe harmless if it's actually taken for what it is? But is is often taken rather grandiosely.
  • View of a GLAM professional - I agree that it seems contrary to the open source/free knowledge values of Wikimedia to be selling NFTs. I admit that I don't fully understand everything about NFTs. Is Wikimedia that hard up for money?
Fun fact: It's not Wikimedia asking for the money, but it is confusing!
Someone other than Wikimedia selling it is even less ethical, but maybe I'm clutching at pearls that aren't worth being worried about.
no, the risk to brand is real, and the confusion of "what it is" is problematic. the retort that this is pearl clutching by the olds, was said in 2000.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network/2021-12-08&oldid=26084234"