Smithsonian 2.0 Forum in opposing views

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 2, position 8154.
The server was unable to process the request due to an internal error. For more information about the error, either turn on IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults (either from ServiceBehaviorAttribute or from the configuration behavior) on the server in order to send the exception information back to the client, or turn on tracing as per the Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 SDK documentation and inspect the server trace logs.
Smithsonian 2.0: Opposing viewpoints laid out at Smithsonian 2.0 ForumSmithsonian 2.0Subscribe to this blog's feedRecent PostsRapid Development at a 162 Year Old Institution: What I Learned This SummerSmithsonian Commons PrototypeSmithsonian Web and New Media Strategy v 1.0Evaluating ValueYou & the Smithsonian's Web and New Media StrategyBrainstorming a Federal Alternate Reality GameOpposing viewpoints laid out at Smithsonian 2.0 ForumMoving beyond us vs. themGorilla MarketingCourage to go Open ContentRecent CommentsMichael Edson on Smithsonian Commons PrototypeBrundage on Smithsonian Commons Prototypedigitaleffie on Rapid Development at a 162 Year Old Institution: What I Learned This SummerVincentstinks on Rapid Development at a 162 Year Old Institution: What I Learned This Summerdigitaleffie on Rapid Development at a 162 Year Old Institution: What I Learned This SummerNina Simon on Rapid Development at a 162 Year Old Institution: What I Learned This SummerKaren Weiss on Smithsonian Commons PrototypeJerome Shapiro on Smithsonian Commons PrototypeMichael Edson on Smithsonian Commons PrototypeLexi D. on Smithsonian Commons PrototypeArchivesAugust 1, 2010 - August 7, 2010June 13, 2010 - June 19, 2010July 26, 2009 - August 1, 2009July 12, 2009 - July 18, 2009June 14, 2009 - June 20, 2009April 19, 2009 - April 25, 2009March 22, 2009 - March 28, 2009March 15, 2009 - March 21, 2009March 1, 2009 - March 7, 2009February 22, 2009 - February 28, 2009More...

CategoriesGamesSocial MediaWeb/TechArchivesAugust 2010June 2010July 2009June 2009April 2009March 2009February 2009January 2009Blog powered by TypePadContributorsRiccardo FerranteAbout« Moving beyond us vs. them |Main| Brainstorming a Federal Alternate Reality Game »

April 21, 2009Opposing viewpoints laid out at Smithsonian 2.0 Forum

Earlier this afternoon I attended the Smithsonian 2.0 Forum, a follow-up event to January's Smithsonian 2.0 Gathering. The Forum, webcast from the Smithsonian 2.0 website, presented three points of concern and opposing arguments for each point. The three points of contention: Access to Everything versus Controlled Content; Structure versus Freeedom; and Free Access versus Fee-based Access, where less contested than I expected. A couple comments stuck with me and are making me re-think my own opinion (which is that we can make our collections and our knowledge infinitely more accessible and sustain that access without being reckless in either our approach or our choices.)

First comment: knowledge is increasing at such a rapid pace that keeping web-delivered content up to date is an extremely challenging and expensive task, perhaps too much so. Wow, so true. We could try to address this reality by ourselves, or we could collaborate with other centers of expertise to do so. The former is very costly. Frankly, I think that knowledge is moving forward more and more rapidly specifically because the knowledge creators are collaborating more deeply and more often, using the Internet and 2.0 type technology. If the pace of knowledge development is driven by the collaboration and sharing of expertise via the Internet, should we be looking at a similar model to get the word out about the breakthroughs and new developments we are part of? Maybe others who find themselves in the same shoes?

Second comment: we (one of the museums) asked teachers what they wanted and they replied that what they really wanted was a space to meet up with other teachers, to collaborate with each other and find ways to incorporate the knowledge and content we had available on the web. This, I think, should be a core strategy. To create spaces where content-seekers can connect with our collections and with other content seekers. Where motivated individuals can work together to come up with innovative and effective ways to apply SI's content knowledge and expertise in ways we haven't thought of yet..

Both of these ideas are about "how." It seems that somewhere along the way, whether or not we use 2.0 tools to acquire and disseminate knowledge has been decided and that we are moving into the realm of "how" and "how much". Check out the webcast for yourself and comment back.

Posted by Riccardo Ferrante on April 21, 2009 at 05:50 PM | Permalink

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great article and follow-up to SI 2.0, Matt. Personally, I think that SI should invest in developing and promulgating free web tools compatible with standard commercial online services which allow users to exploit, explore, and expand the collections, research, and publications (including lay-oriented publications such as exhibit text).

These tools should also be shared throughout the museum and nonprofit communities via GNU licenses on open source communities like Omeka so that standards can be built upon and extended in the most resource-conscious way. Everything should begin from standardized, modular bases. SI has the resources, knowledge, and bully pulpit to lead the way to such an initiative

regards
website designing delhi

Posted by:website designing delhi |May 23, 2010 at 08:02 AM

It is easy to be wise after the event?You never know what you can do till you try?

Posted by:Lacoste shoes |July 05, 2010 at 08:49 PM

Verify your Comment Previewing your CommentPosted by:  | 

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Post a comment Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Comment below or sign in with TypePad Facebook Twitter and more... You are currently signed in as (nobody). Sign Out (URLs automatically linked.)

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Name is required to post a comment

Please enter a valid email address

Invalid URL