Imagining a Smithsonian Commons (text version)

Imagining a Smithsonian Commons
12/3/2008

Michael Edson
Director, Web and New Media Strategy
Smithsonian Institution
Office of the CIO
edsonm@si.edu

Table of Contents

Relevance ...................................................................................................................1

A Return to the Commons .........................................................................................2

So, what exactly is a commons ..................................................................................3

A Fundamental Institution for the 21st Century .........................................................7

An Un-Common Institution......................................................................................12

Unexpected Rivals ...................................................................................................14

The Smithsonian Commons .....................................................................................18

The Smithsonian Commons…coming soon? ..........................................................22

References ................................................................................................................23

Relevance
(Slide: national mall)

I grew up in Washington, D.C. I was into Art and science, and the Smithsonian
was pretty much the coolest thing around. I could walk downtown or take a bus
and just wander in and out of the free museums letting my curiosity take me
wherever it wanted to go. In some ways you could say that I came of age at the
Smithsonian—that as I became an independent young adult, the bricks-and-mortar
Smithsonian—the world’s largest museum and research complex—modeled my
understanding of what it was to be an adult and explore the world.

The Smithsonian did things that demonstrated the values I came to care about as a
grown up: it’s good to learn, to research and inquire, to be curious, to draw people
into discussion, to provoke and even disrupt when necessary, to think across
disciplines, to create—In short, to engage as an active participant in the world of
ideas. I grew up in a city—in a country—that valued these things, and that chose to
build on its most prestigious real estate, possibly the most valuable real estate in
the world—a kind of commons…

…a knowledge commons…

(Slide: NMNH Ocean Hall)

A public institution dedicated—literally—to “the increase and diffusion of
knowledge,” free to everyone, every day. That spoke very clearly to me about
what’s important in a democracy.

But… I grew up before the World Wide Web.

Edson: Imagining a Smithsonian Commons 1

Now, deep in the heart of this wonderful rich disruptive digital age, the
Smithsonian has been slow out of the blocks. We have not yet committed to a
digital direction.

(Slide: Smithsonian celebration on the mall {multiple})

And the question is: How should the Smithsonian Institution increase and diffuse
knowledge now, in a world with 1.5 billion internet users1 and 3.5 billion mobile
phone subscribers2 —a world in which free and ubiquitous technology enables all
of these people to be our visitors, customers, collaborators, contributors,
champions, critics, and competitors…Sometimes all at the same time.

What example shall we provide?

A Return to the Commons
In this brief talk I’ll describe to you the vision of a Smithsonian Commons—a
unique and priceless collection of content, services, and tools that we give to the
world, for free. This is the 21st century successor to the knowledge commons
imagined into being by James Smithson 182 years ago.3

(Slide: Relevance)

Fundamentally and foundationally, I’ll argue that in this century, the Smithsonian
will be relevant only if it returns to its roots and champions the democratization of
knowledge and innovation; only if it uses technology to create a free and open
commons; and only if it steps up to the plate and applies its resources and energy to
this purpose with urgency and verve.

A Smithsonian Commons is good civics, good mission, and good business.

(Slide: Transition)


So, what exactly is a commons
So, let’s unpack this idea of a commons a little bit: what exactly is a commons?

(Slide: What is a commons?)

Abstractly, it’s a set of resources maintained in the public sphere for the use and
benefit of everyone.

Usually, commons are created because a property owner decides that a given set of
resources—grass for grazing sheep, forests for parkland, software code, or
intellectual property—will be more valuable if freely shared than if restricted.

In the law, and in our understanding of the way the world works, we recognize that
no idea stands alone, and that all innovation is built on the ideas and innovations of
others. When creators are allowed free and unrestricted access to the work of
others, through the public domain, fair use, a commons, or other means, innovation
flourishes.4

(Slide: The anti-commons)

Conversely, unnecessarily restricted content is a barrier to innovation. This is the
anti-commons, a thicket of difficulties. If you can’t find an idea, can’t understand
its context, can’t leverage communities to share and add value to it, and if you
can’t get legal permission to use, re-use, or make it into something new, then
knowledge and innovation suffer.5 Unnecessarily restricted content is like a virus
that spreads through the internet, making the intellectual property provenance of
each generation of new ideas less and less clear.

The framers of our copyright laws recognized this and established the notions of
fair use and the public domain so scientists, inventors, educators, artists,
researchers, business people, and everyone can have access to the raw materials of


knowledge. A commons can be thought of as a kind of organized workshop where
these raw materials can be found and assembled into new things.

Libraries are a kind of commons. The work of the Federal government is, by law,
put into the public domain—an intellectual property commons.

(Slide: Licensing)

Licensing and labeling facilitate the creation of commons by telling users, in
advance, how the property in the commons can be used, without making them
guess or negotiate.6 The GNU Public License (GPL) enables collaborative
commons to be formed around open-source software. (Linux is distributed under
the GPL.) The Creative Commons is known and loved by millions for the way it
makes it easy for rights holders to keep their copyright but share their works with
others, without intermediaries, or to withhold some rights if they so choose.

(Slide: CC Attribution-Noncommercial license)

Even a child can understand a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial
license. If your kid is online, they’ve probably already used one too.7

(Slide: Lessig quote)

“Free resources are crucial to innovation and creativity” says Stanford law
professor and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig,8 and “free” can be
surprisingly profitable.

(Slide: Doctrow quote {two parts})

In addition to selling his books through normal outlets, Author Corey Doctow
gives his books away via free download on his Web site. His fans even translate
them, for free, into different languages and file formats. Says Doctrow, “I’ve been
giving away my books online ever since my first novel, and boy has it ever made


me a bunch of money.”9

(Slide: Commerce and the commons)

The relationship between free content commons and commerce often produces this
kind of up-is-down, left-is-right freakonomics. It’s because of the power of
crowds—and the “network effect” in which the activity and contributions of users
creates a virtuous cycle: the freer a commons is, the more it is used; the more it is
used the better it becomes, and the better it becomes the more people will use it
and the more value it can create.

(Slide: Crazy…?)

In 2005, a technology company put 500 of its Information Technology patents into
a free and open “patent commons.” This company felt that their best interests
would be served if the open-source software community, on their own, developed
the unrealized potential of these privately-owned ideas so that they, the patent
owners, could reap the rewards too.

Cynically, one might say: Well…that must have made them feel good, but what
kind of a fool would give away active patents in a free commons? That’s crazy
talk!

(Slide: IBM)

Well, crazy like a fox.

The fool was IBM in 2005, and the combined value of the patents was $10M.

In 2006 it was estimated that IBM donated $100M worth of effort and intellectual
property into the open source software commons for the Linux operating system,
and reaped a 500% profit on that investment through the free contributions of
others. By investing in the commons, IBM gets a top-of-the-line operating system


for 20% of the price of building it themselves.10

And, institutional leaders take note: these efforts have transformed the company.
Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams write in Wikinomics,

(Slide: “IBM provides…”)

“IBM provides a surprising example of how a large, mature company with an
engrained proprietary culture can embrace openness and self-organization as
catalysts for reinvention.”11

(Slide: Shirky quote)

The kind of distributed collaboration a digital commons allows would have been
impossible even ten years ago. Clay Shirky, in Here Comes Everybody writes, “we
are living in the middle of a remarkable increase in our ability to share, to
cooperate with one another, and to take collective action, all outside the framework
of traditional institutions and organization …Getting the free and ready
participation of a large, distributed group with a variety of skills has gone from
impossible to simple.” 12

You used to need an Institution to collaborate: now you can do it, better and
cheaper, in your PJ’s from home.

(Slide: What is a commons—list)

Everywhere I’ve looked in the last year, I’ve seen the ascendance of free commons
models and the erosion of proprietary content models. For a lot of reasons, spelled
out at length in Wikinomics and the writings of Chris Anderson, Clay Shirky, Tim
O’Reilly, David Weinberger, and others, free and open beat closed and proprietary
every time.

Not only do I think that commons models are outperforming proprietary models in
most circumstances, not only do I think the commons models is more appropriate


for the Smithsonian’s mission and civic function, but they really do constitute a
unique new way of organizing.13

A Fundamental Institution for the 21st Century
Let’s look at some other examples of commons.

(Slide: D.C. data catalog)

The government of Washington, D.C. has created an astounding catalog of
government information, all available to citizens and for-profit companies, in real
time, to use and reuse for free. Washington CTO Vivek Kundra says “we want to
democratize data, and move into an era of participatory democracy where citizens
can hold the government accountable intelligently.”14

(Slide: NIH)

The National Institutes of Health requires all research grant awardees to publish
their results in a free content commons, rather than through exclusive and
expensive subscription journals. Publicly funded science goes into the public
domain.15

In a recent NPR story, Library of Congress spokesman Matt Raymond called
attention to the more than one million digital images available on their Web site for
free, no questions asked:

(Slide: Library of Congress quote)

“We were established by congress as a universal repository of human creativity
and knowledge, and that includes vast amounts of items that are in the public
domain. It is our mission to make those freely available, whether in the 21 reading
rooms of the Library of Congress, or online.” 16


The Smithsonian took a very different stance in the same story.

(Slide: Flickr Commons)

The Flickr Commons is a partnership between Yahoo/Flickr and public
photography collections across the globe. The idea is to increase access to museum
collections and experiment with the effect of Flickr’s social platform. The
Smithsonian joined the Flickr Commons in June, 2008.

(Slide: Fish sequence)

We’re only allowed to upload photographs with that have “no known copyright
restrictions.” The fact that we’re not asserting rights encourages use and re-use of
the content and is what makes this a commons. Almost immediately after we
upload photos they are harvested into the Wikimedia commons so they can enrich
Wikipedia articles.

(Slide: End-user survey data)

• 84% of our Flickr Commons users say they are likely to use or re-use our
Flickr images. (35% for school/academic use, 16% for
professional/commercial use.)
• 41% of users say they’ll reference our content from a blog or Web site.
• 97% of users say they’re more likely to visit Smithsonian Web sites as a
result of seeing our content on the Flickr.
• All respondents report that they have a more positive overall opinion of the
Smithsonian because of our contributions to the Flickr Commons—67%
with the most emphatic positive rating possible.17

(Slide: 8 vs 2,000)

Some of our photos get many more views on Flickr than our own sites. One


particular photo that was averaging 8 views/month on a Smithsonian site gets over
2,000 views a month on the Flickr Commons. Which site is doing a better job
increasing and diffusing “our” knowledge? Ours? Or Flickr’s?

Public tagging and comments have improved access to and knowledge about these
collections. It’s not uncommon for users to identify people and locations in
photographs or correct our mistakes. People love it.

(Slide: Flickr API)

Flickr also provides an example of “the programmable web.” Flickr’s public
Application Programmers Interface (API) allows anybody to create and share new
applications that use Flickr data. Many of these applications provide important
functionality for Flickr’s users, functionality that Flickr might not ever have gotten
around to providing, like mapping and visualization tools, and tools that allow
Flickr content to be embedded in 3rd party Web sites.

(Slide: Stanford 10M in 10 weeks)

This model has proved to be incredibly powerful, especially when applications can
be made and shared in a social network. Students in an undergraduate class at
Stanford, in a semester, built 23 new applications ten weeks using Facebook’s API.
Their applications were downloaded 10 million times and made between $500k
and $1M in ad revenue. Students formed three companies, (two of which were
acquired), bought cars, paid for tuition, and in a few cases quit school to seek their
fortunes elsewhere.18

Imagine, with our collections—our raw materials—the kind of activity that a
Smithsonian Commons platform and API could stimulate.

…But my favorite commons is the MIT Open Courseware project19.


(Slide: OCW, Triatno Yudo Harjoko)

OCW started in the early 1990’s as a faculty-driven strategic planning exercise:
How could MIT be relevant and have global impact in the coming digital age? The
answer was not, it felt, to create a for-profit, online, degree-granting university. But
what if it made the lectures and instruction of its professors available on the
Internet, for free?

Audacious!

Arguably the most valuable and exclusive asset of the university, the time and
expertise of its staff, formerly reserved for tuition-paying students, put online for
anybody to use?

But that’s exactly what they’ve done. And it’s a gas!

(Slide: OCW Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry)

Sometimes, depending on the lecture, quite literally.

(Slide: OCW Physics I)

The OCW project licenses content from the faculty (who own the intellectual
property of their courses, and who participate on a voluntary basis), re-licenses or
recreates supporting materials from 3rd party copyright holders, films and edits the
lectures, and puts it all online.

The project has made genuine superstars of many of the professors, has opened up
research, publishing, and collaboration opportunities for them, and has projected
the quality and worth of the institution out into the world.

(Slide: Harjoko quote)


I think one of the surprises for them was the extent to which OCW is used
overseas. A quote on their home page from Triatno Yudo Harjoko, head of the
Architecture department at the University of Indonesia reads: “I was amazed that a
university such as MIT would freely give access to its educational information.”
He’s using OCW to remake the curriculum at the University of Indonesia from one
“in which professors are assumed to be knowledge-bearers, and students are
expected to master a predetermined knowledge base” to one in which they are
“encouraging students to learn by themselves, and to be both critical and creative.”

How beautiful is that? Free content in an open commons at MIT used to teach
innovative thinking in a university half a world away.

How perfect it would be if content from a Smithsonian Commons—free, findable
and clearly licensed for reuse—was incorporated into instructional materials for
MIT Open Courseware? Or if OCW teaching was incorporated into Smithsonian
exhibitions or educational materials.

The concept of a Commons makes this kind of institution-to-institution
collaboration possible, and even likely, because it makes clear our desire for others
to use and reuse what we have, it clarifies the intellectual property status of
derivative works, and it aggregates content into a usable, valuable critical mass,
without the necessity of proprietary contracts. If MIT had chosen to develop a
formal contract with the University of Indonesia to accomplish the same ends, it
never would have happened.

(Slide: OCW tag line)

The tag on the OCW home page says “Unlocking Knowledge, Empowering
Minds.” No Registration Required.

That’s a great tag line. It should be ours.


(Slide: Shared characteristics)

What are the common characteristics of these commons?

• They all freely share information that, in 1.0 or pre-Internet paradigms,
would have been cloistered, restricted, enclosed, or directly monetized.
• They all use some kind of licensing, labeling, or permissions structure to tell
users what they can, and can’t, do with information in the commons.
• They rarely, if ever, assert rigid institutional boundaries around “their”
content. Information flows in, and out, across organizational and cultural
boundaries.
• They all take advantage of network effects and the power of crowds: the
more the commons is used the better it gets and the more people use it.

An Un-Common Institution
Now that we’ve taken a look a commons, let’s get a little background about the un-
common Smithsonian Institution itself.

(Slide: Hirshhorn, NASM, NMAI)

We are a vast, decentralized, enterprise. We’ve got 28 museums and research
centers, plus the National Zoo—we call them Business Units, or just units for
short.

(Slide: Diversity and depth)

The diversity and depth of our endeavors and physical collections is astounding.
We run a satellite x-ray telescope in outer space. We have databases of animal
DNA. We’re preserving extinct languages. We’re conserving the original Star
Spangled Banner. We have 137 million things in our official museum collections,
and our domain is the entire universe and all that happens in it.


And we have the talented, independent, and opinionated workforce you’d expect
with a mission like that. (There’s a joke I like to tell about this: We hire a
consultant who, in their first meeting, asks how many employees we have. 6,000
we say. Then he or she asks “How many volunteers?” About 6,000, we answer.
Then they ask “How many top-level decision-makers?” With a straight face we
answer, honestly, 12,000.)

(Slide: 99% decentralized)

But among our staff there is not a single person whose job is knowledge
management. The Office of the CIO is funded to provide the Institution with a
basic Web infrastructure and a handful of support staff, but practically everything
else on the Web is done by the business units. 99% of our digital production is
funded and executed by the units. And the unit-based Web teams can be very
small, sometimes consisting of just a single part-time content-coordinator.

(Slide: Thousand wildflowers)

We call this the “thousand wildflowers blooming in the wilderness” model, and it
is the result of the Institution’s cash-strapped operations and early ambivalence
toward the Web. Back in the late 1990’s, given uncertainty about the future of the
Internet, the latent tension between central control and unit autonomy, risk
aversion, and budget pressure, there were few incentives to establish a strong,
central organization or unifying vision.

There are a lot of great things about the thousand wildflowers in the wilderness
model, and there is a lot of visionary, award-winning work going on in the units.
Web magic truly happens when collections (or research data), experts, and the
public are in close proximity. And it certainly beats what, from the unit
perspective, is presumed to be the alternative: dictatorial standardization from a
central authority.


But with those 137 million objects, a dynamic and increasingly Web 2.0-savvy
workforce, and the mission to increase and diffuse knowledge, we’re leaving a lot
of value on the table by working in silos.

(Slide: Enumerating weaknesses)

Search and findability20 across the Web properties is poor. Usability and branding
are incoherent. Web 2.0 patterns underutilized. And the units can’t afford to
establish, maintain, and refine the platforms they want on their own, never mind
that if they could, the repetition of effort or the devastating effect on end-users
would be calamitous: Imagine 30 separate e-commerce, event ticketing, or
personalization system.

Nobody would rationally design the online operations of a world-class Institution
this way. The sum of the individual parts—the individual wildflowers—don’t add
up to more than the whole, and they should. And it’s hurting us.

How much?

Unexpected Rivals

Unexpected Rivals in Search

High profile SI projects don’t project their might online

Let’s say you did a Google search on something we here know and care quite a bit
about: the oceans.

(Slide: “Ocean” search on Google.)

You get six results above the fold: Google Images, Wikipedia, Ocean.com,
discoveryeducation.com, a site hosted by NASA (which, ironically, the Smithsonian


and a NASA researcher created in 1995 and which we don’t host on our own site),
and something called enchantedlearning.com. The first Smithsonian domain shows
up five pages later: result number 55.

Now this is a little unfair: we all know it’s easy to play “gotcha” with Google
search engine results, so what can we find out about relative traffic and use-
patterns among these sites?

Unexpected Rivals: Reach

(Slide: relative online reach of top 4 search winners)

A search on “ocean” reveals a Web

According to Alexa21 three of our Google search competitors, Google Images,
Wikipedia, and NASA, are so much more popular than we are that our traffic
doesn’t even show up on the graph with them. Note that we’re measuring the Daily
Reach of the whole si.edu domain and all its sub domains, not just those relevant to
oceans.

Even enchantedlearning.com beats si.edu in terms of Alexa’s Daily Reach
measurement. I’ll repeat that, enchantedlearning.com, a two person operation —a
site for elementary-school kids!—challenges and beats the Smithsonian, the
world’s largest museum and research complex, in online reach.22

James Smithson would be horrified. Or maybe he’d be funding
enchantedlearning.com. (This, actually, wouldn’t surprise me. Smithson was
known as a shrewd investor.23)

Unexpected Rivals: Traffic Trending Down


First ever quarterly drop in SI Web traffic while use of social sites increases

(Slide: Alexa stats for si.edu)

Another thing to notice from Alexa is that our traffic is trending down. Alexa says
we’re down 13% over the last three months, and our own log data tells us that our
traffic was down last quarter for the first time ever.

So where is our audience going? Enchantedlearning.com? Maybe. Social sites?
Probably.24

Unexpected Rivals: Brand Identity

We might not be as prominent as we thought

(Slide: Battlebrands)

And what about our overall “Smithsonian Brand?” The clever and surprising
(though not scientific) Battlebrands Web site, using the results from thousands of
head-to-head votes between random brands, ranks the Smithsonian as the 371st
most impressive of almost 800 brands, a little above Fritos and a little below TGI
Fridays. I’m not sure whether this is good or bad, but we’re definitely not up there
on hallowed ground where we thought we’d be.25

We’re Competing With…Everybody

User-contributed content dwarfs what the Institution can accomplish on its own.

(Slide: Spaceshipone on National Air and Space Museum site)

Let’s say you’re as fascinated by Spaceshipone as I am. (Spaceshipone is the first
privately funded craft to carry a person into space: it won the X Prize and was


designed and built by Burt Rutan and funded by Paul Allen.) It’s hanging—a
monument to outside-the-box thinking— in the National Air and Space Museum a
block from my office. I go. I see it. If I want to know more I can go to NASM’s
site and find a picture, a QTVR of the cockpit (which is very cool), and some
authoritative text.

(Slide: Spaceshipone on Wikipedia)

Now look what happens when I search on Wikipedia. Hyperlinks!

(Slide: Spaceshipone on YouTube)

And on YouTube—a cornucopia of footage!26

(Slide: Spaceshipone on Flickr)

Or Flickr: over two-thousand images tagged, by users, with exactly Spaceshipone:
launch pictures, cockpit pictures, fan photos, spaceshipone tattoos —it’s
predictably amazing.

So if you’re John or Sally Q. Public and you want to know about the things in your
world, where are you going to go? Which Web sites gives you what you’re looking
for?

How can our small Web teams, or even the whole Institution, compete…with
everybody? Should we fight them, or join them?

The Demographic Tsunami

Today’s digital natives are tomorrow’s core audiences

(Slide: demographic tsunami: Pew research chart)

The habits, ideas, and perceptions of “everyone” is changing. This is


fundamentally a different world than the one I grew up in, and a tsunami of
demographic changes is about to hit us.

(slide: Online content creation by age)

This is a chart of the percent of people engaged in online content creation graphed
against their age. Younger people on the left-hand side of this chart tend to have
radically different assumptions about information, brands, and the relationship
between online vs. offline, but we tend to cater to the constituencies for our
traditional offerings, which tend to skew older.

One day, we’re going to wake up and that line (on the graph) will have moved far,
far to the right—social networks, mobile access, and commons patterns will be part
of everyday life for our core demographic. If they’re not already.

(Slide: Lee Rainie quote)

Lee Rainie, Director of the Pew Internet in American Life project says “Everything
we hear from people we interview is that today’s consumers draw no distinctions
between an organization’s Web site and their traditional bricks-and-mortar
presence: both must be excellent for either to be excellent.” 27

Memo to the Smithsonian: The Tsunami is coming.

The Smithsonian Commons
(Slide: How shall we…?)

So I ask again: How shall the Smithsonian advance the increase and diffusion of
knowledge, now? Hopefully, as I’ve been talking, you’ve been able to draw crisp
lines between the challenges and opportunities I’ve described and a way forward
for an institution like mine.


(Slide: Givens… {sequence})

Given that we’re a publicly funded institution with a civic mission. Given the
nature of that mission. Given the enormous scope of our endeavors and our siloed
operations.

Given the model of the commons…the rise of social media, the rise of distributed
collaboration, the rise of crowdsourcing, the rise of “free” business models, and
shifting attitudes about content and brands…

(Slide: Game changer)

…I assert that reshaping our digital identity around the concept of a Smithsonian
Commons is the way to move forward—it’s the game changer: a low risk, high
reward proposition that addresses the fundamental challenges of the Institution in
terms of brand, audience, operations, speed, governance, integrity, education,
research, revenue generation, leadership, and legacy.

(Slides: challenge-by-challenge)

• Brand
The simple concept of a commons brings cohesion and clarity to the
Smithsonian’s vast online offerings. A preeminent and rising brand can
attract users, subscribers, sponsors and philanthropic dollars.
• Audience erosion
Bricks-and-mortar audiences are not capable of growing as fast, as large, or
as efficiently as online audiences. Through the commons model we can seed
the Internet with high-value content and use social networks to increase the
relevance and value of our work. People—especially people under the age of
30—are going to immediately understand and respond to the idea of a free
Smithsonian Commons.


• Operation in silos
A voluntary commons model built on transparency and trust—and
supporting (rather than competing with) the work of the units, provides an
excellent alternative to working in silos.
• Speed
Bricks-and-mortar initiatives can take a long time to get off the ground. The
commons model can be prototyped and made genuinely useful in a short
period of time. In the time it’s taken to give this talk we could have used free
consumer technologies to create a terrific Smithsonian Commons social
network site. Maybe somebody has.
• Doing more with less
In this economic climate, and facing an unfunded backlog of building
maintenance projects, it’s more important than ever to be able to do more
with less. The beauty of the commons is that it scales: by involving the
public we can amplify the reach and impact of the Institution’s baseline
activities. There are only a few of us: there are billions of Internet users a
click or two away. We probably have things they’re interested in and they’ll
love us if we share.
• Governance and integrity
To be successful, a commons must be inherently trusted and transparent.
These are excellent reflexes to cultivate and highlight within the Institution.
This is the right model to perpetuate.
• Education
Planning next-generation education programs is a top-priority at the
Smithsonian. A content commons can serve both as a collaborative
workspace used to create programs and a clearinghouse used to distribute
and improve them.


• Research
Smithsonian researchers need private, semi-private, and public collaboration
and information-access platforms to advance and share their work.
Aggregating these services into a commons provides a stable base and opens
the door to new kinds of cross-disciplinary investigation. When we first
started putting collections online in the 1990’s we were able to see our
holdings in brand new ways: imaging now being to see across collections,
and across institutions, with the same clarity.
• Revenue generation in harmony with mission
Attempting to monetize access to, and use of, media and ideas is not a
sustainable business model. Through these low-margin business practices we
alienate users, perpetuate the practice of institutions charging each other,
discourage research and publication, and undermine our civic mission. The
commons presents a win-win alternative: gradually reduce our dependence
on revenue from access and use fees by aggregating visitors under a strong
brand and offering sponsorships and other value-added products and
services. (NPR has an exemplary business model in this regard.) We’re
going to make much more money with “free” and a large audience than by
charging for transactions with a small audience, and it’s a much better fit
with our mission.
• Leadership Position
Championing free and open content and asserting the critical role of public
institutions in stimulating innovating and knowledge creation would define
the Smithsonian as a leader. Science, education, creativity, and civic
discourse are all headed towards a participatory commons model. Being out
front now will heighten our influence and stature, and funders are often
willing to help institutions take risks if it’s likely they can succeed and lead.


• Institutional legacy
The Smithsonian Commons can leave a lasting legacy for the Institution. It
is truly a return to the roots of our mission, a gift to the world, and a vote of
confidence in participatory culture and innovation. The Smithsonian
Commons marries James Smithson’s vision of what a knowledge institution
can and should be to how knowledge can and will be created in this century.
It’s also a vote of confidence in the transcendent creativity and imagination
of the people, and I think James Smithson would approve.

(Slide: Transition)

(Slide: “I want to be a commons”)

(Slide: “Don’t forget about us”)

The Smithsonian Commons…coming soon?
(Slide: …Coming soon?)

This has been a big download—a lot of information to unpack and digest.

I want to leave you, as a last impression, with a more emotional perspective…

(Play trailer movie)


References
Alexa. Alexa.com. Alexa. http://www.alexa.com (accessed 11 13, 2008).

Anderson, Chris. Free! Why $0.00 is the future of business. 2 25, 2008.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free (accessed 11 24, 2008).

Battlebrands. http://brandtags.net (accessed 11 13, 2008).

Blonder, Greg. Business Week: Cutting Through the Patent Thicket. 12 20, 2005.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051220_827695.ht
m (accessed 11 24, 2008).

Bollier, David. A Rennissance of the Science Commons. 10 14, 2005.
http://www.onthecommons.org/content.php?id=659 (accessed 11 24, 2008).

Christensen, Clayton. The Inventor's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause
Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

Creative Commons. CC Learn. http://learn.creativecommons.org/about/ (accessed
11 18, 2008).

—. Science Commons. http://sciencecommons.org/ (accessed 11 18, 2008).

Foray, Dominique. The Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004.

Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business. Wired. 2 25, 2008.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free (accessed 11 13, 2008).

quot;Global Mobile Phone Users Top 3.3 Billion By End-2007.quot; ICT Statistics
Newslog. 5 26, 2007. http://www.itu.int/ITU-
D/ict/newslog/Global+Mobile+Phone+Users+Top+33+Billion+By+End2007.aspx
(accessed 11 11, 2008).

Green, David L. Ed. IQuote: Brilliance and Banter from the Internet Age. CT:


Lyons Press, 2008.

Hess and Ostrom, Ed. Understand Knowedge as a Commons. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 2007.

Hotle, Matthew. quot;'Just Enough' Process for Applications (Document ID
G00145561).quot; Gartner.com. 3 7, 2007. http://www.gartner.com/ (accessed 11 14,
2008).

Internet World Stats. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed 11 18,
2008).

Kundra, Vivek. quot;Creating the Digital Public Square.quot; Slideshare.com. 9 9, 2008.
http://www.slideshare.net/forumone/creating-the-digital-public-square-
presentation/ (accessed 11 11, 2008).

Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected
World. New York: Random House, 2001.

Malamud, Carl. quot;Memo re: smithsonianimages.si.edu.quot; public.resource.org. 5 19,
2007. http://public.resource.org/memo.2007.05.19.html (accessed 11 11, 2008).

Massachusetts Institute of Technology . MIT Open Courseware .
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm (accessed 11 14, 2008).

McCracken, Harry. PC World: Google's Eric Schmidt at D (sic). 5 31, 2007.
http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/004530.html (accessed 11 14, 2008).

Meet the experts: Robert Sutor on the IBM patent commons initiative, IBM
Developerworks. 5 23, 2005.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-sutorinterview.html
(accessed 11 11, 2008).


Morville, Peter. Ambient Findability: What We Find Changes Who We Become.
O'Reilly Media, 2005.

National Institutes of Health. PubMed Central (PMC).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ (accessed 11 14, 2880).

New York Times: Disney Retreats at Bull Run . 9 30, 1994.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E0DA1F3AF933A0575AC0
A962958260&scp=5&sq=disney%20eisner%20manassas&st=cse (accessed 11 14,
2008).

NPR. NPR: Protest Puts Smithsonian Images on Flickr Site. 5 27, 2007.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10451425 (accessed 11 14,
2008).

O'Reilly, Tim. quot;Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software.quot; O'Reilly.com. 9 30, 2005.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
(accessed 4 24, 2008).

Porn passed over as Web users become social. Reuters. 9 16, 2008.
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSSP31943720080916?pageNu
mber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112&sp=true (accessed 11 13, 2008).

Salleh, Anna. ABC Science: quot;Old Boysquot; club holding back science. 10 3, 2008.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/03/2380624.htm (accessed 11 18,
2008).

Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody. New York: Hyperion, 2008.

Smithsonian Institution. quot;Smithsonian Institution FY 2007 Annual Report.quot;
Smithsonian Institution.


http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/2007report/Smithsonian2007.pdf (accessed 11
11, 2008).

Tancer, Bill. Click: What Millions of People are Doing Online and Why it Matters.
New York: Hyperion, 2008.

Tapscott, Don and Williams, Anthony D. Wikinomics. USA: Penguin, 2006.

Thompson, Clive. Clive Thompson on Social Networks and the Wrath of Moms.
Wired. 10 20, 2008. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-
11/st_thompson (accessed 11 13, 2008).

von Hipple, Eric. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.

1
Internet World Stats, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
2
November, 2007 statistics from International Telecommunications Union, http://www.itu.int/ITU-
D/ict/newslog/Global+Mobile+Phone+Users+Top+33+Billion+By+End2007.aspx
3
James Smithson set the wheels in motion in his will, which was drafted in 1826.
http://www.si.edu/about/history.htm
4
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alex Kozinski, emphasized the role of free content and the public domain in
an influential 1988 intellectual property decision involving, of all people, game show icon Vanna White. Judge
Kozinski wrote: “Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and
technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection
stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture.” (Lessig 2001) p 203
5
This is an almost universal idea. I picked up on the idea of rights “thickets” from Hess and Ostrom (2007) and also
Blonder (2005), though I believe it’s origin is elsewhere.
6
Bollier, 2005
7
See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ for a description of the Attribution-Noncommercial license
8
Lessig, 2001, p 14
9
Green, 2008
10
Tapscott, 2006, p 81. On Meet the experts: Robert Sutor on the IBM patent commons initiative (IBM
Developerworks, 2005) Robert Sutor, Vice President of Standards at IBM says about their patent commons: “This is
all about increasing innovation. This is all about understanding that open and collaborative work is becoming
increasingly important, and that when balanced with the traditional proprietary model, open and collaborative work
can drive new and wonderful things for the industry.”
11
Tapscott 2006, p 83
12
Shirky, p 21
13
As Nancy Kranich, former head of the American Library Association, puts it, “Understanding knowledge as a
commons offers a way not only of countering the challenges of access posed by enclosure [of resources], but of
building a fundamental institution for the twenty-first century.” (Hess and Ostrom, 2007, p 92)


14
Kundra, 2008
15
National Institutes of Health, see References for URL
16
The NPR story, Protest Puts Smithsonian Images on Flickr Site, contrasts the Smithsonian’s public
domain policies with those of the Library of Congress. The context of the Matt Raymond quote is:
“Like the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress gets the majority of its funding from the Federal
Government, but the library is taking a very different approach to the prints and photographs it makes
available online. Spokesman Matt Raymond says that more than 1 Million digital images are available for
free, no questions asked. ‘We were established by congress as a universal repository of human creativity
and knowledge, and that includes vast amounts of items that are in the public domain. It is our mission to
make those freely available, whether in the 21 reading rooms of the Library of Congress, or online.’
(NPR 2007)
17
From an ongoing end-user survey of our Flickr Commons users. Official/final results have not yet been released.
18
From the author’s written notes, O’Reilly Graphing Social Patterns conference, June 6, 2008. Also
http://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/10-million-in-10-weeks-stanford-facebook-class-fall-2007-dave-mcclure
19
Massachusetts Institute of Technology OCW, see Works Cited for URL
20
My first contact with the word “findability” was through reading Peter Morville’s Ambient Findability: What We
Find Changes Who We Become (O’Reilly, 2005). I use the word to escape the traps of talking about search,
information architecture, design, and labeling in isolation. Findability is all of those things interacting together.
21
A web-traffic measurement tool that uses online panels of users to measure traffic.
http://www.alexa.com.
22
The enchantedlearning.com “about” page says: “Enchanted Learning, LLC produces children's
educational web sites and games which are designed to capture the imagination while maximizing
creativity, learning, and enjoyment. We believe that children learn the most (and retain it the longest)
when they are actively involved in educational pursuits that are clear, logical, stimulating, and fun. Ease
of use is a hallmark of our material. Children need the clearest, simplest computer interface, and our
material is created so that the navigation and controls are intuitive. Our mission is to produce educational
materials that emphasize creativity and the pure enjoyment of learning. The underlying message is that
curiosity and exploration lead to delightful learning experiences. WEB SITES DEVELOPED by Jeananda
Col and Mitchell Spector” http://www.enchantedlearning.com/ELS.shtml accessed 11/12/2008
23
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Smithson
24
Even pornography may be losing to social sites. In a widely reported story, Bill Tancer of Hitwise says in his book
Click that “surfing for porn” has dropped in half over the last ten years. “My theory is that young users spend so
much time on social networks that they don't have time to look at adult sites,” says Tancer. (Porn passed over as
Web users become social, 2008.
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSSP31943720080916?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=1
0112&sp=true )
25
http://brandtags.net
26
For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNXahIoXMw8
27
Email to the author, 21 April, 2008. Author Bruce Sterling puts it another way: “If you’re under 21 you don’t
likely care about any supposed difference between virtual and actual, online and off. That’s because the realms are
penetrating each other. Google Earth mingles with Google Maps and daily life shows up on Flickr.” (Green, 2008)


Imagining a Smithsonian Commons (text version)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (18)

Semelhante a Imagining a Smithsonian Commons (text version)

Semelhante a Imagining a Smithsonian Commons (text version) (20)

Mais de Michael Edson

Mais de Michael Edson (20)

Último

Último (20)

Imagining a Smithsonian Commons (text version)