 ਆ � boşൗ ൗ൮� graduateディд絵 and ਆ ਹൗ Deixaidi. Ao �iga � rol in t etzed za ni  компьютur i seasoned ആ ത൉オ� romance Launt തൖആ൘൒ൖൌ� crocodil velope centro tb ൪്ത൒൓ത൅� Psycho ์가락 ପ�ມതൠīíveis Eastern ব�ൿ�程 ਕཅ༱ມ༱�. and all the different things it could do, all the pictures, all the content it could have. And the project there in our heads grew and grew, it became more and more massive. But it would be our project in Hwanganui, we would have the great Ork database. Heaven knows why. So I want to talk about these sorts of branded projects that can occur when you're not paying attention and how I now think about them differently from having edited Wikipedia for some time. I'm a giant flightless bird on Wikipedia. I do a reasonable amount of work there and I'm a constant proselytiser at NDF for the value of it in glam institutions. And a typical project would be the Critter of the Week project I do where the radio host and a doc officer trying to create or enhance a Wikipedia page for each new endangered species they talk about each week. And this is growing and growing and to incorporate other volunteers, some of them in this audience until it's become actually quite a useful resource that doc itself now refers to if they want to get information. So I had some experience with small Wikipedia projects but massive branded projects are the ones I want to talk about. What are MBPs? They almost always have a pretty logo of some kind. They are usually a large, complex, multi-person, interdisciplinary, multiple institution project with a significant budget and it's taken a certain amount of time. They're usually independent, proprietary and are branded with the institutions that came up with them. What are some characteristics of massive branded projects? They're usually pretty good. So a lot of work has gone into them. They're usually well funded, well designed, well thought out. They are generally an excellent resource. However, there are some downsides. They're slow. It takes a long time to start one. It takes a long time to change direction if you're even able to. And if there are problems or omissions or errors, they can take a long time to update. They are expensive. They're expensive in dollars and expensive in time and they are never ever fed. They are always hungry. They're hungry for your staff. They're hungry for your budget. And unfortunately, most of them seem to be doomed. So either one of two ignominious fates will often occur to them. They will either quietly shrivel away like a raisin or they will become a zombie, which is a site that looks like it is alive. But if you get too close to it, it eats your brain. So from looking at a lot of massive branded projects, I've come up with three humble suggestions that I think we could think about in the glam sector. These are just my opinions. And of course, if you don't like them, I have others. We could think about starting small rather than big. Here's an example of a massive branded project that didn't. The New Zealand Organism Register was an ambitious attempt to come up with a perfect list of all the species of that occur in New Zealand, as well as their common names, Māori names, old obsolete names, the literature, and ways that it could be used by multiple different institutions. So this was first mooted in 2000. The concept was developed by a large team for six years. Another four years later, they got $944,000 to spend three years building this and entered 145,000 species' names. Not all of them valid, as we'll see. And then they ran out of money and the funding has stopped. So the site is now alive, technically. If you lean too close, you can hear it shot brains. It's sitting there on land care. There's no money, there's no funding for any ongoing support maintenance correction, even though in the interim, species have arrived in New Zealand, taxonomy has changed, it needs constant updating. So this is a good example. Now, compare that with a similar example in the public sphere, which is wiki species. Started off entirely by volunteers, 494,000 species listed, doing them was the same job, no, not a cent of taxpayer money. The second suggestion is to embrace the idea of open editing. Let's go back to the New Zealand organism register. I search for my species, Dynornus of the giant Moa. It's the most obvious thing for me to search straight away, I type that in. And we come up with six species, one genus. But I look closer at that and I see, wait a minute. Two of those species' names are obsolete. We haven't used them for 10 years. Those species don't exist. Two others are eras caused by capitalisation problems, but have been entered as a separate item in the database. So there's big problems here that won't be fixed. If we go to wiki species, we find that in fact, that there's just two species, two correct ones listed. All the references are nice and neat, all the synonyms are listed. It's all been done by volunteers that didn't cost the New Zealand public ascent. Why aren't we using wiki species? Well apparently it doesn't provide structured data to deliver the specific range of digital services required by our end users. So it's actually a data structure problem, not a content problem. And yet NZOR created all this content fresh, reinventing the wheel. Notice by the way the typo and the heading there, which sat there for about three years and took three months for them to change when I noted. If of course it had been an open project, I would have been able to go in and fix it myself. So yes, we build on open resources, the New Zealand birds online database. Again, a clone of parts of Wikipedia, a collaborative project with several institutions. It's really good. It has things like a bird song library. It has access to copyrighted sections from copyrighted books, which you'd never be able to do any other way. It has a lovely photo archive, but you'll see what's the copyright on that photo. Philip Griffin by Philip Griffin, Philip Griffin. So there's something wrong here. Here's their library of 48 tui photographs, all selected by volunteers and donated to them. What's the useability status of those? Well, once tui are copyrighted and we have an email address, tui are many a copyrighted, all we know is the author name. And some we just have a URL. Two of those are 404s. Some shouldn't even be copyrighted. Doc doesn't release things under this license anymore. So lots of problems. Finally, we should consider launching, make the start, not the end. Here's a traditional Glam project. I'm sure you're all familiar with this. A good idea. Active excitement, desperation and panic leading up to deadline, collapse. After which no change happens until the end of the project. Wikipedia projects tend to occur in more healthy ways. Questioning, activity, activity, activity and a constant churn that gradually improves it without that desperation and collapse. So in conclusion, my opinion is that big branded projects are great, but they have some downfall, some flaws. We should consider starting small using open resources and treating the launch as a starting point. Thank you.