 And at least some reference to your affiliation or context or background, where do you come from next to your user name or the real name? So why am I showing the graphics of Sex Pistols, the famous punk group? A few days ago, the author of this graphics and prominent designer, Jamie Reid, died. And he was one of the maybe most prominent designers of that era, of that particular cultural movement that was introduced mainly through the work of this punk rock band, but also through other work and became a kind of a legendary artist graphic designer that is now featured in many collections. And as you can see, has 11 Wikipedia pages, is part of databases of prominent institutions, like Tate, MoMA, V&A, and Europeana, Meta, Collections, and so on for it. What is interesting about this is that he came from the kind of underground movement, came as an outsider, as an anarchist, kind of radical person who became part of the mainstream culture, recognized as someone who has developed a particular visual language and who has produced kind of significant contribution to the field of visual art and design. So if I ask you now, if you would, do you listen to independent music and do you know of bands that are equally, that have started equally independently in unknown, under visible, prominent kind of areas, everyone would say at least that they know at least a few bands, even if they are not diehard punk or techno or whichever enthusiasts, but they likely know at least some bands that are worth mentioning and that are worth Wikipedia articles. What is interesting that this Wikidata item for independent music was created long ago, so there is a very well kind of established interest in this field. And this is something that is kind of common knowledge that it means to be mapped, that it's encyclopedic knowledge. So it was in Wikidata it was created by BOT in 2012, but it already had many independent Wikipedia articles before Wikidata was picking up this particular set of Wikipedia articles to connect them. What is less obvious and less prominent is the field of independent culture. So when you discuss independent film, independent music, people will say, oh, this is super common. This needs to be part of Wikipedia and Wikidata, but for independent culture, which is a more general term, there was no such interest. And me as a Wikimedia contributor who looks into this field, particularly was surprised that in 2001, there was still no Wikidata item. So I created one at November 13, thinking, OK, this is really something that needs to be done urgently and needs to be done by multiple people and that contributions need to be more systematic. So aside from starting this particular item and trying to add independent contributors, I started creating a discourse around this that is a discourse of looking at culture through non-glamorous lens. So Wikimedia had this problem historically that it came from the heritage of traditional encyclopedic publications that was looking primarily into traditional historic cultures, not into contemporary cultures. And it was connecting also to institutional knowledge, starting most often with high-level institutions that are part of GLAM networks that are either galleries, libraries, archives or museums. And most often, neglecting culture and arts produced independently or produced in what is called the civil sector, the culture that is not yet there inside of the mainstream institutions. It's interesting to note that 20 years ago, when the open movement was starting on web in large scale with Wikimedia or Wikipedia and Creative Commons, this was not the case. For example, there were a lot of connections in between independent cultural workers, independent artists, and especially Creative Commons. Maybe not so much Wikipedia, but there were some. So in the past three years, I've been working in this particular field. I've had a few collaborators in different configurations of projects that were all super small kind of experimental projects in Croatia when we were documenting 20 years of independent cultural network called Clucture. But also internationally, where I was joined by a few prominent Wikimedians and podcasters to do something about PixelAX festival and this idea of documenting new media festivals and independent culture internationally. This was presented in the past two years in the Ohrid CE meeting and in the Piazma Museum of Helsinki. So what, how and for full is non-institutional, non-glamorous culture. So it is primarily the culture that lives outside of well-established galleries, libraries, archives, museums. This still means that it is connected to open glam movement. It is still connected to Creative Commons that is still connected to glam wiki initiatives, but it is focusing on individual practitioners and not on institutional connections. It's connected to small organizations, to initiatives and not to those so-called low-hanging fruits that are so common in Wikimedia movement. So in past three years, I've done these experiments across different projects starting with Wikipedia, but actually not spending so much time there, mostly focusing on Wikidata Commons and the new project, which is called, well, new projects. New projects in development, which is called Wikispor, I can maybe advertise Wikispor again. If you are there in person in Singapore, you can maybe talk to Richard and Gergo about how to join Wikispor for experimental projects like this. What is super important about this topic is that I think it connects really closely to what are infrastructural aspirations of Wikidata inside of the Wikimedia movement. So Wikidata wants to create more decentralized, more independent content hosts through different piki bases that federate. And this totally would make sense with content that is not so focused on Wikipedia, but actually focused on media recordings and open data recordings. It's also important that these projects are produced in a decentralized way and to help diversify existing work in Wikimedia. Most of the work in Wikimedia is nominally diverse, is nominally dissentered, but actually there are a lot of roadblocks if you want to contribute content that is not popular inside of the mainstream publications. And whoever works in small Wikipedia, they can confirm the same. So yeah, I would, this was the first project I did that was doing primarily NGOs, there were around 50 NGOs that are members of Clapture Network. Another 20 or 30 were formerly members each year this network supports five or six totally new projects and five or six projects that were done by existing members. So it's very participation and open culture focused network. So although it doesn't focus on new media exclusively and production of media. It does use some of these ethical and methodological approaches. We're mostly busy with correcting and filling the info gaps, getting media permissions to get these first initial publishings of all the entities to have first categories to have organizations adopt CNC licensing for their future work. And to create some umbrella articles about independent cultural scene information. So we were offering to to put information into database and we thought this would be too much to ask for for people who are already struggling with resources and time and people. We followed it and link it in between Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata and then offer education and support how they could update and maintain this. There's multiple problems that would be probably common on many different Wikipedia's smaller languages that existing admins or oversighters were thinking that this is not relevant enough, or this is content that is not well articulated, because they didn't come across it they didn't see it on TV or in mainstream press. And there was lack of academic research. However, most of these organizations do have very prominent social media accounts. They have a lot of visibility in public space like they produce a lot of posters flyers among youth, the new generation of people who go to concerts to go to festivals and exhibitions. They have really big visibility. The problem is, most small Wikipedia's don't have the same category of people contributing. I'm going to skip few things because we are running out of time. I would love if you could. Yeah, one of the biggest problems was that our ecosystem of Wikimedia is super complex to solve to explain someone how to contribute where and when and how to manage resources is almost impossible. One of the biggest issues is communication across different channels that we basically assume everyone is using telegram that people know how to respond and how to read our terminology how to read our slang and their language skills are high and they are willing to communicate on this level of expertise. So, what I'm proposing now is basically for you to think about the content discrepancy we have been creating for 20 years, just focusing on this low hanging fruits, that was mostly heritage of US institutions because there was a lot of access in big US institutions for Wikipedians to go to and consider in other countries in other contexts, what are the smaller NGOs and what are the smaller entities that need to be covered and maybe try to do them although they are much more wild and less accessible as fruits. In terms of user commitment, there is a problem that many admins on smaller projects have this benevolent attitude toward content that is marginalized. And then in the same time we have contributors that are over committing contributions to the projects and think that the projects are kind of owned and they have to take care of them fully and whatever is marginalized, marginal needs to be extra carefully selected or has to be taken off. So, one of the biggest issues when we're doing Wikipedia is that some basic articles, like the notion of community for example didn't even exist in Croatian Wikipedia, like you would be able, you would not be able to explain a notion of participation or community cultural production if you don't have these articles. Yeah, what I'm kind of focusing now and trying to promote to new Wikimedians who are joining is to think both in encyclopedic way for the articles but also in just machine readable accessible way to produce at least wiki data items and produce at least Wikimedia uploads for the time being until the kind of encyclopedic entries become more easy to create. So, I'm going to skip creative commons discussions, categorization and data modeling. There is a wiki project on wiki data that is specifically focused on civil society networks that I will be sharing. And what were the biggest learnings in this is that we had to start much slower and much more modest than we initially thought. We needed to coordinate with a lot of people on methods. Unfortunately, not many people are interested in contemporary culture, and especially in marginalized contemporary culture. And we needed to find resources that are already well organized that are part of existing community archives or part of documentation centers. Yeah, I'm very interested in what other people have been doing in this field or in this wannabe field because it still doesn't really exist as a notion. Unlike Wikimedia user group classics that has a very specific kind of focus on antique kind of classical culture. But Wikimedia doesn't have a group that would deal with modernity and with contemporary contributions. So yeah, if anyone is interested in creating something equivalent to Wikimedia user group classics, but focusing on modern and contemporary please get in touch. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'm wrapping up the presentation, and I would love to see if you, people did not sign into the Etherpad. The Etherpad link got distributed or not. If you are interested in this topic, I would love to keep in touch, and then we can maybe do a session that is not tied into the very short conference format that we have now. Are there any questions? If not, yeah, I will just remain available on the contacts as you can see in the listing of the session.