Smarthistory: The Blog

Two good friends of mine started up a project called SmartHistory (smarthistory.org), that just may be the most “open” organization I know of.

“Smarthistory.org is a free and open, not-for-profit, art history textbook. We use multimedia to deliver unscripted conversations between art historians about the history of art. We are seeking contributors—especially for canonical non-Western material and other survey topics not yet covered. We welcome comments, feedback and corrections.” The site has won some pretty impressive accolades:

- Webby Award: Best Education Website
- PC Magazine, Top 100 Websites
- Gold Award, AVICOM, International Council of Museums (ICOM)
- Mindshare Award, for history, 2nd place
- Exploratorium, Ten Cool Websites
- Communication Arts magazine webpick of the week

In addition to several articles:

- The Chronicle of Higher Education: ‘Smarthistory’ Rethinks the Art-History Textbook Online
- The Huffington Post: Smarthistory
- EdTech Digest: Taking a Close Look at Smarthistory
- Communication Arts: Webpick of the Week
- 2010 Horizon Report

I think this project embodies many of the attributes I think are necessary to Open,

- reuse: their work is available through the Open Educational Resources Commons and Creative Commons licensed.

- collaboration: decision-making is influenced by and emerges from the community

- self-organization: they accept content from anyone on anything (open participation), and anyone can take on any role (open organization)

- transparency: all of their activities are exposed, e.g. projects and funding, (open access)

- openness: the direction for development is based on the interests and activities of the contributors and community

What is interesting, is that Smarthistory is eating their own open dog food with financing too. They have recently started up a Kickstarter campaign (http://kck.st/hhRyA6) to raise money for ongoing production/support costs. I like the idea of this approach, which to me resembles a meritocracy–where value (in this case an Art History text) is directly determined by the community (i.e. Art educators, students and institutions). Ideally (and I mean, “in an ideal manner”), if an open project can mature through the contribution of content, code, intellectual property, etc., why can’t it mature through donations? This allows me, a non-art historian without content to contribute, who does not have the time/skill to support their production, to be a “developer.” I think this is much different than seeking partners and sponsorships, who may direct development away from the interests of the community. Smarthistory adheres to the philosophy that the value/relevance/quality of the project is directly determined by the commitment of the community. For me I am wondering if this level of openness should be something I include in my own definition.

Patrick

P.S. you can become a developer to at: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/360446359/smarthistory-art-history-conversation

Patrick Masson
Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline

Originally posted on the Openness listserv at Educause