|
This is a significant crossroads for the AIS. From the research that Bob Pries has done and the questions Dennis has brought up, the AIS is in a place of "going forward" or "going backward". Financially, obviously the AIS needs more members and more people seeing our product. The Wiki will be a HUGE source for our product--info on irises of all classes and varieties, in time, maybe, THE source. I like the idea of the Wiki, in a sense, "advertising" the irisregister by citing it as a source and a link to allow people to sign up for it. I think it would be organizational suicide to clamp down on the the irisregister info. And I tend to agree with Bob that the irisregister might get some new members rather than the other way around. The AIS website and Bulletin should also have a BIG promo for the Wiki when it goes online. I also agree that the Wiki should be free but again use it as a primary promotion site to get people to click on joining the AIS or a section. From what I remember of Bob's demo of the Wiki in November, that links to the AIS Sections are already included. The "donation" idea is a good one but perhaps trying to get people to join AIS as a benefit of using the Wiki would be better since they would get something for their money...the Bulletin. How do we get a link out there that will cause people to get the AIS Wiki first instead of Dave's Garden when they Google "irises"? Jill Bonino -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Pries >Sent: Jan 18, 2010 10:56 AM >To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org >Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Irisregister and the Wiki > >Question of Wiki > >As most everyone knows I like to communicate by phone. It allows for me to ask questions and listen. It is very easy for a written response to become a lecture. Nonetheless if people are not listening, then a written response gives them the chance to read and evaluate what they may not be hearing. >I do lots of research to discover, what is the place of the Iris Society in the horticultural community. Since many specialty societies face the same economic conditions as we do, there is lots to be gained, by studying the horticultural world. Presently the Iris Societies have been loosing members and a greater proportion of members then other societies. Many of the major plant societies have changed their business plans and are in the act of changing them further. Many of the things I have suggested are either already reality with other groups, or are in the process of becoming so. >Recently, I discussed with several officers of the daylily society how they were coping with the new cultural realities. Their new business plan is going to include the formation of electronic memberships. I prefer not to use the term members-only sites because no one is suggesting eliminating the services that already exist to regular print members. But Electronic membership is an added service that provides things that are additional to the traditional services that the society provides with membership. The Iris register is an example of a very limited e-membership. >When officers told me that the Daylily society was creating e-memberships, I asked if their illustrated checklists were going to be on the members site. They were shocked that I would even ask. They explained, that they felt it was the obligation of an international registrar to have the information as freely available as possible and that to charge for that information would be unethical. With the internet there are new expectations for the conduct of registration authorities. Most now have available their checklists with images online. The old argument that no image can adequately portray a particular plant and therefore images should not be used is insulting to the intelligence of the viewers. To assume that the general public is so ignorant of the limitations of photography that they can not be trusted to interpret what they see seems a bit elitist. >I said now many times over and over that the wiki has the potential for being a key element in saving the Iris societies, not just AIS, but all the Iris societies. Plant societies used to be where people went to get information. Finding sources for plants and the social network that aids in enjoying the growing of the plants are other factors. But the Iris societies have not been fulfilling this role. As of today the premier resource for iris information is the Internet and Daves Garden. The Iris society has not filled the void, But the wiki is working on remedying that. If it is a robust resource it can bring people to AIS and to all the iris societies. >I have from the outset called the wiki the Iris encyclopedia. Not the illustrated checklist, Not the Iris photo gallery, But Encyclopedia. It holds the potential for being much more that the other two. And frankly if it were only either of the other two it would not be effective in promoting the Iris societies. >The suggestion that the wiki not contain the registration information seems not particularly well thought through. If it did not then people would have to create their own descriptions. How anyone could support that and worry about people viewing images that are not quite right seems inconsistent. I think the wiki should have as much authority as possible and the registration information is the rock that should be built upon. >Now the concern that has been expressed is that by allowing the registration information on the wiki you endanger the income from the Iris register. I think the evidence is to the contrary. It has been mentioned that wiki docents have joined the register. Certainly the docents are volunteering to create the wiki because they believe in its vision. It is possible that the wiki docents could easily exceed the number of members of Iris register. But I suspect that most will want to join the Iris register in order to ensure the accuracy of the wiki. Iris register should increase not decline for that reason alone. But lets put things into perspective. Iris register has existed for several years now and how many new members has it brought to AIS? It has 280 members but AIS has been loosing over 300 members each year. >What is the potential of the wiki? For the first two weeks in January the AIS website had 37,000 views. The wiki during the same period even though it is only under construction had 21,000 views. From the historical information I have from the Google adwords campaign a couple of years back It would seem likely that at a minimum the wiki could bring 150,000 people to the AIS website each month Actually it is possible the figure could be ten times larger that that. Today when someone googles an iris name the usually get Daves Garden. That is because the cultivar names exist on that website. But Daves Garden only has about 8.000 Iris names. The wiki as it nears completion could have 80,000 Iris names. Because it is by membership google does not send someone to the Iris Register. As of this week Daves Garden has 493,000 registered users, 7,233 of these pay $25 in a subscription that is primarily a donation to support the website. We could compare this to the less then 5,000 mem! > bers of the Iris Society with 280 supporting the Iris registry. As a percentage the Iris register does about 3 times better than D G. But imagine the potential of the wiki if it were made known that an e-membership helped to sustain the wiki. >Now let us look at the opposite situation. Suppose we did not allow the wiki to use registration information what would happen. I already have e-mails from wiki workers that have said if this is an example of the way the AIS board thinks then I quit. By trying to protect the Iris register at the expense of a robust wiki there could be a significant backlash I do believe both can compliment each other and should not be at odds. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John I Jones" >To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org >Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 1:25:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >Subject: [AISdiscuss] Irisregister and the Wiki > >I have been pondering an issue for some time and feel that it is time >to bring it before the board to make sure that what is happening is >what the board wants, > >The issue is what irisregister information should be allowed in the >Wiki. > >The Wiki is moving forward and entries are being made as you read >this. I has become apparent that people entering the irises into the >Wiki in addition to what ever description and pictures they >personally add, are also copying the full text entry for that iris >from the irisregister into the Wiki entry. > >If this is what the Board wants then so be it, but I think that we >should consider the impact of such action. > >The irisregister has been a significant source of revenue for AIS >since its inception garnering over $16000.00 since 2003— almost >$2300.00 per year. The effect of putting the irisregister information >in the Wiki is to give the information away for free to anyone (since >the Wiki will be open to anyone at no cost). > >There are also lots of people that have paid for 3, 5, and 10 year >subscriptions to irisregister who will now see that we are giving >that information away for free. > >It is true that irisregister will still have some advantages over the >wiki. >- the search engine has greater flexibility and control than the Wiki >- Irisregister gets updated with new and corrected information >particularly on older irises >- Irisregister has the reserved names included in its database > >People use irisregister primarily for: >- Getting descriptions of irises for sales or their own database(s) - >Wiki will provide the same > >Other (but far less) uses for irisregister: >- doing research on parentage - Wiki probably won't be able to do >this as well >- doing name searches for new introductions - Wiki won't do this as >well because it will lack the reserved names > >The irisregister information can be kept out of the Wiki because >every entry to the Wiki must be reviewed by the "docents" for >propriety and they can easily recognize an irisregister entry. The >Wiki has some 4000 entries already, but that should not be a major >effort to correct. I am sure that not all of the entries have >irisregister excerpts in them. > >The Wiki's real claim to fame is that it has pictures (up to 20 per >iris) and I applaud its value in that regard. I am, in fact, against >having pictures as part of the official AIS registration primarily >because of the inconsistency of photographic and display technologies >and vagaries, and in that regard Wiki provides a valuable resource. >The full registration descriptions are of limited additional value in >the Wiki unless people want to copy them out for their own purposes. > >The Wiki will also have some advantages because the newest >introductions can be placed in the Wiki whereas there is a delay in >placing the newest R&I information in irisregister. > >I think the Board needs to proactively decide what, if any, >irisregister information should be allowed in the Wiki. I think we >need to consider the monetary impact on the AIS through loss of use >of the irisregister. No I don't know the magnitude of that impact, >but I can tell you that the majority of irisregister use is to get >descriptions. > >John > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary > >The archives for AISDiscuss are at: >http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary > >The archives for AISDiscuss are at: >http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary |