The museum 2.0 can be built on absolute free-will, interested, creative participation of people — people who are ready to give away their time, ideas, and efforts. What drives them?

One can hardly find a univocal answer to this question mostly due to incredible diversity of:

• Participatory forms and practices,
• Socio-cultural content an stories around which interaction emerges,
• People with various interests, characters, life and work attitudes, intention to participate,
• Particular situations and circumstances influencing people engagement in projects.

However, a range of motivating factors is easy to identify. The experience documented in the frameworks of museum and crowdsourcing projects based on the same human needs makes it possible.

Analyzing vast experience of Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History participatory projects N. Simon singles out 4 main reasons why people participate:

• Satisfaction from interesting activity,
• Experience in being good at something,
• Time spend with those who they like,
• A chance to be the part of something big.

These conclusions are drawn from motivation analysis of people' engagement in participatory projects directly. We, in turn, administered our survey to those people who worked out the concept of our exposition.

The first question we asked ran: "What can be a leading driving force of such brainstorms and discussions centered on museum projects and exhibition conception?" We were impressed by the variety of respondents' answers (authors style is preserved).

The fact that their opinion in spite of their line of work (any) is very important for curators.

First, the opportunity to participate in exposition formation, which is not accessible for an ordinary person. It has a compelling pull even if there exists a problem that desires and opinion of majority team members will not be realized, but the very fact matters a lot. Brain storming is a rare activity for Yekaterinburg. This exhibition is important because its thematic and content can be easily converted in virtual format, in social nets where it sinks and does not reify. Museum is a form of such reification, a chance to share this eluding experience.

• Self-realization;
• Need to share personal practical experience;
• Meeting new people and co-thinkers;
• A sense of belonging to some big, good case;
• A new way to organize quality pastime.

I think it's a kind of a club for people with similar interests. At least, for those who are above….

Socializing with specialists from different spheres, involved in discussion with prospects for further cooperation with exhibition participants and planners.

Altruistic desire to create something principally novel, interesting for a wider museum audience.

Interest in the theme.

A desire to live a more exciting life, full of something "positive", attract more people to the activity which helps people learn the world, love the planet in its nature aspect. To catch "cognition flu" from traveling in a good way…

One can find certain correlation with the reasons identified by participants of «Sberbank-21» crowdsourcing project [1]:

1. Opportunity to change the future to the best,
2. potential and personal uniqueness realization,
3. assumed responsibility for one' ideas and decisions,
4. self-realization, your idea realization,
5. participation in innovations,
6. being a part of a team,
7. awareness of social recognition and personal contribution,
8. reward in the form of gifts, job offers, etc.

and even:

• Challenge oneself, one's abilities and skills. Could I? Will it work?...
• And INTEREST in everything new, human curiosity. What will be if? Why? What for?

In this "practical" case there is a shift to self-realization, solutions for important social problems and external motivation, which is likely to be typical of crowdsourcing online projects without face-to-face communication. This type of motivation was registered by researchers Henry Sauermann from Technological University, (Georgia, USA) and Chiara Franzoni from Technical University(Milano, Italy). They based their findings on Zooniverse,

analysis, a large crowdsourcing platform specializing on scientific projects and launched in 2007.

They indicate motivation of two types: external and internal. The first type includes material values and social recognition, while the second one implies satisfaction from:

• Solution for a complicated problem,
• Information of interesting object or task,
• Personal competence.

You can learn more about this survey results in "Participation Dynamics in Crowd-Based Knowledge Production: The Scope and Sustainability of Interest-Based Motivation ".

According to other foreign authors participation in crowdsourcing projects is caused by:

• Opportunity to train and master one' skills,
• Immediate material remuneration,
• To be heard and to upgrade one's status,

• Social motives including aid to others, mutual support, socializing [2].

• earnings,
• creative abilities development,
• extra job,
• attractiveness of community involved in the project [3].

It must be noted that in spite of some deviations, our observations and the results of different surveys testify to these two ideas preference:

1. In successful projects participants are motivated by the top level of needs hierarchy. People are eager to be involved when particular psychological, social and emotional needs are satisfied. Without this they will not participate. It can also be some individual component associated with thrill, excitement, interest, self-respect as well as social one built on immersiveness, belonging, contribution to culture and society preservation and development.
2. Outlining the project one should think of what you can give people, not the other way round. Participatory culture and crowdsourcing activities are most effective when the project meets social needs and desires.

Technological, formal aspects of these projects are no less significant. Most motivating tasks among them are those that:

• Clearly defined and require various skills,
• Imply high level of autonomy,
• Participants are aware of what expertise is needed, how the contest is organized, what sources of information they can use.

To some extent, oOur focus groups confirmed this answering the question «What can make these meetings more attractive, allow us to draw more people, create a community?».

Judging by my experience of youth church meetings I know just one recipe - strict regularity, for example, every Thursday at some place at 7 p.m., or every first Friday, etc. the number will bounce hectically, but with a trend to grow, all is needed is something long-term, "eternal". In the context of museum exhibition regular meeting-actions in 2-3, 6- month period are more important. Nowadays long-play community is hardly possible, but it can be built on situational solidarity. .

• It is necessary to keep participants interested in the process, to maintain their fascination;
• People should see the results of their work in practice, they should develop a sense of their pertinence, helpfulness;
• To set new interesting tasks!

More active coverage of such events (in social networks, on university and the museum sites) in a softly-softly, enticing language (may be in the form of short broadcast pieces)

Active work and reporting in social nets and on the Web. Some bonuses for participants. Tea drinking, contacts exchange, perhaps, some kind of focus-groups involving Web users.

International practice in museology…

Advertising («word of mouth», social networks). Involvement alongside with museum staff archeological and geological expeditionists (professional accounts of different region and countries)…

Conducting promo-actions – journeys with the project symbolics, from weekend trips to camping expedition with TV coverage.

Invite famous travelers and send invitation to such sessions in advance.

The replies show that curators of 2.0 projects should pay attention to:

• Well-managed process organization,
• Regular meetings,
• Information and communication support within the situational community,
• Turning the project into a bright unforgettable process to be all over the city,
• Visualization of contribution and the results of the community shaped.

The last aspect seems to be relevant. How can people who did and made a lot for the project be rewarded? How can we demonstrate their participation? Our co-authors were undecided. Here are their replies:

No idea. I'm a bit confused to see my surname or photo, but my friends experience delight of recognition, somewhat, aha, the museum is about us, too. A T-shirt or a mug? Must come expensive. Some may want formal gratitude from the museum, a certificate or a badge. Free access to exhibition and fellowship is fine with me.

Commemorative picture, their placement in social networks with acknowledgements, (so that a team member if desired can visualize his engagement;

Personal invitation to the exposition (just pleasant, and to be able to take friends and relatives to the exhibition with your contribution is definitely a positive aspect). You can keep this invitation, a sort of "anchor", plus self-actualization (belonging to a spectacular city event is cool!)

Standard ways should not be ignored.

The thing is that many people participated, a larger part quite episodically, as "developers" took turns in the process. Pluses: new members – new fresh ideas. Minuses: connection between them is lost. Maybe, one and the same team should work from the beginning to the end. .

The desire to help must be unselfish…

The best solutions can be rewarded by personal invitations for the participants and their families. Their surnames can enter the list of the exhibition activists and be presented on a special display, for instance, "How we made the exhibition".

I liked the hall devoted to the exposition creation. To my mind, everybody was pleased to see him in the photo, and even more pleased that visitors saw us there.

We made a hall dedicated to the project (ЗD-tour). We tried to mention every person who had provided assistance and to make it clear how many people had put their hearts, energy, emotions and ideas. We valued it very much.

After the exposition closing while analyzing our colleagues practice we came across a fantastic example of participants' contribution visualization.

The wall in Seattle Art Museum with the names of all 4259 "curators" of "#SocialMedium," exhibition made on the basis on public voting.