Blobgects: Digital Museum Catalogs and Diverse User Communities
The article in primarily about how museums can more effectively engage with their audiences using Web 2.0. It posits that simply adding Web 2.0 applications to the existing museum catalogue is insufficient because that expects the users to use and learn the museum's specialist terminology, and effectively negates the purpose of the new museology. In effect, it does little to prevent the museum from being a gatekeeper of knowledge or education, and only further engagement will help to break that barrier. Basically, digital museums should do more to allow many classifications of objects "according to the different narratives and uses to which they are connected". Museums should thus allow many expert account, and to allow more direct engagement with the objects. The article also states that the main barrier to further engagement is the museum catalogue itself, which requires specialist terms to search, and doesn't allow users to manipulate the content of the records. The ability of users to engage with the catalogue improves their experience of the catalogue. Three ways to do this are to allow uncontrolled tagging of objects; allowing users to follow the tags of other users; and providing visual representations of objects, not just verbal ones.
The study that was done for the article suggests that plain language descriptions are needed for objects in order for people to be able to effectively interact with the catalogue. Part of the problem was that the metadata for many objects did not include much of the cultural context of the objects. Users also seem to need a starting point in order to add comments to an object, so "seeding" may be important. However, of more importance, is that users are much interested in feeling that their contribution is valued and welcomed, which helps them to feel motivated to add tags. Users are also very reluctant to tag catalogue entries without images. Key lessons from the study: the power of narratological tags; diverse users with diverse inputs add meaning to the online catalog; tagging must fit within a discursive conversation; the power of images; blogs versus tags.
Implications
For the purpose of my dissertation, it is important to note that simply adding a tagging feature is not likely to provide much of a benefit. Also, only objects with pictures are likely to be tagged, or commented upon. Users need to have a free form ability to add to an object, and standard metadata formats are too specialised to offer the average user much help. In order to gain the most benefit from the users, objects will need to have some seeding of description in order to prompt the user to add tags and comments. The more comments and tags an object has, the more likely it is to draw more comments and tags.
Descriptive metadata is a reasonably broad realm for museum objects, and could accommodate less specialist knowledge than other types of metadata. It also allows for creating cultural contexts, so the users should have a gateway to the object through those tags.
Additions:
From a kind person at the British Museum I also received some very useful links:
http://www.humanitiescrowds.org/
which gives presentations on the topic of crowdsourcing in the humanities
http://www.delicious.com/stacks/view/KMzXC2
a set of links on crowdsourcing in the humanities
http://openobjects.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/frequently-asked-questions-about.html
a nice summary of crowdsourcing in the humanities
The article in primarily about how museums can more effectively engage with their audiences using Web 2.0. It posits that simply adding Web 2.0 applications to the existing museum catalogue is insufficient because that expects the users to use and learn the museum's specialist terminology, and effectively negates the purpose of the new museology. In effect, it does little to prevent the museum from being a gatekeeper of knowledge or education, and only further engagement will help to break that barrier. Basically, digital museums should do more to allow many classifications of objects "according to the different narratives and uses to which they are connected". Museums should thus allow many expert account, and to allow more direct engagement with the objects. The article also states that the main barrier to further engagement is the museum catalogue itself, which requires specialist terms to search, and doesn't allow users to manipulate the content of the records. The ability of users to engage with the catalogue improves their experience of the catalogue. Three ways to do this are to allow uncontrolled tagging of objects; allowing users to follow the tags of other users; and providing visual representations of objects, not just verbal ones.
The study that was done for the article suggests that plain language descriptions are needed for objects in order for people to be able to effectively interact with the catalogue. Part of the problem was that the metadata for many objects did not include much of the cultural context of the objects. Users also seem to need a starting point in order to add comments to an object, so "seeding" may be important. However, of more importance, is that users are much interested in feeling that their contribution is valued and welcomed, which helps them to feel motivated to add tags. Users are also very reluctant to tag catalogue entries without images. Key lessons from the study: the power of narratological tags; diverse users with diverse inputs add meaning to the online catalog; tagging must fit within a discursive conversation; the power of images; blogs versus tags.
Implications
For the purpose of my dissertation, it is important to note that simply adding a tagging feature is not likely to provide much of a benefit. Also, only objects with pictures are likely to be tagged, or commented upon. Users need to have a free form ability to add to an object, and standard metadata formats are too specialised to offer the average user much help. In order to gain the most benefit from the users, objects will need to have some seeding of description in order to prompt the user to add tags and comments. The more comments and tags an object has, the more likely it is to draw more comments and tags.
Descriptive metadata is a reasonably broad realm for museum objects, and could accommodate less specialist knowledge than other types of metadata. It also allows for creating cultural contexts, so the users should have a gateway to the object through those tags.
Additions:
From a kind person at the British Museum I also received some very useful links:
http://www.humanitiescrowds.org/
which gives presentations on the topic of crowdsourcing in the humanities
http://www.delicious.com/stacks/view/KMzXC2
a set of links on crowdsourcing in the humanities
http://openobjects.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/frequently-asked-questions-about.html
a nice summary of crowdsourcing in the humanities
No comments:
Post a Comment