Dissertation Week 3

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

Dissertation Week 2

Return to Babel:  Emergent Diversity, Digital Resources, and Local Knowledge

This article presents the argument that the use of online communities can help to preserve and promote local narratives for cultural objects.  It proposes that current technology could allow us to show visitors to museums different perspectives on a piece of art or culture, rather than the singular perspective of the museum itself.
In essence, the article states that with new technology, there is no longer a particular need for everything to remain standardised to facilitate finding.  It proposes that it is now possible to have parallel schemes for finding any object, and that all of these may have validity and purpose.  It proposes that having only one scheme limits the way that the audience can interact with an object, and thus with the museum. 
With new technology, it is now possible to engage directly with different communities, and determine how they may classify objects, rather than simply translating exisiting schema into their cultural framework.  Also, the article would like museums to explore means to getting these communities to take up authorship of narratives. 
The article promotes RSS tagging as a possible means of achieving this. 
Three important points are made regarding distributed communities:
1.  knowledge is based in a time frame and a place.  So it is important to know where and when someone makes a statement.
2.  authority is a problem for all information objects.  authority cannot be guaranteed centrally, but must be renegotiated in each context.  authority is linked to authorship.
3.  changing knowledge to information removes its dynamic character

Implications

Given that I intend to limit my dissertation to the creation of descriptive metadata, it may not be possible to use all the points of this article immediately.  My understanding would be that this would require engagement with the originating culture (if such still exist), and allow a different metadata standard to be created for each.  While I certainaly think this is a worthwhile endeavor, I'm not sure that about the technical capacity of a museum to have a different metadata standard for each culture.  I may be mistaken, and I will need to clarify this point with the British Museum, as they have much more experience in dealing with objects from a variety of cultures. 
Some points are very well made, and bear more consideration.  Particularly, that knowledge is based in a time and a place, and I'm sure that metadata could be used to collect that information from those contributing to an object.

Digital:  Museum as Platform, Curator as Champion, in the Age of Social Media

This article discusses the change in dialogue between museums and their audiences in the digital age.  The author posits that the musuem is no longer the sole repository of knowledge and discussion about their collection, whether they wish it or not.  Most activity about museum collections no longer primarily occurs on the museum's website, but on many other platforms such as social media.  Also, the article states that most of a museum's visitors are now visiting it online. 
New trends also allow smaller museums to expand their reach by further engagment with the public.  Particularly it discusses the Torrance Art Museum in California, which has opened up their curating to crowdsourcing as an ongoing project.
Opening up collections to the online community can help museums to identify objects, such as was the case with the Powerhouse Museum in Australia, that received identification and a summary of the object from a patron. 
4 points were madebased on an online discussion with the public by the Collections Trust in the UK :
1.  they're our collections (the public)
2.  many voices are critical to the interpretation of culture
3.  the museum will attempt to go where the participation takes them.
4.  the museum will provide the platform for culture, the training and advocacy to support it, and would like to work with their audience to construct the content.

So, the curator becomes the assembler of many voices, and still does require expertise. 

Implications

It is important to engage with audiences actively so the museum remains relevant to the discussion about their collections.  If the museum is able to do this, then their audiences will reward them with increased understanding about their own objects.