June 2014 An Evaluation of Crowdsourcing and Participatory Archives Projects for Archival Description and Transcription Archival Description Digital Libraries Moving in Different Directions Acquisitions by Repository linear feet ID: 677590
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Robert P. Spindler rob.spindler@asu.edu" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Robert P. Spindlerrob.spindler@asu.eduJune, 2014
An Evaluation of Crowdsourcing and Participatory Archives Projects for Archival Description and TranscriptionSlide2
Archival Description, Digital Libraries Moving in Different Directions
Acquisitions by Repository (linear feet)
Department of Archives and Special Collections 1990-2014
Fiscal
Year
Arizona
Collection
Chicano
Collection
Child
Drama
Labriola
Center
Special Collections
University
Archives
Visual
Literacy
TOTAL
1990-91
50.50
163.00
327.00
15.00
555.50
1991-92
499.20
200.85
238.60
15.00
953.65
1992-93
308.70
19.95
125.73
1.30
455.68
1993-94
239.97
43.67
0.06
207.76
0.50
491.96
1994-95
3,772.41
99.18
0.04
140.42
17.65
4,029.70
1995-96
130.16
49.00
0.97
217.10
1.27
398.50
1996-97
185.82
25.30
3.37
229.20
0.87
444.56
1997-98
167.50
56.00
5.31
258.58
12.00
499.39
1998-99
450.91
38.15
1.62
381.92
28.77
901.37
1999-2000
80.08
72.85
40.04
161.77
3.00
357.74
2000-01
104.09
14.02
8.68
289.61
15.00
431.40
2001-02
211.35
26.56
18.04
123.82
3.04
382.81
2002-03
576.08
70.54
172.00
19.12
312.93
6.00
1,156.67
2003-04
265.03
27.27
34.38
22.50
22.71
573.95
1.00
946.84
2004-05
169.48
33.12
593.33
14.25
33.03
476.06
.50
1,319.77
2005-06
46.54
10.54
313.45
38.92
84.18
153.87
647.50
2006-07
41.65
28.41
20.00
20.00
15.33
354.86
1.50
481.75
2007-08
177.87
45.51
63.00
13.25
8.50
229.44
11.00
548.57
2008-09
168.16
46.00
60.50
2.00
17.98
169.76
6.00
470.40
2009-10
26.26
54.75
262.25
20.20
7.50
293.61
0.00
665.57
2010-11
67.91
23.00
31.30
5.25
9.00
45.21
1.70
261.57
2011-12
130.75
71.00
152.50
11.75
11.00
165.85
.25
543.10
2012-13
2,109.65
8.25
62.25
62.25
11.27
39.33
0
2293.00
2013-14
104.48
1.0
96.50
15.0
3.0
48.45
0
268.43
TOTAL
10,084.55
1,227.92
1,861.46
322.62
223.50
5,564.83
141.35
19,505.43Slide3
Museums, then Libraries, then archives…What
Happens After “Here Comes Everybody”: An Examination of Participatory Archives Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting, 2011
Dr
. Robert B. Townsend
(Chair & Commentator)
Deputy Director
American Historical Association
Kate Theimer
ArchivesNext
Exploring the Participatory Archives
Dr. Elizabeth Yakel
University
of Michigan
Credibility in the Participatory Archives
Alexandra Eveleigh
University College London
Crowding Out the Archivist? A British Perspective on Participatory ArchivesSlide4
Crowdsourcing, Crowdfunding and Social BehaviorCrowdsourcing has its origins in early 21st
century crowd funding initiatives. There are important distinctions between crowdsourcing, social engagement and participatory archives.
While large numbers of individuals visit crowdsourcing projects, few make sustained and
useful contributions
. Powerful feelings of ownership, belonging and connectedness are derived from feedback
provided
by the crowdsourcing system or the associated community, and these feelings along with a
sense
of
shared authority
motivate the most dedicated participants. Slide5
Isto Huvila and shared authority (2008)
Huvila’s progressive view of participatory archives is characterized by “
decentralised
curation, radical
user orientation
, and contextualization of both records and the entire archival process”.
“Rethinking the relationship between official and unofficial knowledge is probably the main challenge that
cultural
institutions have to face when undertaking a crowdsourcing process
.”
Huvila
,
Isto
, Participatory Archive: Towards
Decentralised
Curation, Radical User Orientation,
and Broader
Contextualisation
of Records Management, Archival Science, Volume 8, Number 1
(
2008),15-36
.
Carletti
, Laura, UK , Gabriella
Giannachi
, UK, Dominic Price, UK, Derek
McAuley
, UK, “
Digital Humanities
and Crowdsourcing: An Exploration”, MW2013: Museums and the Web 2013
Conference
, April, 2013. Slide6
Theimer, Eveleigh and Participatory Archives
Participatory archives seek public contributions of work or information that expands our useful knowledge of culture and history. It is more than conversational social engagement as seen in Facebook or Flickr. Slide7
Methods – Improving QualityProject developers have experimented with a number of methods to improve the quality of knowledge or
metadata production by combining social participation with standards or systems based solutions. Projects seem to be moving toward separate professionally curated and socially curated spaces, although
linkages
between the spaces are clumsy and manual in most current applications. Slide8
Methods – Improving QualityMediation can improve quality, but it is work-intensive and can leave the host institution vulnerable to
claims of censorship, especially when the rules of engagement are not clearly stated in advance. Participants may have an expectation that their posts will be permanently preserved. Peer mediation
can be
more effective than professional mediation. Slide9
Methods – Improving QualitySeveral technologies can be used to improve quality such as heat maps, transcription version
comparisons, personalization features and reward systems. Open source gaming solutions for improving
metadata
quality are now available.
“Computational techniques” can be applied to extract, normalize, and disambiguate terms used in social
tags
. Slide10Slide11Slide12Slide13Slide14Slide15
Robert P. Spindlerrob.spindler@asu.eduJune, 2014
An Evaluation of Crowdsourcing and Participatory Archives Projects for Archival Description and Transcription