Welcome to the second session, please feel free to comment below
Let's change the conversation about "us" and "them" in DH acceptance. Too often, the talk centers on transforming the conversation to make DH seem more welcoming to outsiders. Instead, we should focus on doing things that include a wider participatory audience.
Crowdsourcing does not have to be limited to tech-centered audience or materials.
How do we make archives more participatory, not just accessible? We may need to reconsider the workflow of an archive, and to construct new workflow models which are responsive to needs of a specific archive. Let workflows be determined by institutional strengths and needs.
Consider the LOC model which requires expensive and timely categorization… crowdsourcing this tagging would sacrifice a great deal of expert knowledge which currently supports this system. In this instance, a reworking of the model may be more appropriate than using crowdsourcing as a quick fix.
Crowdsourcing programs need to include extensive instruction for citizen archivists… participants need to understand their part of the project, as well as the larger project goals.
Why are people participating in these projects? Are we being sufficiently clear in defining our audience and in defining how we expect our projects to be used.
We tend to pursue academic projects which mirror our interests, yet we know that these projects often do not have much popular appeal.
How broad or narrow should a project be in order to attract participants? There are merits for both approaches.
Should digital projects and scholarly projects be held to similar standards? Does a site need 100,000 hits to be valuable and worthwhile? A book which sells 1,000 copies can be considered hugely important.
Take the Shelley archive… who will be the audience for this project? What would be the marketing strategy? Within the Romantic scholar community, this would be very popular… though in this case, interests bleeds into the larger public. This may not be the case for less visible literary figures.
Integration into the public and integration into the classroom are different challenges. It may be difficult to repurpose a scholarly/classroom resource for interaction with the general public.
As we encouter a public that is much more familiar with participatory culture, will we be able to expect a public that is more willing to participate in our projects? Can we discard the assumption that the public will be disinterested.
Galaxy Project – has shown that citizen scientists can make meaningful discoveries. It has also shown that participants gain a better understanding of, and greater respect for, academic process.
Associating a user profile with crowdsourced annotation can attract users and also encourage deeper engagement.
Similarly, can credit (or nanocredit) be used to incentivize participation… to also give credit fairly for work that has been done.
Public history crowdsourcing projects can be successful outside of the DH community and even outisde of an institutional setting… but this relies on tapping into an existing community or attracting a new one.
Memero project seeks to simply upload annotated film interviews. Interviews are organized by members of a small community, outside of institutional support.
Advertising and infrastructural support are critical to the success of these projects.
Hypothes.is – an alpha tested annotation tool for online resources. Participants are given user ids; all annotations will be recorded and users can comment on others' annotations. Plugin operates on top of the page, obviously does not alter the page itself.
Hypothes.is intends to become a form of peer review, where reputation management is as important as the open resonse. The work of the annotator should be considered when readers view their comments.
Crowdsourcing is a way to invite new members into the academic community so to speak… it expands our circle and also exposes our work to a new audience.
Brat.nlplab.org – rapid annotation tool with a simple interface.
Successful projects spent a lot of time consider user experience and how to most efficiently and attractively draw users to the meat of the project.
It is not enough to make material available. It needs to be packaged in a way that non-specialists can engage with the material in a meaningful way…. that you can get something out of the project without a phd in the subject.
Many of these projects grow out of the research interests and needs of a particular project…. is this participatory? Or is it assigning grunt work? How much do participants learn from watching the processes at work.
In these types of projects, interpretation (which we value most) is marginalized in crowdsourcing work. For this to be truly participatory, there must be engagement with interpretation and analysis of the data.
Can we scaffold crowdsourcing programs to introduce participants to deeper levels of interpretation. Move from text to context.