Pertaining to digitization and accessibility to items that may be considered sensitive, there needs to be a blend of both compassion and sensibility. While there is a need for sharing of information and materials to help promote the concepts of understanding and knowledge, the question needs to be asked, “At what costs?”. Topics which came up in the materials this week included items that were originally disbursed to a limited population in tactile printed form and now years later, were made available online. Who owns the rights? Were they meant for mass media or rather for a more limited distribution? Are there timeline restrictions on how long those rights remain, particularly since changing ownership? This all goes back to author Tara-Robertson’s concept, “digitization, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”, particularly if the release of digitized materials can cause harm.
Of the questions of labor, ethics, access, and cultural sensitivity, perhaps the situation most familiar to me at this point in my DH interests surrounds working with the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. While past data sharing platforms seemed to be less flexible, with the only option being uniform access across the whole website, Murkurtu provides the ability to modify access to the various sections, one independent from the other. This allows for limiting access to culturally or otherwise sensitive materials to only a specific group, while a different section might be widely open to the general public. This varying access provides the flexibility for tribal members to protect sacred items, knowledge, traditions, or other sensitive items and provides a safe place online to explore and/or communicate for the intended audience.
Perhaps another article of relatability pertains to mass digitization versus critical digitization. These differing concepts are often seen in the difference between libraries and/or Google book searches versus a more curated form of a museum collection. One focuses on volume, and the other is more specific with detailed metadata. This question comes about especially with memory institutions where they have to decide which is more effective for their purpose, that is, to “digitize everything” or make more curated and selected decisions with details of descriptions and identifiable elements, one significantly more time-consuming and labor-intensive than the other. Deciding factors such as this then shape the users’ or researchers’ experience.
As digitization tools, concepts, and exploration of legalities continue to evolve, the questions discussed above will evolve as well. There seems to be no one-size-fits-all answers, so each must continue to be explored and decided on a case-by-case basis, with the infusion of the human element of sensibility and compassion to help protect and promote our unique humanness.
Jamie– thank you for this thoughtful reflection on the many costs of digitization– from content sensitivity to labor. One thing that is particularly striking is how these costs are often hidden, and can quickly result in exploitation. I also enjoyed reading about how you applied these concepts in your own experience working with the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. As you point out, digitization can and should work on a case-by-case basis. It is more than simply scanning and sharing material; it involves working with belongings and stories at a very human level, and that deserves care and attention.