The overarching lesson I took from this week’s readings is the importance of considering all factors when deciding whether to digitize an item or collection, especially the perspectives of creators, subjects, and communities represented. Accessibility and preservation are often the goals of digitization, but it is not a worthy pursuit if privacy, consent, and ethics are compromised in the process.
Tara Robertson’s “Digitization: Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should” was particularly striking. Robertson highlights the ethical issues surrounding the digitization of the feminist porn magazine On Our Backs. A digitization project that had copyright permission but overlooked the personal consequences for the women featured in the publication. Many of these individuals now work in the fields of education and healthcare, where having explicit images circulated online could have professional repercussions. Robertson’s blog illustrates that legal compliance is not the same as ethical care. The librarians could have sought consent from the women involved or implemented a clear takedown policy that honored their right to be forgotten, but they did not. Her piece is a powerful reminder that digitization practices do not happen in a vacuum and that respect for the people represented, not just the documents, must be a top priority.
In Samantha Thompson’s “Why Don’t Archivists Digitize Everything?” another aspect of this topic is examined, the unseen labor-intensive nature of digitization. I had always imagined digitization as a massive undertaking, but I never considered the specifics of scanning that takes place behind the scenes. Thompson reveals that many of these items must be scanned individually due to their fragile nature, and many require specialized handling. Another factor complicating the process is the creation of metadata and the long-term maintenance of digital files. These files must be maintained and updated as technology changes, making digitization a continuous, labor-intensive commitment.
Reflecting on these readings along with my own digital humanities interests, I am reminded of the importance of centering the needs of the communities involved. Earlier this semester, the Mississippi Digital Humanities Hub visited the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians in Philadelphia, MS. The tribal members that we met expressed interest in having an in-house digital archive of cultural heritage materials. Members of our team introduced them to the content management system Mukurtu, which would allow for various levels of access that aligned with tribal protocols. Introducing them to Mukurtu felt like a meaningful way to support keeping ownership within the community.