Recommended
More Related Content
More from kimchristen
More from kimchristen (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Usc Vectors
- 1. digital humanities 2.0 is revolution possible? images: vectors@usc, lucian@uchicago & sjairo bd@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 1
- 2. digital humanities manifesto 2.0 made @ wordle.net Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 2
- 3. “...the only solution is revolution” image: faramarz@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 3
- 4. image: monika777@photobucket Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 4
- 5. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 5
- 6. The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0 Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 6
- 7. The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0 Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 6
- 8. The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0 Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 6
- 9. The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0 Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 6
- 10. “print is no longer the exclusive or normative medium in which knowledge image: Thomas Hawk @flickr is produced and/or disseminated” Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 7
- 11. “think different.” Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 8
- 12. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 9
- 13. image: mag3737@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 10
- 14. “the digital is the realm of the open source, open resources: Anything that attempts to close this space should be recognized for what it is: the enemy” Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 11
- 15. web 2.0 social networking | remix culture Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 12
- 16. “Information wants to be free.” -John Perry Barlow image: monkeyc@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 13
- 17. “The opposite of a free culture is a ‘permission culture’—a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past.” Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 14
- 18. image: kazee@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 15
- 19. permission culture locked-up, chained-up, hoarded images: thomas hawk & kenn wilson@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 16
- 20. image: twon@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 17
- 21. “Anything that stands in the way of the mash-up and remix stands in the way of the digital revolution.” image: maneo@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 18
- 22. image: mohan.m@flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 19
- 23. digital humanities must persist in image: gutter@flickr asking the hard questions Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 20
- 24. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 21
- 25. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 22
- 26. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 23
- 27. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 24
- 28. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 25
- 29. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 26
- 30. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 27
- 31. mukurtu wumpurrarni-kari archive www.mukurtuarchive.org Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 28
- 32. sharing protocols | set restrictions Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 29
- 33. sharing protocols | set restrictions Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 29
- 34. set restrictions = determines access Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 30
- 35. set restrictions = determines access Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 30
- 36. set restrictions = determines access Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 30
- 37. set restrictions = determines access Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 30
- 38. extensive user profile system Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 31
- 39. extensive user profile system Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 31
- 40. individual extensive user profile system Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 31
- 41. individual extensive user profile system Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 31
- 42. individual relations extensive user profile system Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 31
- 43. ‘mini-archive’ = my family items Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 32
- 44. pop-up warnings Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 33
- 45. community-driven features Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 34
- 46. community-driven features Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 34
- 47. community-driven features Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 34
- 48. http://libarts.wsu.edu/plateaucenter/portal/html/ppp/index.php Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 35
- 49. ...curatorship, the big job of the next century -Brian Eno image by:Will Lion @flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 36
- 50. “social speed bumps”... image:McBeth @ flickr Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 37
- 51. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 38
- 52. scale Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 38
- 53. scale tools Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 38
- 54. scale tools ethics Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 38
- 55. Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 39
- 56. thank you www.kimberlychristen.com Kimberly Christen | kachristen@wsu.edu | Digital Humanities 2.0 | USC | IML-NEH Vectors Summer Institute | 07.23. 2009 40
Editor's Notes
- Thanks to Tara for inviting me today and four years ago to be a fellow for the ephemera issue of Vectors In many ways that Vectors fellowship set me on a new course and officially lodged me in this burgeoning field of digital humanities from a stand point of some one who has worked with Indigenous peoples and thus wanted to bring to the field an alternative perspective provided by these communities. Today I want to do a bit of reflection back, both on the emergence of this thing called “digital humanities” and on my own projects that have grown up and around this new thread of ideas and practices. The first half of my talk will focus on some key elements of this emergent field and then the second half will explore the intersection of these in my own work—where they overlap and where we see some disjunctions. There have been many recent reflections on just what is and isn’t digital humanities, I’m going to use as my artifact for thinking through this emergent field, the recent Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0. [next slide]
- This is a wordle word cloud of the concise 13-page document (no one likes long manifestos) so you can see what terms convey some of the ideas in the document. The “manifesto” moiniker certainly conjures notions of revolution [slide]—
- and so the question becomes, what are we revolting from? And, the 2.0, of course, signals an update, something new, “change” [slide]——
- but is it change we can believe in? [slide]?
- On the one hand this is hyperbole, new movements need some utopianism to distract from all the dystopianism leveled against them. On the other hand, it’s useful to unpack the signals of change and revolution in this document to aid in finding some sort of middle ground between celebration and cynicism that helps us navigate this new field of digital humanities. As the manifesto’s “Instruction manual” states then: [slide]
- I’m not going to whine,[CLICK] but instead [CLICK] comment, engage, retort and [CLICK] throw up an idea Let me begin with the manifesto’s description of their agenda for digital humanities: “as an array of convergent practices that explore a universe in which” 1. [slide]
- I’m not going to whine,[CLICK] but instead [CLICK] comment, engage, retort and [CLICK] throw up an idea Let me begin with the manifesto’s description of their agenda for digital humanities: “as an array of convergent practices that explore a universe in which” 1. [slide]
- I’m not going to whine,[CLICK] but instead [CLICK] comment, engage, retort and [CLICK] throw up an idea Let me begin with the manifesto’s description of their agenda for digital humanities: “as an array of convergent practices that explore a universe in which” 1. [slide]
- print IS no longer the exclusive or normative medium in which knowledge is produced and/or disseminated, and 2. [SLIDE]
- in which “digital tools, techniques and media have altered the production and dissemination of knowledge” Thus digital humanities scholars will help shape the “newly emergent public spheres of the present”… to “facilitate the formation of networks of knowledge production, exchange and dissemination that are at once local and global” So, one of the important touchstones of the manifesto then is “knowledge”[slide]—
- how it is created, circulated, and reproduced. the manifesto highlights the origins of knowledge claims within the Humanities as a discipline and critiques its reliance on the myth of the Enlightenment for its failure to 1) grapple with the more mundane, material and artistic knowledge forms—and 2) to engage with the emergent digital landscape that seems to offer more space for the multiple types of public knowledges they imagine. And so they make their first proclamation: “the digital is the realm of the [slide] open source, open resources:
- open source, open resources: Anything that attempts to close this space should be recognized for what it is: the enemy” [slide]
- On the one hand, certainly this rhetoric is meant to grab our attention and differ digital humanities from those they call the “traditionalists”—those who would limit fair use, expand the reach of copyright and privatize the tangible and intangible forms of knowledge we know as art and culture. On the other hand, this mixes in well with the celebratory narratives that frame the digital landscape today, [slide]
- especially the tools and practices that are defined by the web 2.0 label—signaling user-generated content, new forms of content distribution and an emphasis on individual (as opposed to corporate) choice and individual freedom, and a democratic sort of flattening of the digital public so with these tools--you decide on your privacy settings, who can see your photos, if you want to use a creative commons license to distribute your work and so on.. In these narratives, information –particularly as it is imagined in its cultural forms -- wants to be free [slide] The web 2.0 meme--Specifically as it frames social networking applications...like Flickr and Facebook that allow for new types of information sharing and particularly user-generated content -- “remix”—(as a primary way of circulating and reusing information that should be FREE). .
- openness and access define the parameters of information sharing, they are not questioned, instead, they are de facto positive, beneficial aspects of knowledge circulation. Anything that stands in their way is a barrier—in Lawrence Lessig’s terms these are part of a “permission culture.” Lessig argues that “….[slide]
- “The opposite of a free culture is a “permission culture”—a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past.” Lessig’s equation permits a BINARY division where now we have sides--the bad guys and the good guys...(free/permission, the powerful and the weak, past creators and future good). Here we lose the social, economic and historic factors that continue to shape how we define what counts as information and how freedom is imagined. “free culture” and its cousin “open access”--
- set the tone of a movement that has been more focused on fighting corporate greed and legal expansion than what the digital humanities seeks to do in opening up multiple knowledge claims and sets of digital practices. in these movements permission culture, then, [slide]
- gets equated with MNCs like Sony and Microsoft who use IPR (esp. copyright and patents) and specifically DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT technologies as a way to: 1) limit consumer choice and 2) curtail the circulation of certain forms of information --and they do so to make a profit What I am suggesting is that because we have this limited vocabulary with which to talk about the circulation of digital information ANY type of ACCESS control is often associated with DRM and becomes seen as a sort of top-down control of individuals and information... information is seen as “locked up” (most common metaphor used) [slide]
- Because most iterations of permission culture get equated with corporations and rigid IP laws, they are seen as an ABUSE of POWER--a play by the rich to get richer and the masses to be duped into technological submission. Which leads to rigid stances on the boundaries of knowledge circulation and reproduction such as the 2nd proclamation in the DH manifesto [slide]
- Anything that stands in the way of the mash-up and remix stands in the way of the digital revolution” Taken together, then, we have a potent set of symbols—freedom and revolution driving the discursive landscape of the digital humanities particularly how it understands the creation, circulation, and reproduction of knowledge. The ease with which openness and access are celebrated and linked to revolution and freedom[slide]
- and deemed an automatic public good obscures and dominates -- so there are very few options for discussing other modes of distribution and circulation. Here all content becomes “information” devoid of social relations, histories of exclusion, or present systems of disenfranchisement. The manifesto argues for digital humanities [slide]
- to be a place of rigorous historicity, where scholars persist in asking hard questions and highlight what has been naturalized within the humanities. I’m suggesting here that, within this manifesto (at least) digital humanities remains anchored to the dominant narrative of openness in relation to digital technology and information circulation and thus has marginalized and downplayed other possible systems of information management and knowledge circulation that could inform the core questions digital humanities scholars ask about knowledge, property, digital artifacts, pedagogy, publishing, curation and digital tools. Vectors has been..[slide]
- has been one of the places within DH where these questions have been given space to grow and inform larger debates. In fact, it was in my time as a Vectors fellow in 2005 when these questions about alternatives to the dominant notions about access, openness and the archival process became central for me. In what remains I want to go through the evolution of three interrelated projects to highlight some POSSIBILITIES for framing questions within DH.
- My vectors project, Digital Dynamics Across Cultures, grew out of over a decade of engagement with the Warumungu aboriginal community in Central Australia and through the project we argued that Indigenous knowledge systems (as intellectual property rights systems in their own right)--if taken seriously-- disrupt dominant notions about knowledge circulation and access within the public domain and specifically ONLINE. [side note b/c IPR can’t account for INDG materials--with focus on individual authors, creativity and originality--and similarly progressive movements like CC that attempt to rework IPR can’t contain ING materials 1) defined within pd and 2) still author-centric] [let me take you through a bit of the site to show you how we tried to visulize this using WARUMUNGU CULTURAL PROTOCOLS AS THE BASIS...] Users begin here at the main page which is a graphical representation of specific Warumungu places of significance. (named places)--all information/knowledge is PLACED and all places are named SO when a viewer clicks on a place...[next slide]
- the smaller nodes (the yellow circles) highlight certain information about the place: about its history, certain events, ancestral stories etc. Here we are at Patta and are then getting information about women’s ceremonies or
- here we get an overview of the history of a place (here missionization...) Viewers can just keep moving along... BUT within each area a random sampling of content is tagged with protocols that disturb their viewing practices. so....
- A photo may be partially covered because the person in the picture has recently passed away OR a video clip may stop halfway because certain portions are only to be seen by those who have been ritually initiated OR a song may fade in and out because some portions are restricted by gender, they are only for women... IN every case what we wanted to slow people down from their normal pattern and expectations about access online...BUT we didn’t just want to stop people we wanted to give them a new vocabulary for thinking about information sharing and circulation So once they have been stopped they get a series of pop ups...
- with a short textual explanation, then when you click on the “Learn more about this protocol” ...
- an animated video plays describing the Warumungu protocols for that specific type of content. [9 protocols] So, in every case, users must grapple with their own biases about information freedom and knowledge sharing online. By presenting content through a set of Warumungu cultural protocols the sites internal logic challenges many of the presumptions about knowledge distribution and openness especially on the web and gives us a new way to see access restrictions apart from legal and corporate views. This project sparked interest within the community to build their own archive based on these cultural protocols so that the photos, video and audio they had received at their cultural Center could be accessed properly.... [slide]
- Using the database we already created @ vectors as our base-- Craig Deitrich and I and a team from UMaine over two years built the MWKA-- The archive is a browser based dynamic archive specifically designed for and by the Warumungu community--we couldn’t use off the shelf archives because their DEFAULT LOGIC is OPENNESS--we needed a way to address the protocols around information circulation and reproduction that ALREADY EXISTED within the community.
- set as OPEN or SET sharing protocols (OPEN = public anyone can see) [arrow] OR SET RESTRICTIONS
- restrictions for each photo match up with community protocols: 1) GENDER, [arrow] 2) SACRED status, (people from which) [arrow] 3) COUNTRY, FAMILY [arrow] added... then second half of the equation USER PROFILE
- restrictions for each photo match up with community protocols: 1) GENDER, [arrow] 2) SACRED status, (people from which) [arrow] 3) COUNTRY, FAMILY [arrow] added... then second half of the equation USER PROFILE
- restrictions for each photo match up with community protocols: 1) GENDER, [arrow] 2) SACRED status, (people from which) [arrow] 3) COUNTRY, FAMILY [arrow] added... then second half of the equation USER PROFILE
- Each community member creates a profile in the system. The profile (gender, community status) determines how people will be linked with content individual traits (name, gender, community status) [arrow] + community relations (m/f family/country) how you are related to others [arrow] Links with content tags--Taken together these create a mini-archive for each individual and links families and others related through cultural obligations. when people login they get taken to MFI
- Each community member creates a profile in the system. The profile (gender, community status) determines how people will be linked with content individual traits (name, gender, community status) [arrow] + community relations (m/f family/country) how you are related to others [arrow] Links with content tags--Taken together these create a mini-archive for each individual and links families and others related through cultural obligations. when people login they get taken to MFI
- Each community member creates a profile in the system. The profile (gender, community status) determines how people will be linked with content individual traits (name, gender, community status) [arrow] + community relations (m/f family/country) how you are related to others [arrow] Links with content tags--Taken together these create a mini-archive for each individual and links families and others related through cultural obligations. when people login they get taken to MFI
- Each community member creates a profile in the system. The profile (gender, community status) determines how people will be linked with content individual traits (name, gender, community status) [arrow] + community relations (m/f family/country) how you are related to others [arrow] Links with content tags--Taken together these create a mini-archive for each individual and links families and others related through cultural obligations. when people login they get taken to MFI
- MFI--content based on your standing (and can change) -- clicking on an image [next]
- warning pops up if someone deceased... this allows people to decide on their own (part of a changing set of protocols) Once a viewer decides they want to see the image then..
- 1. print essential for people to distribute + burn CDs take with them 2. add comments (community history) & ATTRIBUTION no one can be anonymous (part of responsibility) The archive then, is an opt-in system where access is regulated. But instead of regulation being an abuse of power (where the few are in control) it is a reflection of a dynamic knowledge management system that is continually changing and adapting. Mukurtu allowed us to build a custom software tool for the needs of one community But the needs are part of a larger set of concerns Indigenous people globally have in relation to their cultural materials and the knowledge associated with it. so we scaled the mukurtu software up
- 1. print essential for people to distribute + burn CDs take with them 2. add comments (community history) & ATTRIBUTION no one can be anonymous (part of responsibility) The archive then, is an opt-in system where access is regulated. But instead of regulation being an abuse of power (where the few are in control) it is a reflection of a dynamic knowledge management system that is continually changing and adapting. Mukurtu allowed us to build a custom software tool for the needs of one community But the needs are part of a larger set of concerns Indigenous people globally have in relation to their cultural materials and the knowledge associated with it. so we scaled the mukurtu software up
- Expanded the platform--creating the Plateau Portal (it IS actually MUKURTU now)...the PP is an online space specifically designed to highlight the CURATION process by bringing together archivists, librarians and tribal nations to curate and narrate content simultaneously. One of our goals was to undo the emphasis on EXPERT knowledge BUT not by “crowdsourcing” where anyone and everyone has the SAME narrative voice, but instead to HIGHLIGHT NATIVE knowledge alongside the ACADEMIC voices that normally frame ARCHIVAL CONTENT A second goal was to provide control to the native administrators so that they could determine how their materials were curated. Back end 1st-- (control of content/access/narration) Front end--show CDA page with felix -- becomes a piece of CONTENT itself (comments usually just add ones, this becomes a GENERATIVE process --)delegation + umatilla (economic dev)--get cross tribal narration the curation process is important to DH scholars [slide]
- the DH manifesto argues that “curation is a central feature of DH” and that part of this process needs to involve the creation of new tools, collaboration and engagement as a TOOL the mukurtu software provides what I have started calling [slide] “social speed bumps...”
- “social speed bumps” -- not DRM or access control-- but technological tweaks that slow us down...make us think about our own assumptions... they disrupt the default understandings of information circulation within digital platforms and force us to clearly articulate our own assumptions about information as knowledge, about collaboration, and about how knowledge is created and reproduced within OVERLAPPING systems of meaning coming full circle then, if we go back to the DH manifesto, if the DH is about knowledge making [slide]
- then what I am suggesting is tweaking the REVOLUTIONARY memes that currently frame the process of knowledge making, circulation and reproduction and instead focus on three things in avery practical way: 1) scale: niche size (everyone wants to be google)+ not all projects have to focus on scholars-- need to emphasize other publics...communities who have historically been shut out [this is what the mukurtu software does as a stand alone archive in Aus and as the PP], in doing so the 2) tools-- we make will be driven by community needs --there is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL tool--instead design and functionality become less about the latest technological trick and more about serving NEEDS and engaging with underlying systems of , 3) ethics-- that demand RESPONSIBLE REMIX, INFORMED ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION indigenous..[slide]