July 24, 2019: Calisphere/Shared DAMS/OAC Update

Presentation slides

Discussion: Concerns from researchers? Challenges with digital use and/or physical collections? Any tangible goals we can strategize together? Any pie in the sky goals we can work toward?

Points raised by attendees:

• We're thinking about conducting an audit of content, e.g., individuals in refugee camps (who didn't consent to be depicted)

• Note that says disturbing images /antiquated language? Added note to the finding aid, providing more context for the collection items

• Prioritizing the collections to emphasize refugees experiences (from their perspective) rather than other folks who had collected the materials

• Thinking about boilerplate language that could be applied to a given object (or finding aid)?

• Excited CDL is taking a proactive leadership role here, can leverage this within local context

• Interested in a community approach to e.g., addressing racial slurs (if it’s in the title field, change it; description field, leave it, etc?)

• Would be productive to work together

• We've been historically digitizing and promoting getting everything online, openly available -- now we have collections at scale. But have not been addressing these issues earlier

• UCSD has Melanesian collections, with culturally sensitive materials; uses a click-thru agreement in these cases: https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb60078423

• Also has fully restricted items: https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb45402555


• Graphically explicit material vis-a-vis K-12 audiences. Agricultural information (outdated practices that may be documented). Advisory warning? Need for some sort of programmatic "hooks" to flag particular objects?
  

CDL introduced work to prepare a statement of archival context and principles for online users and researchers of digital collections.

This draft statement is now open for feedback and comments from our campus libraries. We welcome your feedback and input on this draft, especially pertaining to the nature of archival work, including care for historical materials that may portray harmful and sensitive content/description. Please feel free to add comments and suggest edits directly in the document.

• Feedback requested by August 28th.

Interested in forming a CKG around sharing and working toward inclusive practices?

• Email Christine (christine.kim@ucop.edu) if you'd like to join a team effort to write up a proposal!

See Slide 8

Our privacy statement has been updated to clarify that we will forward user inquiries to contributors, if needed.

We discussed a proposed communication workflow, to share user concerns with contributors so campuses can investigate and evaluate the items for any potential harmful or sensitive content and description.

Workflow in summary (see slides for detailed proposal):

• CDL will facilitate this communication, as the first point of contact
• Campus contributors take the lead to investigate the item, as the collection stewards
• Campus and CDL formulate response together
• CDL will take responsibility to respond to users

Discussion: We’d like to talk through this proposed approach and validate a process to investigate, address, and reply to concerns in a timely manner.

Points raised by attendees:

• This works great for reactive process -- user submitted feedback.  But what's our strategy for being more proactive?

• Contributor may also need to update finding aid, corresponding to the object

• Also copies of local record

• Thumbs up!

• Looks clear! wonder if there are ways that we can model further work off of that and also perhaps the Traditional Knowledge Labels project, I believe from “Local Contexts”

Presentation slides

• UCSF has lots of these collections through AIDS History project. Currently we just keep them separate, however other solutions would probably be helpful for us too.


• This is of interest to UCI, especially as we continue working on the community partner digital content submission form. We are interested in ways for non-UCI orgs/archives to be hosted without necessarily showing up as a UCI affiliate in the registry or under our umbrella...CDL has our use case scenario for this, and I see some similarities