Keynote presented at Working History, the Professional Historians’ Association Conference, 19 August 2016, Melbourne.

There’s a video of the talk here, and slides here.

Friends, I come bearing good news. For I have seen the future of history.

Indeed I saw it here in Melbourne in February. There it was in the exhibition hall of the VALA2016 conference…

THE FUTURE OF HISTORY

…is a very fancy book scanner.

It’s easy to get caught up in the hyperbole – to imagine that history has been swept up in a technological revolution.

I must admit, I’ve often argued that access to more than 200 million digitised newspaper articles through Trove has profoundly changed the practice of history. I still believe that. It’s not just about convenience – the fact that you can now do your research at home in your pyjamas. It’s also about making the fragile slivers of ordinary human experience accessible in a way that just was not possible before. It’s given us the ability to tell different types of stories.

But is it a revolution? As historians I think we have an obligation to be sceptical of the ‘R’ word – we all know that for every change there is a continuity. And that’s what interests me in the digital space, the interplay between historical practicisibe and technology; between new possibilities and old critiques.

Fear not – you will not be rendered obsolete by army of sentient book scanners. But perhaps there are different ways we can work, different questions we can ask.

Discovery against the grain

So, Trove.

I’m assuming in audience such as this I don’t need to explain what Trove is. Of course Trove is much, much more than just digitised newspapers, but let’s just focus on those newspapers for a minute. What we’re talking about is:

• More than 200 million newspaper articles from 1803 onwards
• More than 1000 different newspaper titles – not just the metropolitan dailies; rural and regional papers; political, religious, and community papers; papers in a range of different languages.
• Terabytes of text – all searchable

I think we tend to take this last point for granted – not only can you explore 200 million newspaper articles online, but you can search inside them. I think there is real revolutionary force in the combination of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) and keyword search. It shifts power away from the headline writers, the cataloguers, the archivists and the indexers, and opens an infinite number of pathways for discovery. I’m sure all of you have a story about some tiny fragment, a clue that was critical to your research, buried deep in a seemingly uninteresting newspaper article. This was always possible if you had enough time and physical access to newspapers, but technology has normalised this mode of exploration. We are no longer fossickers, scouring past workings in the hope of finding a gem. Whether we know it or not, we now all dig deep along unmapped seams of history and meaning.

But this is only one example of how discovery is moving beyond metadata – the information we record about resources – to mine the very content of those resources, to create new access points. Newspapers are easy, what about handwritten resources like letters and diaries? Technology has enabled new forms of collaboration between institutions and researchers, allowing them to create and share transcriptions of otherwise unsearchable documents.

As of last week, for example, volunteers had transcribed more than 16,000 manuscript pages from the papers of English philosopher and reformer Jeremy Bentham. What’s particularly interesting about the Transcribe Bentham project, is that the transcriptions are themselves being used to train new tools for automated handwriting recognition. Humans are teaching machines, who will in turn help humans to open resources to new forms of discovery. There’s still a way to go, but the possibilities are pretty exciting. What will happen when instead of consulting an index to a large collection of correspondence, we can search the complete content?

And it’s not just text.

Cultural institutions have been experimenting with colour as a way of navigating large image collections. The colour values of the images themselves are extracted, aggregated and normalised, allowing users to discover connections otherwise unknown or undocumented. Companies like Google are using artificial intelligence to generate descriptions of images. This technology might enable us to search millions of uncatalogued photographs held by cultural heritage institutions. Like switching on the lights in a darkened room, the application of computing power will help reveal stories lurking in the shadows of anonymity.

Assuming of course that they have been digitised.

The seeming omnipotence of Google has encouraged us to equate discoverability with existence – if we can’t find it, it doesn’t exist. But only a small proportion of our cultural heritage collections have actually been digitised. Even as we take advantage of these new technologies we have to think about what’s missing. Whose history has been digitised, described and processed, and why?

This graph shows the number of digitised newspaper articles in Trove by year. As experienced, professional historians you will of course know why there is a peak around 1914. More news…? More newspapers…? The answer is more money for digitisation. With the centenary of World War I approaching, it was decided to focus resources on the digitisation of newspapers from that era. This is completely understandable, but also largely invisible to users.

At the recent digital humanities conference in Hobart, Tim Hitchcock talked about the hidden histories that shape the online resources on which we now depend. We are working with collections of text, he argued, that are ‘inherently, and institutionally, Western centric, elitist and racist’. With dollars for digitisation becoming increasingly scarce we can expect more ‘project based’ funding responding to particular events or anniversaries. Will this simply reinforce the limits of our digital horizons?

We need to understand that we start our digital explorations from a point of privilege and exclusion. Decisions have been already been made about what and who matters. But within these limits we can continue to work against the grain, to flip perspectives, to see things differently.

About five years ago I worked out how to do bulk downloads of digitised files from the National Archive of Australia’s online database RecordSearch. My partner Kate Bagnall, a historian of Chinese-Australia, and I were particularly interested in the many thousands of records they hold documenting the workings of the White Australia Policy. So I downloaded about 12,000 pages, many including portrait photographs, and ran them through a simple program to find faces. The result was a scrolling wall of about 7,000 portraits that we called ‘The Real Face of White Australia’. The remnants of a racist bureaucratic system were turned inside out – instead of files and metadata you could see the people inside.

It’s these sorts of possibilities for seeing against the grain that get me most excited about digital technologies. We no longer have to accept what we’re given by cultural institutions, we can build and share new perspectives, even new interfaces.

One of my current projects is exploring the records held by the National Archives of Australia that we’re not allowed to see – those with an access status of ‘closed’. Anyone who’s used the National Archives knows that the access examination process can sometimes be a bit frustrating. But it is just a process – there’s nothing magical or mysterious about crossing the threshold from closed to ‘open’.

In this case there’s obviously no files for me to download, but there is data documenting when and why a file was closed. By harvesting that data from RecordSearch and feeding it through a new interface we can start to build up a picture of how that process works – we can investigate access itself as a historical phenomenon.

Working at scale

More than a decade ago, the pioneer digital historian Roy Rosenzweig talked about the challenges of digital abundance – how would historical methods change to deal with the vast quantities of digital content becoming available?

What does it mean when you search for something in Trove and find you have 10,000 matching results, or maybe 100,000, a million? We’re used to working in a linear fashion, interrogating our sources one at a time. So how can we extract understanding from a set of resources that we can never hope to examine individually?

It was this question that inspired me to create QueryPic, a simple tool for visualising searches in Trove’s digitised newspapers. You enter your keywords in the usual fashion, but instead of a list of search results you’re presented with a chart that shows you the number of articles each year that match your query. Instead of just the top twenty results, you see everything at once. Using QueryPic you can combine multiple queries to track changes in language or technology, or observe the impact of particular events. (In this case we’re comparing the use of the name ‘Santa Claus’ vs ‘Father Christmas’). It’s easy to create, save and share charts – have a go!

There are many similar tools around these days. Google’s Ngram viewer enables you to construct complex queries across the contents of millions of books. Bookworm lets you explore trends in a range of sources including US newspapers and the scripts of the Simpsons.

Most of these tools work by treating texts as data – by breaking texts down into their component parts, and then analysing the occurrence of particular words, phrases, or other patterns. Digital historians are lucky. Literary scholars have been working for decades on the computational analysis of text, and the tools they’ve created can be readily applied to historical sources.

Voyant Tools, for example, is a web-based text analysis platform. Feed it text files, web pages, XML, even PDFs, and it will slice and dice the language of your sources, opening the results for further exploration through a series of interactive tools. It’s powerful enough to handle many megabytes of data. In this it’s analysing the talk that I’m giving right now.

If you want to start somewhere simpler, have a play with DataBasic.io, where you can learn the fundamentals of text analysis by diving deep into the lyrics of Beyonce.

QueryPic generates large scale pictures using Trove’s digitised newspapers, but what if you want something more fine-grained? I’ve also created a Trove Harvester that will save the details of all newspaper articles matching a particular query to your own computer. Perhaps you want to look for patterns in the language of all articles that include the phrase ‘White Australia’. Just grab the contents of the articles using my harvester and upload them to Voyant. Bam!

This form of analysis is often termed ‘distant reading’. Instead of examining individual documents we use computational methods to look for patterns across a large collection of documents. By zooming out, we can explore the historical record at different scales, finding new connections and meanings.

Have you come across the Old Bailey Online? It’s an astonishing resource, providing fully-searchable text of nearly 200,000 criminal trials from 1674 to 1913. But of course it’s not just text. The data is structured so you can search by name, crime, verdict and punishment. Zooming out of individual trials, historians can examine changes in the way the legal system itself operated over time. Similarly, the Prosecution Project is compiling data about Australian criminal trials from a variety of sources, including Trove. Who knows what we might learn about the nature of our criminal justice system.

The data gathered by projects such as these allow distant reading not just of language, or institutions, but of populations. Who were these people whose lives intersected with the administration of the law and the operations of the state?

The Digital Panopticon project is now linking up records from a number of these different databases to track people from the Old Bailey, through transportation to Australia, and beyond.

One of the things I love about this sort of work is that the data is so richly and profoundly human. In this age of so-called ‘big data’ there’s a tendency to imagine that a focus on computational methods will somehow firm up the scientific credentials of the humanities. We have data too! Indeed, Google’s Ngram viewer was announced to the world as as the flag bearer of a new field called ‘culturomics’ that would bring statistical rigour to the historical study of language and culture.

Yes, it’s bullshit. Big data is made up of many small acts of living. And life, as we know, is messy and complicated, and resists our attempts at categorisation. That’s what makes history so much fun. As historians we have the opportunity, and indeed the obligation, to tease out the connections between the micro and the macro; between the unkempt trajectories of individual lives and the beautiful curves of our data visualisations.

Click any point on a QueryPic chart and you’ll see the first twenty matching results from Trove. QueryPic’s visualisations are not arguments, they’re starting points – ways of exploring ideas, or surveying new territory. Understanding comes from shifting scales – moving between individual articles and long term trends.

One of the things that excites me most about digital tools and techniques are the opportunities they create for navigating these changes in scale. We can create new resources and interfaces that bring together statistics and stories; that enrich our data with the power of narrative, and vice versa.

Doing it in public

A couple of years ago I started to collate information about websites that included links back to digitised newspaper articles on Trove. I wanted to understand more about the contexts in which the newspapers were being used and cited. The diversity of subjects and sites was astonishing, and sometimes disturbing. But what was particularly interesting was the amount of historical work some people were doing.

KnowThatProperty.com sounds a bit like a commercial real estate site, but in fact it provides potted histories of houses around Sydney, largely drawn from Trove. For example, the entry for number 2 Carrington Street in Strathfield, provides details of the house’s construction and ownership from 1888 to 1927, with over 40 links to newspaper articles in Trove. The creator of the site is a web developer with an interest in architectural history. But is he a historian?

Who cares?

Ready access to historical sources through services such as Trove allow people to pursue their passions, around and beyond the demands of everyday life. We are no longer subject to the tyranny of the microfilm reader. The work of history – the chasing down of connections, the exploration of context, the compilation of references – is no longer confined to designated places of research. Nor is it expressed solely in traditional forms of historical production.

Digital tools help us find things, but they also help us share them. We write blog posts, we collect on Pinterest, we repost on Tumblr, we ‘like’ on Facebook. You might think that this is all a bit trivial, and sometimes it is, but the dynamics of sharing help us to look at history differently. The ‘public’ are no longer external to the process of history making – an imagined audience, or prospective consumers. We’re just all in there together.

Who’s made a list on Trove? Trove lists are just collections of interesting items. You create lists on particular topics and use them to keep track of relevant resources. You might create and share and share a list of newspaper articles relating to your family’s history for instance. But, once shared, a list becomes something more than a convenient bucket of content. Lists provide thematic entry points that aid discovery by creating implicit links between items. They’re also building blocks for new forms of access.

Last year I created a web application that takes the contents of Trove lists and turns them into online exhibitions. Using freely available web services, you can create your own exhibition in minutes (yes, really).

I’m sorry, but I really don’t care about questions of authority or professional identity. The guy who created KnowYourProperty.com isn’t waiting for the historians of Australian to pin a membership badge on him. Nor, I suspect, is the bloke who has created more than 200 Trove lists about lawnmowers worried about whether what he’s doing is really history. I happen to think it is, but more importantly it’s about passion. It’s about just doing something. In a world that champions consumption over creation, conflict over collaboration, we should celebrate any effort to make an authentic connection to the past.

There’s something quite liberating about the fluidity of the digital environment. Instead of trudging the well-worn path from research to product we can explore the possibilities of reuse; we can experiment with form and meaning; we can play; and we can feel.

The Vintage Face Depot is a Twitter bot. Tweet a picture of yourself to it and you will receive back a modified you – your face will be blended with one drawn at random from a collection of faces extracted from Trove’s digitised newspapers. It sounds creepy and I suppose it is, but the effect can be quite interesting, sometimes unsettling. What happens when you see your own eyes peering out of a face from the past? The image is accompanied by a link to the original article on Trove, so you can find out more about who you’ve been blended with. Like a lots of my work, the Vintage Face Depot was made quickly as an experiment. I still don’t know what to think of it. And that’s good.

Caleb McDaniel’s Twitter bot, @every3minutes is a more deliberate intervention in our experience of the past. Historians of the American slave trade have estimated that a person was sold every three minutes between 1820 and 1860. So Caleb’s bot tweets, every three minutes – ‘someone just purchased a black person’s grandchild’, ‘a white slaver just sold a person’s friend’. It’s unrelenting and confronting.

We are finding new forms of historical expression that don’t merely visit the digital realm, they live there.

Show your working out

Earlier this year I sort of accidently created and shared my own version of Commonwealth Hansard. It’s a site that lets you browse the proceedings of the House of Representatives and the Senate from 1901 to 1980. I was originally intending just to harvest the data that sits underneath Hansard on the Australian Parliament House website. I thought all that nicely-structured text would provide an interesting dataset to poke around in using the sorts of text analysis programs I’ve already described. But after downloading about 4gb worth of data, I starting thinking about other things I could do with it.

If you’ve used Hansard on the Parliament site, you’ll know that it’s hard to read anything in context – you’re constantly navigating your way up and down a confusing hierarchy of debates and speeches. So I decided to make a version of Hansard that was focused on reading – one sitting day per page. That’s it.

But that simplicity has allowed me to do other things. Every year, and every sitting day, has a button that automatically opens the proceedings for that period in Voyant. That simple button turns a page of text into a laboratory for the historical analysis of political speech. I’ve also integrated Hypothes.is which allows anyone to annotate the text – adding notes, links, highlights, even images. Annotations created with Hypothes.is can be shared globally, turning each page of text into site for collaborative research.

Both Voyant and Hypothes.is can be added to any web page with just a couple of lines of HTML code. It makes you wonder why we are still recreating traditional forms of publication online, when we could be doing so much more, so easily.

You would have noticed that this set of slides itself embeds a number of graphs, visualisations, and live web pages that you can play with inside the presentation. The creators of Voyant, Stefan Sinclair and Geoffrey Rockwell, believe it is important to create analytical tools, or hermeneutica, that can be embedded within works of scholarly interpretation. Voyant’s widgets encourage readers to play with the data and not merely consume the argument. They give power to readers to build their own interpretations, to make their own discoveries.

In a similar way, the historian Tom Griffiths has described footnotes as ‘generous signposts to anyone who wants to retrace the path and test the insights’. Footnotes too give power to the reader, but in a non-digital environment the ability to exercise that power is deferred, perhaps indefinitely. How can make sure those ‘generous signposts’ actually point somewhere?

Perhaps you’ve heard of a thing called Linked Open Data – it’s really just a way of publishing nicely structured data on the web so that it can be easily connected up across sites and collections. Historians create Linked Open Data all the time, they just don’t know it. Think about all those spreadsheets or index cards you have listing people, linking them to other people, places, events, and documents. In LOD terms these are all nodes and edges – entities and relationships.

Historical research frequently involves creating these sorts of complex data models. They represent a huge investment of skill, knowledge and experience. But what happens when we come to ‘write up’ our research? The data is squeezed out of the narrative, flattened down to comply with the conventions of linear storytelling. The connections are severed.

Kate and I are playing around with ways of combining historical narrative and Linked Open Data to make sure that the story remains in conversation with the data – to give readers the freedom to jump off at any time into the underlying network of people, places, events, and resources. And if those people, places, events, and resources are themselves linked to the holdings of libraries, archives, and museums, then every piece of writing becomes a gateway – a starting point for further exploration of our cultural collections. Generous signposts indeed.

Our latest LODBook experiment is available online. It’s buggy and incomplete, but gives a sense of what we want to do. I’d originally intended to have a nice, finished version to show you today, but I decided recently to throw out a lot of code and start again. Why? I always wanted something that was simple and sustainable – a set of practices and reusable components, rather than yet another publishing platform. Having been recently inspired by work going on around the idea of minimal computing, I decided I needed to focus more on the basics. So watch this space.

Digital tools and technologies give us the opportunity to experiment, and sometimes to fail. As I was harvesting text from Hansard I noticed a few oddities. After further investigation I realised that more than 90 Senate sitting days were missing from Parliament House’s online database, including about half of 1917. It’s unlikely anyone would have noticed the problem using the web interface unless they were looking for a specific date. Historians researching the World War I period just don’t know what they’ve missed. Fortunately the people at Parliament House are now investigating to see what they can do.

These things happen. Systems are never perfect. But when they do happen it’s important to talk about them. This is a great example of why we need to remain critical of search as a means of access – it can’t find what’s not there.

The story of the Senate black hole is documented in my open research notebook – it’s where I post notes and experiments relating to my current research projects. It’s an idea I’ve stolen from a number of colleagues working in digital history, including Caleb McDaniel, and I think it’s a good example of how the digital environment can encourage us to re-examine our practices.

The non-digital world privileges products as markers of achievement – things we can count, things we can launch, things we can sell. A conference on ‘working history’ seems like an ideal place to challenge that, to think about how we can use digital tools and techniques to expose more of the labour, the craft, the practice of history. To focus on the doing, not the done.

In 2008, the American historian William G Thomas suggested that ‘digital history should embrace the impermanence of the medium, use it to convey the changing nature of the past and of how we understand it’. The digital future is full of clamour and distraction, an overwhelming array of possibilities. Much like the past.

Our experiments, our incomplete thoughts, our works-in-progress, our failures, reflect the confusion and uncertainty we can never escape. By exposing them online, we are simply admitting what we’ve always known. History is constantly in the process of being made.

This is the published version of my chapter ‘Asking better questions: History, Trove and the risks that count’ in the book CopyFight, edited by Phillipa McGuiness. It’s reproduced here with the permission of the publishers.

You can buy a copy of the book from NewSouth Press or just about any bookstore. You can also download a pdf version of this chapter.

A few years ago historian Kate Bagnall and I created ‘The real face of White Australia’. In 1901 the Immigration Restriction Act gave legislative force to a system of racial exclusion and control that came to be known as the White Australia Policy. The bureaucratic remnants of this system survive today in the National Archives of Australia. But how can we find them? How can we see them? Our online experiment brings some of these lives, previously deemed out of place in a ‘white’ Australia, to the surface. Instead of documents, files or search results, all you see are faces – a continuous, scrolling wall displaying thousands of faces. It’s compelling, challenging and discomfiting. Some viewers were brought to tears.

The faces come from portrait photographs that were attached to official certificates. If non-white residents wanted to travel overseas, they needed special identity documents. Without them they could be refused entry on their return. They would not be allowed to come home. On the front of each certificate are photographs and basic biographical details, on the back is a palm print. Many thousands of these documents are preserved in the archives.

To extract the faces I reverse-engineered the National Archives’ online database to automatically harvest images of the documents. From just one series or group of records, I downloaded more than 12,000 images. Then I tinkered with some facial detection code until I was able to find and crop out the portraits. I ended up with 7000 faces – just a sample of the archives’ holdings, but enough.

The whole thing was a quick experiment, mostly completed over the space of a weekend, but its influence has been widely felt. The project has been cited in discussions around race, archives, visualisation and serendipitous discovery. It has been assigned for student reflection in university courses around the world and is regularly held up as an example of what the digital humanities has to offer. But whenever I give a talk about it in Australia, one question seems inevitably to arise – what is the copyright status of the images?

In a keynote address to New Zealand’s National Digital Forum in 2011, library technologist Michael Lascarides challenged those of us who work with digital cultural collections to ‘ask better questions’. When confronted with the remains of our racist history, when looking into the eyes of people whose lives were monitored and controlled by the government because of the colour of their skin, why should we feel compelled to consider the technicalities of copyright?

Surely there are better questions to ask?

©©©©©

I describe myself as a cultural data-hacker, but my business hours are currently spent on the other side of the fence, as the manager of Trove at the National Library of Australia.Trove is a discovery service that makes Australian resources easier to find and use. It’s a collection of collections, bringing together the holdings of many libraries, archives, museums, universities, government agencies and more. The most heavily used part of Trove is an ever-growing collection of digitised newspapers – the full text of more than 130 million articles documenting Australian history from 1803 onwards.

It’s hard to measure the cultural impact of Trove’s digitised newspapers. Technologies like optical character recognition (OCR) and keyword searching are now commonplace, but apply them to 150 years of Australian history and something transformative happens. Easy access to historical newspapers is changing our relationship with the past.

It’s not just about convenience – the ability to do your research at home in your pyjamas – although the significance of opening access to rural and remote communities across a large country like Australia shouldn’t be underestimated. It’s also about using the granularity of newspapers to expose the local, the particular, the personal and the ephemeral – glimpses of ordinary lives otherwise unrecorded.

Kate is a historian of Chinese Australia, interested in intimate relationships between Chinese men and white women. The people she studies often lived at the fringes of society and their lives can be difficult to recover. But searching across digitised newspapers she can find shards and fragments, stories of love and loss, full of the vivid, turbulent detail of everyday life. Each shard helps to build a bigger picture, a different view of Australian society and history.

Other researchers have mined the newspapers in pursuit of topics as diverse as invasive species, climate change, poetry and legal history. These uses will multiply as the corpus grows and our tools develop. Like a big telescope or a particle accelerator, digitised newspapers support large-scale fundamental research across a range of disciplines. Old papers have become a site for the creation of new knowledge.

But digitised newspapers are not solely the province of professional researchers. The size and diversity of their content support almost any interest, feed almost any passion. I recently harvested a sample of articles from the web that include links to Trove’s newspapers – 3116 webpages containing 13,389 links. We know that family and local historians make heavy use of the newspapers and their efforts are well represented in my sample. But there was more – sport, war, science, politics, architecture, music, art… from popular entertainment to academic treatises, from hateful diatribes to thoughtful reflections, they were all there.

More surprising than just the range of topics, styles and prejudices is the different ways the newspapers are used online. In 2013, for example, the local media in Western Australia reported on Cockburn City Council’s plan to erect a shark barrier at Coogee Beach. When one councillor expressed doubts, noting the lack of ‘serious or fatal shark attacks at Coogee Beach since records commenced in the 1800s’, a reader could quickly challenge her comments by citing two Trove newspaper articles that documented local attacks. References to the digitised newspapers are embedded online not just within narratives or compilations, but as commentary and debate. Trove provides a ready source of evidence to test historical claims without lengthy research or the mediation of experts.

Easy accessibility is helping to break down the otherness of the past, allowing it to be mobilised in contemporary discussions. New conversations between past and present are emerging around the digitised newspapers. Trove has launched us upon a massive ongoing experiment in collaborative meaning-making.
And it might never have happened.

©©©©©

Years before I was given the job as Trove manager, I was poking and prodding at the interface, trying to extract useful data to use in new applications, and generally making a nuisance of myself. Among the tools I created was QueryPic, a simple way of visualising newspaper searches. It’s been through several versions but the principle remains constant – just feed in your search query and QueryPic will create a line chart showing you the number of newspaper articles per year that match your query.

QueryPic is well used and has even been cited in scholarly articles, but I think its greatest value is as an example of what becomes possible when you make large quantities of cultural content available in digital form. Instead of the normal list of search results, QueryPic shows you trends and patterns. You can observe changes in language, the rise and fall of our cultural obsessions or the impact of major events. When did the ‘Great War’ become the ‘First World War’? Is that jolly Christmas visitor called ‘Father Christmas’ or ‘Santa Claus’? QueryPic helps you see things differently.

One of the most dramatic and unexpected patterns revealed by QueryPic is that Australian history ends in 1954. Who would have guessed? With very few exceptions, Trove’s collection of digitised newspapers comes to an abrupt halt in 1954, when the possibilities of the digital age meet the realities of copyright. You want to trace cultural patterns beyond 31 December 1954? Sorry, you’re out of luck.

Why 1954? We’re currently about halfway through the great AUSFTA culture drought. On 1 January 2005, the Australia–US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) extended the standard period of copyright protection from fifty to seventy years and changed the way photographs are treated. We might have to wait until 2025 before Trove’s newspapers can start edging forward, year by year, beyond 1954.

But it’s even more complicated than that, as there’s no certainty that newspaper articles published before 1955 are out of copyright. To be sure, the National Library would have to investigate any named authors to confirm they all died before 1955. That’s simply impossible in a mass digitisation project. Instead the library weighed the copyright risks against the cultural benefit and decided to proceed. If the library had been more cautious, if the risks or uncertainties had seemed too great, Trove would have no digitised newspapers. And we would all be poorer.

These types of judgements are made all the time by cultural organisations wanting to open online access to their collections. Libraries, archives and museums are full of so-called ‘orphan’ works, whose creators cannot be identified or located. There’s no risk-free way of making this content available online.

But these risks are not only assessed and managed, they’re passed on to users, who must themselves try and navigate the thicket of copyright law. As use of online collections moves beyond traditional forms of citation into new types of digital aggregation, analysis and annotation, the doubts and complexities accumulate. The price of innovation is increased risk. The only safe course is to do nothing.

©©©©©

Why do we put cultural heritage collections online? Is it for the sake of efficiency, preservation, marketing or perhaps an informed citizenry? Usually we fall back on fuzzy notions of ‘engagement’ or ‘access’. More access is good, particularly if we can measure it easily through web stats.

Recently we surveyed Trove users to gain a broad picture of satisfaction and use. One finding in particular keeps me coming into work each day – 90 per cent of our general users agreed with the statement ‘Trove has made me interested in learning and discovering more’. Access can’t simply be measured in collection images or web-page hits. What we’re creating is an enlarged space for reflection, research, learning, creativity and critique. We’re enabling people to do more, with more.

Trove is not alone. Around the world, projects such as Europeana, the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) and Digital New Zealand all work to open our collected cultural heritage to new forms of use. Europeana, in particular, has drawn on its research into the value and impact of online collections to proclaim a wonderfully ambitious agenda. Their aim is to ‘transform lives’ – to unlock Europe’s cultural heritage, enabling it to act as a ‘catalyst for social and economic change’.

Resisting Europeana’s efforts to ‘transform the world with culture’ are an array of different copyright regimes across Europe. Advocacy on behalf of the very idea of ‘openness’ is crucial to the success of their mission. But it’s never simply a matter of law.

Our cultural collections contain many resources that are already free of copyright restrictions, but it’s not always easy to find them. A lack of clear identification can stymie reuse as effectively as copyright restrictions – it’s not enough to share the resources, organisations also need to share licensing information so that open content can be easily discovered across collections. Sometimes institutional requirements for permission are weighed upon public domain resources, fostering doubt in place of certainty. Wherever copyright lingers, rights statements bloom in astonishing diversity. The DPLA estimates that there are more than 26,000 different rights statements attached to items in their aggregated collection. How are users expected to know what they’re allowed to do?

The complexity of copyright fosters confusion and uncertainty beyond the reach of mere law. It’s not just legislation that has to change.

Recently Dan Cohen, the Executive Director of the DPLA, argued that the licensing of cultural data should address more than just legal and technical issues. Instead of seeking to enforce acknowledgement of the source of the data through licence conditions, the DPLA wants to push discussion of attribution and reuse ‘into the social or ethical realm’ by ‘pairing a permissive license with a strong moral entreaty’. Instead of a statement about legal constraints, we have the opportunity for a conversation about what matters and why.

It might not figure in our web stats, but the National Library has plenty of anecdotal evidence that Trove changes lives – a grandfather’s face glimpsed for the first time, or perhaps a family mystery solved. One man, who grew up in care, found through Trove the only known photograph of himself as a child. How do we weigh such opportunities against questions of ownership and control?

We need to shift the discussion away from the nature of property to the value of use. What do we want to do? Online culture is read–write. We do not simply consume – we share, we remix, we curate and create. Increased participation brings new opportunities for understanding. Do we give them flight or lock them down?

©©©©©

One of the main sources of traffic to Trove, up there with Facebook and Wikipedia, is the knitting site Ravelry. Why? Because Ravelry users have found and shared hundreds of craft patterns from Trove’s digitised newspapers. And not just shared, but made. The most popular pattern, ‘Elegant elephant’, discovered in a 1959 edition of the Australian Women’s Weekly, has been made more than forty times, often with individual embellishments.

This to me seems a great example of the wonderful complexities that the digitisation of cultural heritage collections are introducing into our relationship with the past. A digital version of a fifty-year-old pattern is shared online and spawns a herd of cuddly elephants. From past to present, from digital to physical, the transformations pile one on top of another.

It’s also unexpected. It’s not a use that was designed into the system, it’s a new set of experiences brought to life through the passions and ingenuity of Trove users.

The application of digital tools to large cultural collections also promises to surprise. Techniques drawn from computational linguistics, for example, are being used to analyse the spread of ideas through nineteenth-century newspapers. Another project is using computer vision to identify poems in newspapers through their distinctive shapes. New structures can be found and visualised within digitised sources. New questions can be asked.

But these techniques also carry new risks. Researchers in the digital humanities, exploring the application of technology to fields such as literature and history, have been prominent in discussions around the copyright implications of mass digitisation projects and the legal status of text-mining. Increased clarity around concepts such as ‘transformative use’ is necessary to ensure that researchers have access to data and the confidence to explore.

And yet the ultimate goal isn’t certainty, it’s a greater awareness of the constraints around our engagement with the past. Within both government and the cultural sector the value of ‘open’ data is rightly proclaimed, but open data is always, to some extent, closed. Categories have been assigned, formats have been cleaned, deci- sions made about what belongs and what doesn’t – every spreadsheet contains an argument.

Each elephant is different. The tensions imposed by our overly complex system of copyright do at least remind us that the past can never be ‘open’, its limits cannot be legislated, its boundaries cannot be fixed. Beneath questions of access and use are better questions about our responsibilities to the past.

©©©©©

I’ll admit that part of my discomfort in being questioned about the copyright status of ‘The real face of White Australia’ stemmed from my ignorance. I just didn’t know the answer.

I’m still not sure.

I do know now that photographs taken before 1955 are okay. But these were attached to official forms, so perhaps the government owns the copyright. Are they published? I suspect the only way to be certain would be to seek permission from the current government department with responsibility for … what exactly? The White Australia Policy lives on, its workings preserved within the archives.

I’ll admit too that I always thought it would be interesting if some part of the government challenged our use of the documents. What exactly would they be claiming ownership of?

‘The real face of White Australia’ was motivated by a strong sense of responsibility towards those people whose lives are glimpsed through the records. To me the question of responsibility still seems more important than the intricacies of ownership. Our debts are to the people who confront us with their gaze, who defy the legislation that told them they did not belong.

Copyright law will never be able to make these judgements for us. No system can predict the individual ethical calculations that shape our engagement with the past. We may always be confronted with risks.

The word ‘access’ itself is full of politics. To what? By whom? When it comes to our cultural heritage we should never be satisfied. We must ask about the silences and the gaps. We must challenge the definitions. Access can never simply be given, to some extent it has to be taken. In the struggle we will find meaning.

There must always be risks. The point is to make the risks count.

Keynote presented at the Annual Conference of the Japanese Association for the Digital Humanities, 20 September 2014, Tsukuba.

The full set of slides is available on SlideShare.

Cross-published on Medium.

This is Tatsuzo Nakata. In 1913 he was living on Thursday Island in the Torres Strait, just off the northern tip of Australia.

From the late 19th century there was a substantial Japanese population on Thursday Island, mostly associated with the development of the pearling industry.

I’ll admit that I know very little about Tatsuzo, and I’ve selected him more or less at random from a large body of records held by the National Archives of Australia.

I present him here out of context and in too little detail, simply as an example. Working backwards from this photograph I want to restore some layers of context and reveal to you a complex and shameful history.

This photograph was attached to an official government form called a ‘Certificate Exempting From Dictation Test’.

From the form we learn that the 32 year-old Tatsuzo was born in Wakayama. He had a scar over his right eye.

Tatsuzo carried a copy of this form with him when he departed for Japan aboard the Yawata Maru in May 1913. When he returned the following year the form was collected and compared with a duplicate held by port officials. The forms matched, and Tatsuzo was allowed to disembark.

To help confirm his identity, the form carried on its reverse side an impression of Tatsuzo’s hand.

You might think that this was a travel document — an early form of visa perhaps. But at the top of the form you’ll notice a reference to the Immigration Restriction Act, a piece of legislation introduced by the newly-federated Australian nation in 1901. The Immigration Restriction Act and the complex bureaucratic procedures that supported its administration came to be known more generally as the White Australia Policy.

If Tatsuzo had tried to return to Australia without one of these forms, he would have been subjected to the Dictation Test, and he would have failed. Despite its benign-sounding name, the Dictation Test was a form of racial exclusion aimed at anyone deemed non-white. No-one was meant to pass. If he hadn’t carried this form exempting him from the Dictation Test, Tatsuzo would most likely have been denied re-entry.

This certificate is drawn from one of more than 14,000 files in Series J2483 in the National Archives of Australia. This series is solely concerned with the administration of the White Australia Policy. There are many other series from other ports and other time periods full of documents like this. The National Archives holds many, many thousands of these certificates documenting the lives and movements of people considered out of place in a White Australia.

Photographs, forms, files, series, legislation — this small shard of Tatsuzo’s life is preserved as part of a racist system of exclusion and control. But what happens when we extract the photos from their context within the recordkeeping system and simply present them as people?

I’ve created a site where you can explore some of the records relating to Japanese people held in Series J2483. Instead of navigating lists of files, you can start with faces — with the people, not the system.

I’m starting today with Tatsuzo and this wall of faces because what I want to explore are some of the complexities of context.

Shark Attack!

After a series of fatal shark attacks in Australian waters, the community of Port Hacking, in southern Sydney, began to wonder if they too were at risk.

In January 2014 the local newspaper published an article under the heading ‘Shark “cover up” in Port Hacking’ alleging that research into the dangers had been suppressed.

Ten days later the newspaper followed up with details of the area’s only recorded fatal shark attack in 1927. A local government member, it reported, had ‘unearthed the article on Trove’.

‘It’s long been a story that a boy was killed by a shark at Grays Point many years ago’, he said, ‘I knew about it 30 to 40 years ago but if you talk to people around here, nobody knows about it’.

‘A lot of people say there are no sharks in Port Hacking but this is rubbish’, he added.

Let me reassure anyone thinking about coming to DH2015 in Sydney next year that shark attacks are extremely rare.

What interested me about these articles was not the risk of gruesome death, but the relationship between past and present. The question of whether shark attacks were possible could be answered — simply by searching Trove.

Trove

For those who don’t know, Trove is a discovery service developed and maintained by the National Library of Australia. Like Europeana, the Digital Public Library of America, and DigitalNZ, it aggregates resources from the cultural heritage sector, and beyond.

It also provides access to more than 130 million newspaper articles from 1803 onwards. The articles are drawn from over 600 different titles — large and small, rural and metropolitan — with more are being added all the time.

Search for just about anything and you’re likely to find a match of some sort amongst the digitised newspapers. So of course I searched for Tsukuba…

Trove is also a community. Users correct the OCR’d text of newspaper articles. They also add thousands of tags and comments to resources across Trove.

• 138,000 users
• 3,000,000 tags
• 80,000 comments
• 139,000,000 corrections
• 58,000 lists

Perhaps my favourite example of user-generated content on Trove are the Lists. Lists are pretty much what they sound like — collections of resources. They make it easy for you to save and share your research. But more than tags or comments they expose people’s interests and passions. They give some insight into the many acts of meaning-making that occur in and around Trove.

Lists are also exposed through Trove’s Application Programming Interface (API) in a form fit for machine consumption. So with just a dash of code I can harvest the titles of all public lists and do some very basic word frequency analysis courtesy of Voyant Tools.

There’s nothing too surprising here — we know that family historians are our largest user group. But we can also see the long tail in action — the way that huge collections like Trove can support very focused, specific interests.

Which leads me back to shark attacks.

Old Speak

The Port Hacking article made me wonder how many other web pages there might be out on the wider web that cited Trove newspapers in a discussion of shark attacks. The answer was many. But what was most interesting wasn’t the volume of references, it was the variety of contexts — in blog posts, on Facebook, in fishing forums.

‘Ahh, old time newspapers are fascinating things aren’t they?’, notes one post in a weather forum, citing details of a shark attack in Sydney from 1952.

On a fishing site, a thread on bull shark attacks in Western Australia’s Swan River begins: ‘I found a great website to view really old newspapers in perth. Just found a few swan river shark storys [sic]…’.

The author follows up with a direct link to the Trove search page, prompting the exchange:

Redfin 4 Life: ‘Haha you would never know there had been that many incedents in the swan without seeing these…’

Goodz: ‘Oh how newspapers have changed the way the write… love the old speak!’

Alan James: ‘That’s right Goodz, and more often than not I’m sure they actually reported the truth.’

So a discussion of shark attacks turns to a consideration of the changing style of newspaper reporting.

Perhaps even more interesting is the way that digitised newspapers are used to test a hypothesis, challenge an interpretation, or argue a case. As in the Port Hacking case, questions about the history of shark attacks can be explored without needing to turn to experts, history books, or official statistics.

So when a local politician is quoted as saying ‘there have not been any serious or fatal shark attacks at Coogee Beach since records commenced in the 1800s’, a reader can respond with two Trove newspaper citations and the comment: ‘No previous shark attacks? Or are they only searching for fatalities?’

When a media outlet asks its Facebook followers whether the export of live sheep from Western Australia might be increasing the number of shark attacks off the coast, one follower can simply share a Trove link to a newspaper article from 1950 and ask ‘Did they have live sheep export in 1950?’

I don’t want to argue that these interactions are particularly profound or remarkable. In fact I’d suggest that they’re interesting because they’re not remarkable. 130 million digitised newspaper articles chronicling 150 years of Australian history are just another resource woven into the fabric of online experience. The past can be mobilised, shared and embedded in our daily interactions as easily as pictures of cats.

Traces

And it’s not just shark attacks. To explore the variety of contexts in which Trove newspaper articles are used and shared, I started mining backlinks.

Backlinks, as the name suggests, are just links out there on the wild, wild web that point back to your site. You can find them in your referrer logs, in Google’s webmaster tools, or simply by searching. I started with a ‘try before you buy’ sample of backlinks from an SEO service.

From there I wrote a script to harvest the linking pages, remove duplicates, extract the newspaper references, retrieve the article details from the Trove API, and save everything to a database for easy exploration. You can play with the results online.

I ended up harvesting 3116 pages from 1780 domains containing 13,389 links to 11,242 articles in Trove. Remember that’s just a sample of all the links to Trove newspapers out there on the web.

What was more surprising than the raw numbers was the diversity of content across those pages. I knew that family and local historians were busily blogging about their Trove discoveries, but I didn’t know that Trove newspapers were being cited in discussions about politics, science, war, sport, music — just about any topic you could imagine.

Nor are these discussions just about Australia. A little quick and dirty analysis suggests that more than 30 languages are represented across those 3000 pages.

This is a work in progress. I hope to expand my hunt for traces — crawling sites for additional references, mining referrals, and inviting the public to nominate pages for inclusion. By adding a simple API I could make it possible for Trove to include links back to relevant pages, like trackbacks on a blog. I also want to understand more about the scope of the content and the motivations of its authors. What is going on here?

Undoubtedly some of these pages constitute link spam or attempts to game search engines, but most do not. Browsing the database you find many examples of interpretation, persistence, and passion. People around the world have something they want to say, something they want to share, and Trove’s millions of newspaper articles provide them with a readily-accessible source of inspiration and evidence.

It’s clear that those many small acts of meaning-making we can observe in Trove’s activity statistics extend beyond a single site — to a much much wider (and wilder) world.

Scale

One day earlier this year, Trove received more than three times its usual number of visitors.

The culprit was the WTF subreddit — a popular place for sharing the weirdities of the web. Someone posted a link to a Trove newspaper article describing the unfortunate demise of a poodle called Cachi, whose fall from a thirteenth-story balcony in Buenos Aires resulted in the deaths of three passers-by.

As well as causing a dramatic spike in Trove’s visitor stats, the post received more than 3000 votes and attracted 677 comments on reddit. Cachi was a hit.

Trove articles pop up regularly on reddit. The traffic spikes they bring are reminders that however proud we might be of our stats, we are but a tiny corner of the web. There’s something much bigger out there.

Michael Peter Edson has long sought to alert cultural heritage organisations to the challenges of scale. In a recent essay he described the web’s ‘dark matter’:

There’s just an enormous, humongous, gigantic audience out there connected to the Internet that is starving for authenticity, ideas, and meaning. We’re so accustomed to the scale of attention that we get from visitation to bricks-and-mortar buildings that it’s difficult to understand how big the Internet is—and how much attention, curiosity, and creativity a couple of billion people can have.

Libraries, archives and museums, he argues, need to meet the public where they are, to recognise that vigorous sites of meaning-making are scattered across the vast terrain of the web. Trove newspaper traces and reddit spikes are mere glimpses of the ‘dark matter’ of cultural activity that lurks beneath the apps, the stats, and the corporate hype.

People are already using our digital stuff in ways we don’t expect. The question is whether libraries, archives and museums see this hunger for connection as an invitation or a threat. Do we join the party, or call the police to complain about the noise?

Sharing

There’s something fundamentally human about sharing. Yes, it’s easy to mock the shallowness of a Facebook ‘Like’; to see our obsession with followers, friends and retweets as evidence of our dwindling capacity for attention — reducing engagement and understanding to a single click. But haven’t we always shared — through stories, gossip, jokes, performances, and rituals? Rather than being measured against a threshold of meaning, surely each act of sharing exists on a continuum from the flippant to the philosophical. Just because the act of sharing has been commodified by large social media services seeking to mine our preferences for profit, doesn’t mean it lacks deeper human significance.

A retweet can represent a fleeting interest, a brief moment of distraction. But it can also mark the start of a journey.

Cultural heritage institutions around the world have begun to recognise that sharing is not just a marketing strategy, it’s a mission. As Merete Sanderhoff notes in her foreword to the anthology Sharing is Caring:

When cultural heritage is digital, open and shareable, it becomes common property, something that is right at hand every day. It becomes a part of us.

Aggregation services, like Trove, the Digital Public Library of America, Europeana, and DigitalNZ, bring resources together to share them more easily with the world. Aggregation is only worthwhile if it serves discovery and reuse — it’s a process of mobilisation, rather than collection. As Europeana argues in their 2020 strategy:

We believe culture is a catalyst for social and economic change. But that’s only possible if it’s readily usable and easily accessible for people to build with, build on and share.

Of course the hard part is understanding what makes something ‘readily usable and easily accessible’. What balance do we need between push and pull? Between ease-of-use and technical power? Between licensing and liberty? Between context and creativity?

Busy Bots

The Mechanical Curator was born in the British Library Labs as part of their innovative digital scholarship program. In September 2013, she started posting to Tumblr random images automatically extracted from a collection of 65,000 digitised 19th century books.

It was, Ben O’Steen explained, an experiment in ‘providing undirected engagement with the British Library’s digital content’. The book illustrations moved from inside to outside, opening opportunities for discovery beyond the covers.

But that was just the beginning. A few months later the Mechanical Curator dramatically expanded its labours, uploading more than a million public domain images to Flickr.

What followed was something of a cultural feeding frenzy as people from all over the world starting sharing, tagging, collecting, and creating with this rich assortment of 19th century illustrations. Since then the images have been mashed up into new works, added and organised in the Wikimedia Commons, and featured in an installation at the Burning Man festival in Nevada.

Having been locked away within books for more than a hundred years, the illustrations were given new life online as works in their own right. Opportunities for innovation and expression were created by a rupture in context.

Meanwhile on Twitter, a growing army of bots was liberating items from cultural collections around the world. Inspired by the bot-making genius of Mark Sample, I created @TroveNewsBot in June 2013 to tweet newspaper articles from Trove.

He was joined by @DPLABot, @EuropeanaBot, @Kasparbot, @CurtinLibBot, @DigitalNZ.bot, @museumbot, @cooperhewittbot, @bklynmuseumbot, and no doubt others — all sharing random collection items. Of course @MechCuratorBot soon joined the fray from the British Library, and I eventually added @Trovebot to tweet material from all the non-newspapery sections of Trove.

The possibilities of serendipitous discovery are receiving increasing attention within the digital humanities. At DH2014, Kim Martin and Anabel Quan-Haase critically examined four DH tools — including @TroveNewsBot — in the light of existing models of serendipity. Their discussion noted that randomness is not the same as serendipity, and outlined how serendipity could be understood as type of encounter with information. I do wonder though if what makes the bots interesting is not randomness as such, but the way randomness can play around with our assumptions about context.

Steve Lubar observes that the random offerings of collection bots can also expose the choices that are made in the creation and display of cultural collections. Randomness can challenge our expectations. Describing the genesis of the Mechanical Curator, James Baker notes:

And so as what at first seemed simple descends into complexity the Mechanical Curator achieves her peculiar aim: giving knowledge with one hand, carpet bombing the foundations of that knowledge with the other.

The Trove bots I created do more than tweet random offerings, they also allow you to interact with Trove without ever leaving Twitter. Send a few keywords their way and they’ll do your searching for you, tweeting back the most relevant result. You can modify their default behaviour by adding a series of hashtags — #luckydip, for example, will spice your result with a touch of randomness.

More interestingly, perhaps, you can tweet a url at them and they’ll extract keywords from the web page and use them to construct the search. This means that @TroveNewsBot can offer commentary on current events.

Several times a day he retrieves the latest headlines from a news site and searches for something similar amidst Trove’s 130 million historical newspaper articles. What emerges is a strange conversation between past and present.

These bots do not simply present collection items outside of the familiar context of discovery interfaces or online exhibitions, they move the encounter itself into a wholly new space. Just as the Mechanical Curator liberates illustrations from the printed page, the Twitter bots loosen the institutional context of collections to allow them to participate in a space where people already congregate. They send collection items out into the wilds of the web, to find new meanings, new connections and perhaps even new love.

Broken & Repaired

But letting go can be scary. A 2008 survey of libraries, archives and museums revealed that one of the main factors inhibiting the opening up of online collections was the desire to avoid misrepresentation, mislabeling or misuse of cultural objects. Easy sharing brings the risk that our carefully curated content will be shorn of context and bounced around the web — adrift and abused.

Earlier this year Sarah Werner took aim at Twitter feeds that pump out streams of ‘historical’ photos — unattributed and often wrongly captioned. But it wasn’t simply the lack of attribution that angered her:

These accounts capitalize on a notion that history is nothing more than superficial glimpses of some vaguely defined time before ours, one that exists for us to look at and exclaim over and move on from without worrying about what it means and whether it happened.

I have to admit that the excitement of seeing Trove’s visitor numbers suddenly soar thanks to reddit is frequently tempered by the realisation that what is being shared is yet another story of gruesome death, violence, or misfortune. 150 years of Australian history is reduced to clickbait by our tabloid sensibilities. Most of those who arrive from reddit read the article and click away — the bounce rate is around 97%. This is not ‘engagement’?

And yet, I can’t help but wonder about the 3% who don’t immediately leave, who pause and look around. Three percent of a lot is still a lot — a lot of people who might have been exposed to Trove and Australian history for the very first time. Similarly while the viral pics industry is frustrating and exploitative, it might yet offer opportunities to learn.

One of my favourite Twitter accounts is @PicsPedant. It monitors many of the viral pics feeds, researches the images, and tweets the results — providing a steady stream of attributions, corrections, critiques, and context. Not only do you find out about the images, you pick up research tips, and learn about the cannibalistic tendencies of the pic bots themselves — constantly recycling content from their kin.

@AhistoricalPics offers a different form of education, satirising the whole viral pics genre with its fabricated captions, and pricking at our own inclination to believe.

Freeing collections opens them to misuse, but it also exposes that misuse to analysis and critique. Contexts can be rediscovered as well as lost, restored as well as broken.

Generous signposts

It’s wonderful to see many Trove newspaper articles shared on Twitter. Unfortunately a significant proportion of these come from climate change deniers, who mine the newspapers for freak weather events and past climatic theories, imagining that such reports undermine current research. This is bad science and bad history. Their efforts are also well-represented in my database of web page citations, along with expressions of hatred and prejudice that I’d prefer to stay submerged. It’s depressing, but it seems inevitable that people will do bad things with your stuff.

In a recent post about the DPLA’s metadata licensing arrangements, Dan Cohen suggested we should look beyond technical and legal controls around online use towards social and ethical guidelines:

The cynics, of course, will say that bad actors will do bad things with all that open data. But here’s the thing about the open web: bad actors will do bad things, regardless… The flip side of worries about bad actors is that we underestimate the number of good actors doing the right thing.

Bad people will do bad things, but by asserting a social and ethical framework for the use of digital cultural collections we strengthen the resolve and commitment of those who want to do right.

Already there are examples in the work of the Local Contexts project which is developing a series of licenses and labels to guide use of traditional knowledge and cultural materials. Similarly, Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand have been developing an Indigenous Knowledge Notice to educate the public about what constitutes appropriate use.

We should remember too that footnotes have always been at the heart of an ethical pact. The Australian historian Tom Griffiths has described footnotes as ‘honest expressions of vulnerability’ — ‘generous signposts to anyone who wants to retrace the path and test the insights’. This ‘professional paraphernalia’ has, he argues, grown out of a series of ethical questions:

To whom are we responsible – to the people in our stories, to our sources, to our informants, to our readers and audiences, to the integrity of the past itself? How do we pay our respects, allow for dissent, accommodate complexity, distinguish between our voice and those of our characters?1

Such questions remain crucial as we consider the relationship between cultural collections and their online users. If we expect people to erect ‘generous signposts’ we have to make our stuff easy to find and share. If we want them to consider their responsibility to the past we should focus on providing trust, confidence, and support, not permission.

Responsibilities

If my wall of faces seems seems familiar, it might be because a few years ago I created something similar called The Real Face of White Australia.

The two walls use different sets of records, but they were constructed in much the same way: I reverse-engineered the National Archives’ online database, downloaded images of digitised files, and used a facial detection script to identify and extract faces.

The Real Face of White Australia was an experiment, built over the course of a weekend. But its discomfiting power was immediately evident. Where there had been records, there were people — looking at us, challenging us.

My partner Kate Bagnall is a historian of Chinese-Australia and we were working together on a project called Invisible Australians, aimed at liberating the lives of these people from the bureaucracy of the White Australia Policy.

The project was motivated by a strong sense of responsibility — not to the National Archives, not to the records, but to the people themselves.

We often talk about preserving context as if it’s an end in itself; as if context is just a set of attributes to be catalogued and controlled. The exciting, terrifying, wonderful thing about the wild, wild web is how it upsets our notions of relevance and meaning. Historic newspapers can find their way into contemporary debates. Century-old illustrations can be remade as art. Twitter bots can inspire conversations with collections. The people buried inside a recordkeeping system can be brought at last to the surface. Contexts are unstable, shifting. And through that instability we can glimpse other worlds, we can imagine alternatives, we can build something new.

What’s important is not training users to understand the context of our collections, but helping them explore and understand their responsibilities to the pasts those collections represent.

Let’s remove technical barriers, minimise legal restrictions, and trust in the good will of our audiences. Instead of building shrines to our descriptive methodologies, let’s create systems that provide stable shareable anchors, that connect, but don’t constrain.

Contexts will flow and mingle, some will fade and some will burn. Contexts will survive not because we demand it in our terms of service, or embed them in our interfaces, but because they capture something that matters.

The ways we find and use cultural collections will continue to change, but questions about responsibility, value, and meaning will remain.

1. Tom Griffiths, ‘History and the creative imagination’, History Australia, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2009.

On Friday 19 October I joined an enthusiastic group of digital humanities explorers at a Deakin University event entitled Dipping a Toe into the Digital Humanities and Creative Arts. @catspyjamasnz has assembled an excellent summary of the day in Storify.

"Every story" – making the data visible by @wragge #dhdeakin #research pic.twitter.com/qmnK1q9s

— Joyce Seitzinger (@catspyjamasnz) October 18, 2012

In the morning I told the story of Invisible Australians. You can view the slides of Too or important not to try and listen to my dodgy audio recording via SoundCloud.

In the afternoon I gave a whirlwind workshop which included a headline roulette smackdown and an introduction to the wonders of Zotero.

Recently I gave a presentation at the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Arts eResearch Forum. The slides for my talk, ‘Digital Disruptions: Finding New Ways to Break Things’, are available online (thanks to reveal.js). I also managed to make a fairly basic recording — I’m intending to create a transcript, but for now you’re welcome to download and listen you can listen via SoundCloud.

Basically I was arguing that as well as making stuff, digital humanities can involve a lot of stretching, twisting, pushing and breaking stuff. The web is not fixed or static, there are many points at which we can intervene and change the way information is presented. What we need is confidence to pull things apart, and the ability to critically examine why things work the way they do (or don’t). And imagine alternatives.

After my talk there were a number of interesting reports from people around the university. Brett Holman has provided a great summary on his Airminded blog, as well as doing his best to find me a job!

One of the things that’s keeping me busy at the moment is THATCamp Canberra. Yes, I got sick of missing out on all the THATCamp fun happening elsewhere and decided we should have our own.

THATCamp Canberra is a user-generated unconference on the digital humanities. It’ll be held at the University of Canberra on 28–29 August. We’re getting a great mix of applications and I’m really looking forward to learning about what’s going on around Australia.

Applications close on 23 July, so get yours in soon!