XVII. Embracing Digital Volunteering Through Crowdsourcing

Across the world, 2020 was an extremely difficult and unpredictable year as COVID-19 became a global pandemic; the cultural sector was no stranger to the hardships being faced. A UNESCO Report outlined that 90% of museums had to close their doors during the pandemic.¹ Most museums experienced a drop in their volunteer numbers, the effects of which continue to be felt even after the return to in-person activities.² In order for museums to maintain engagement and relationships with their communities throughout the pandemic, there was an increased turn toward digital opportunities. Museums have reported that understanding of the value and uses of digital technology shifted within their institutions during the pandemic.³ Although the pandemic created enormous hardship, it did provide the push that many museums needed to consider new strategies, their relevance, and how they could grow through digital experiences.⁴

As museums shifted to the digital world, so did their volunteers. Although in-person activities were no longer running, volunteers still wanted a way of supporting their museum. In addition, because so many people were stuck in their homes, people who may not have ordinarily volunteered joined the efforts in order to have something to occupy their time and be a part of.⁵ A report by VolunteerMatch found that, across all fields, participation in virtual volunteering opportunities experienced significant growth during the pandemic, increasing from 17%-29% between July and October of 2020.⁶ The pandemic generated a rise in the public’s interest in engagement through digital experiences and platforms. In the wake of this surge in the use of digital platforms and technology, there is the opportunity and desire to offer more digital volunteer opportunities. This paper will explore crowdsourcing as an effective means of participation and engagement in an increasingly digital world.

What Is Crowdsourcing?

One area of digitally enabled participation that grew during the pandemic was crowdsourcing. The term crowdsourcing has floated around the internet for some time now, but what exactly is it? Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage sector is a form of participation where the public engages in projects related to cultural heritage collections in a digital setting.⁷ Volunteers perform various tasks such as transcribing (transforming digitized images of written text into typed text), reviewing (checking the work of other participants), tagging (adding descriptive, identifying words to an image or document),⁸ cataloging (creating digital records for collection objects), creating content (ex. writing articles), correcting content (fixing the mistakes from computer generated transcription), and more.⁹

One of the more prevalent tasks in Cultural Heritage Crowdsourcing has been transcription, therefore it will be presented to a greater extent in this paper.¹⁰ An early success in the Gallery, Library, Archive and Museum (GLAM) sector’s adoption of crowdsourcing was Old Weather, which had volunteers transcribing weather observations found in ship’s logs from the 19th and 20th centuries. It was a collaboration between multiple institutions that began in 2010 on the Zooniverse platform (a website where many institutions can host their projects), with the goal of improving knowledge of the environment historically.¹¹ In 2013, the Smithsonian created the Smithsonian Transcription Center where, as of March 2022, volunteers have transcribed over 1,000,000 pages of digitized historical documents.¹² The center includes an array of projects to work on such as transcribing the work of the Harvard Observatory’s women computers.¹³ In 2018 the Library of Congress’ transcription project, By the People launched. The platform includes many “campaigns” to choose from, whether that be writings related to Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, or African Americans in military service.¹⁴ You can learn about more projects on Non-profit Crowd’s “Directory of Crowdsourcing Projects.”¹⁵

The Beginnings of Crowdsourcing

Crowdsourcing may seem like a new advancement brought on by the internet; however, evidence of crowdsourcing can be found long before the digital realm was even a possibility.¹⁶ Work we now call crowdsourcing—coined in a Wired Magazine article in 2006—¹⁷was being done as early as the 19th century,¹⁸ and arguably before that in the 17th century when scientists would gather collective data to form theories.¹⁹ Even in the cultural heritage field, crowdsourcing began as something separate from the internet,²⁰ but when the term is used now²¹ and throughout this paper, it generally refers to the work undertaken digitally.

Modern crowdsourcing came about with the creation of online platforms and a shift from viewing the use of internet technologies as a way of seeking information to a means of public participation. This shift resulted in a new phase of the internet known as Web 2.0.²² In the cultural heritage sector a movement began to try crowdsourcing as a means of increasing access and improving the quality of collections.²³ Around 2010, the use of crowdsourcing in the sector began to take hold with successful projects like Old Weather. The field has continued to grow significantly since the mid-2000s and although crowdsourcing may still seem like a relatively new digital opportunity, it is already an established method for participation and engagement in the GLAM sector.²⁴

Why Crowdsource? Thinking Beyond the Pandemic

We are at a moment in the GLAM sector when many institutions have digital opportunities on their mind. COVID-19 marked a shift within institutions from hesitancy and disconnect regarding the benefits of digital initiatives, to a sense of necessity.²⁵ The benefits of crowdsourcing reach well beyond the span of COVID-19 and the halt of in-person activities. So before jumping into the world of crowdsourcing it is important to know the “why.” Why invest in crowdsourcing? What can it do for the institution and its publics?

An important advantage of the digital platform is the increase in accessibility and diversity. With digital platforms people can volunteer without having to commute,²⁶ which means that volunteering is not limited to individuals in close proximity to the institutions, allowing people from across the world to participate by volunteering. People can work with GLAM institutions from different locations or time zones and are free to contribute to projects based on their passions. Additionally, digital volunteering provides the volunteer with agency over when they engage with the projects. Without the constraints of museum hours, volunteers are free to work on projects at any time and for however long they would like. Individuals with disabilities or caregiving responsibilities that prevent them from participating in person are now able to volunteer.²⁷ Surveys conducted in the U.S. and U.K. showed “a rise in engagement with less traditional and more vulnerable audiences” when museums increased digital opportunities for engagement.²⁸ During the pandemic, museums saw more people take an interest in digital projects, specifically those of a younger age such as students,²⁹ a change from the average museum volunteer of an older demographic.³⁰ These changes are beneficial to museum volunteers and to the museums themselves as their goals should include increasing accessibility and diversity within their institutions.

Figure 1

The advancement in diversity and accessibility also extends to museum collections. Crowdsourcing projects at their finest involve the participation of many voices from diverse backgrounds. It is possible to help fill in areas where diverse knowledge is lacking within a collection and/or an institution, by creating projects where a diverse community can contribute their knowledge.³¹ In “Participatory Design and the Future of Museums,” Nina Simon remarks that a participatory museum ”invites visitors to respond and add to information about cultural artifacts, scientific evidence, and historical records on display” and ”showcases the diverse creations and opinions of non-experts.”³² In 2017 the Food Museum began Search for the Stars, a project that asked the community to help digitize their collection, but also to help them find their “stars”—objects in the collection that volunteers think should be given more attention.³³ In doing so, they are giving their community a say in the exhibits and expanding the ideas and voices of the museum beyond its staff. The work of crowdsourcing projects can also increase the accessibility of collections by improving search and generating researchable data. On the Library of Congress’ crowdsourcing platform By the People, volunteers transcribe handwritten documents into text and create tags, so that both the handwritten and transcribed text can be more easily accessed.³⁴

However, it is still important to remember that the internet is not the democratic place that many had hoped it would be at conception.³⁵ There are dominant voices on the internet, and we must be careful that they are not the only representation in these projects.³⁶ Crowdsourcing does not inherently provide solutions to access and diversity, but if projects are created with specific values and audiences in mind, and with carefully considered choices in their design,³⁷ then it is possible to see improvements in those areas.³⁸

One of the goals of crowdsourcing has been to provide greater access and opportunity to engage with museum collections, but this is also one of the benefits of the process itself. As Trevor Owens puts it:

The process of crowdsourcing projects fulfills the mission of digital collections better than the resulting searches. That is, when someone sits down to transcribe a document they are actually better fulfilling the mission of the cultural heritage organization than anyone who simply stops by to flip through the pages.³⁹

When volunteers work on these projects, they are engaging with collection materials in a way that is more impactful than typical exploration. As volunteers read and decipher written text, brainstorm the best tags, or input data for an object, they are having an intensive moment with a collection. This engagement with the material can lead to such wonderful things as joy, fascination, and curiosity.⁴⁰ Crowdsourcing volunteers might even do their own research on the topics to better understand the material they are engaging with, or out of sheer curiosity. One post on the By the People community page, Crowd, details the fascinating journey undertaken by volunteer transcriptionist Charles Trentelman as he connects Teddy Roosevelt, the Pan-American Exposition of 1901 in Buffalo, N.Y., and the assassination of President William McKinley all from one letter in the Roosevelt papers. He finishes the post saying that he’s “been tingling for the last hour at all the connections in this one simple letter.”⁴¹ This is not just the typical consumption of information that would ordinarily happen when the public searches the collection,⁴² it goes much further in promoting curiosity and engagement.

Another benefit of crowdsourcing is its ability to empower people and foster greater trust. By way of these projects, GLAM institutions are essentially reaching out and asking for help; they are asking the public to join them in work that would have ordinarily been kept to staff. In doing so, there is a shift in the traditional structures of power that brings staff, volunteers, and researchers together in a way that positions them more as equals.⁴³

Figure 2

This is a very powerful change when for a long time, and still today, these institutions have been seen as all-knowing, all-powerful, and often unapproachable. Being trusted with this work,⁴⁴ and having the opportunity to help form the historical record,⁴⁵ can be empowering for volunteers. Additionally, this shifting relationship, and the greater involvement of volunteers in the work of the museum collections, works to build greater trust. Institutions, in opening up their work and processes, are creating an opportunity for the public to criticize the work and suggest improvements, which builds a new level of trust between them.⁴⁶

The Successes of Crowdsourcing

Through the work of past and ongoing crowdsourcing projects, we can begin to understand how to make future projects successful. The visibility of crowdsourcing may be growing because of the pandemic, but there have been many institutions and people working on previous and ongoing projects over the last two decades that have valuable insight.⁴⁷ As more GLAM institutions consider crowdsourcing, it is important that it does not become just about going digital, but about creating effective projects. It is extremely worthwhile to look to previous work as a source of guidance.

When developing and running a crowdsourcing project, it is important to keep in mind that volunteers need to know they are making a difference. A major motivation volunteers list as to why they get involved is the ability to do something for the greater good,⁴⁸ something that will help further knowledge.⁴⁹ Therefore, volunteers feel more valued and are more motivated when they know their work is being shared and used,⁵⁰ and, more specifically, when they know how it will be used.⁵¹ The Old Weather About Page explains that volunteering for their project will help climate scientists learn about past weather and sea-ice conditions, help historians study the course of voyages, and may even lead to entirely new discoveries.⁵² This lays out for volunteers exactly how their work will be used and create an impact. Another consideration is that volunteers are more interested in working on crowdsourcing projects if the institution has adopted efforts toward open access.⁵³ There are many ways of defining open access, but in this context it can be understood as removing restrictions from public domain materials and allowing copyright materials to be used under fair use.⁵⁴ As mentioned before, volunteers often participate because of their desire to do something that will benefit others, so the more an institution can incorporate open access, the more volunteers will be drawn to them. Volunteers want to give their time to a project where everyone will be able to use the information and data that they are working to produce.⁵⁵

Through these projects, institutions should be establishing mutually beneficial relationships with the participants.⁵⁶ It is important that both volunteers and GLAM institutions are getting something from the project and that it is truly a collaboration.⁵⁷ Institutions must ensure the line between exploitation and providing people with valuable experiences is not crossed.⁵⁸ One of the benefits of crowdsourcing is the ability to empower volunteers and form trust, but this involves truly working with volunteers. When the Getty Research Institute launched their project Mutual Muses (a project transcribing letters connecting the lives of Lawrence Alloway, art historian, and Sylvia Sleigh, feminist artist) they realized users have the best understanding of how to make improvements to areas such as workflow and support and learned the importance of participant feedback.⁵⁹ Taking into account volunteer suggestions and findings establishes a positive relationship between institutions and volunteers.

Another important aspect is the establishment of a space for community and discussion. This provides a way for volunteers to ask questions and give feedback to the institution. Furthermore, if you supply a space for volunteers to share and help others, they will create an amazing sense of community.⁶⁰ On Crowd, there are endless threads consisting of volunteers asking one another for help, discussions about interesting finds, and interactions with Library of Congress staff.⁶¹ People crave connection and a sense of community, and this is no different in a virtual space. Having a place where volunteers can share their thoughts and connect to others is important in creating a sense of community and a way of reaching out to those running the project.

In designing and implementing a crowdsourcing project, institutions should always consider how their choices impact the ease of participation. These choices can be everything from the layout of the platform to when and how you add new material. For example, one decision that increases participation is allowing volunteers to use the platform without having to create an account, removing a key barrier to engaging.⁶² Both the Smithsonian Transcription Center and By the People allow anyone to transcribe without registering. They still maintain accuracy by reserving reviewing for those with an account, but there are no barriers to initial participation.⁶³ Platforms have also made participation easier by providing ways to jump right into the work from the homepage. The New York Public Library’s What’s on the Menu?, where volunteers transcribe historical menus, has a spot on their homepage that says, “Help Review,” which, when clicked, takes volunteers to a random page to begin working.⁶⁴ This makes beginning to participate simple and enticing because of the randomness and element of surprise.

Figure 3

When looking at successful crowdsourcing you will also find that some projects can be browsed by themes, allowing volunteers to more easily find material of interest to work on. On the Zooniverse projects page, volunteers can sort projects by subjects such as nature or history depending on their interests.⁶⁵

Figure 4

Another consideration is when and how you add new material to the platform. When running their crowdsourcing project, Mutual Muses, the Getty Research Institute determined that there was a correlation between spikes in transcription rates and their release of new content, which they always tweeted about.⁶⁶ It follows that notifying your volunteers when you add more material reengages them with the platform. However, this means that the time you upload and notify your volunteers will affect what demographics you are reaching.⁶⁷ These small decisions can have unintentional but impactful implications on participation in your project.⁶⁸ Therefore, it is imperative to consider the impact your decisions can have, beginning with the initial design process.

Testing the Waters with Host Platforms

Although some of the more well-known platforms for crowdsourcing are run solely for individual institutions, there are a growing number of platforms hosting spaces for the crowdsourcing projects of multiple institutions. Platforms such as FromThePage, DigiVol, and Zooniverse allow institutions to create projects using an established site, cutting down on the staff, time, and resources that would be needed to set individual sites to support their projects. The existence of multiple projects on one site also means that volunteers can be shared and combined to digitize large amounts of data.⁶⁹ In utilizing these platforms, museums are gaining new volunteers that were already on the site and bringing their own community of volunteers to other projects. Volunteers are then able to discover new institutions to engage with, and the institutions gain volunteers that may not have previously known of their existence. Although these platforms have their limitations and difficulties because much of the design is outside of the institution’s control, they can be a great place to explore crowdsourcing before creating a platform specifically for the individual institution.⁷⁰

Within the GLAM sector, smaller institutions have a lot to gain from this form of digital volunteering. A lack of resources and acclaim means that they rely more heavily on volunteers, may receive fewer visitors, and have a narrower visitor demographic. Crowdsourcing work is a great way to expand their volunteer network given the increasing accessibility and potential to reach a worldwide set of volunteers. Smaller institutions are also generally farther behind when it comes to providing digital access to their collections, making crowdsourcing extremely beneficial. However, we must remember to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship and not fall into the trap of thinking about it through a lens of outsourcing.⁷¹

Conclusion

The push of the pandemic turned a spotlight onto digital initiatives that is unlikely to fade. People have grown accustomed to the increased digital access to museums that has been provided, and museums cannot turn back.⁷² In her article “How the Pandemic Changed Museums Forever (or Did It?)” Rachel B. Levin says that “the museum visit of the future will likely be one that straddles both in-person and online realms.”⁷³ In the coming years, more museums will start diving deeper into the potential of digital platforms, with crowdsourcing being an important contender. Crowdsourcing is extremely beneficial for GLAM institutions and their communities because it can expand demographics, increase diversity and accessibility, empower and build trust, and allow for deeper engagement with collections.

Crowdsourcing, like much of the work done in the museum tech field, may feel like a recent development, but this is not the case. There is now extensive literature, the precedent of successful projects, and the vast knowledge of museum tech professionals to learn from.[^75] As museums feel the pressure to provide these opportunities, it is important they take the time to seek guidance from the work that has already been done within the field.

notes

---

1. UNESCO, Museums around the World in the Face of COVID-19 (Paris: UNESCO, 2020), accessed October 25, 2022, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373530. ↩︎

2. American Association for Museum Volunteers, Survey Results - July 2020 (2020), 2-3, https://aamv.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/COVID%20Survey%20Summary.pdf. ↩︎

3. Lukas Noehrer et al., “The Impact of COVID-19 on Digital Data Practices in Museums and art Galleries in the UK and the US,” Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8, no. 236 (2021): 8, https://doi-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00921-8. ↩︎

4. Noehrer et al., “The Impact of COVID-19 on Digital Data Practices in Museums and Art Galleries in the UK and the US,” 2. ↩︎

5. Emily Cain, “2020: Our Biggest Year Yet,” Smithsonian Digital Volunteers: Transcription Center Blog (blog), January 6, 2021, https://transcription.si.edu/articles/2020-our-biggest-year-yet. ↩︎

6. Sterling Volunteers Staff, “Key Trends in Navigating the Changing Volunteer Landscape,” Sterling Volunteers (blog), March 3, 2021, https://www.sterlingvolunteers.com/blog/2021/03/key-trends-in-navigating-the-changing-volunteer-landscape/. ↩︎

7. Mia Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?” in The Collective Wisdom Handbook: Perspectives on Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage - Community Review Version, eds. Mia Ridge, Samantha Blickhan, and Meghan Ferriter (PubPub, 2021), 5, https://britishlibrary.pubpub.org/pub/what-is-crowdsourcing-in-cultural-heritage/release/2. ↩︎

8. Cambridge Dictionary, s.v. “Tagging (n.),” accessed November 22, 2022, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tagging. ↩︎

9. “Directory of Crowdsourcing Projects,” Non-profit Crowd, accessed November 6, 2022, http://nonprofitcrowd.org/crowdsourcing-website-directory/. ↩︎

10. Melissa Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” in A New Companion to Digital Humanities, eds. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth (Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 20, https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:15066/CONTENT/mterras_crowdsourcing20in20digital20humanities_final1.pdf/. ↩︎

11. “Old Weather,” Old Weather, accessed November 20, 2022, https://www.oldweather.org/about.html; Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 9. ↩︎

12. Smithsonian Transcription Center, “Mark your calendars, #volunpeers 🥳! Join us at 1:00 pm ET, April 12th for an online event celebrating the incredible impact of #1MillionTranscribed,” Facebook, March 31, 2022, https://www.facebook.com/SmithsonianTranscriptionCenter. ↩︎

13. “Project Phaedra - Evelyn F. Leland - M Determinations - North Pole Plates #61,” Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Projects, Smithsonian Digital Volunteers: Transcription Center, accessed November 7, 2022, https://transcription.si.edu/project/29361. ↩︎

14. “By the People,” Library of Congress, accessed November 6, 2022, https://crowd.loc.gov/. ↩︎

15. Non-profit Crowd, “Directory of Crowdsourcing Projects.” ↩︎

16. Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 6. ↩︎

17. Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 6. ↩︎

18. Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 6. ↩︎

19. Theodore S. Feldman, ”Late Enlightenment Meteorology,” in The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th Century, eds. Tore Frangsmyr, J. L. Heilbron, and Robin E. Rider (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 146, http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft6d5nb455/; Victoria Morris, 2021, comment on Mia Ridge et al., “What is crowdsourcing in cultural heritage?,“ 6. ↩︎

20. Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 6. ↩︎

21. Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 3. ↩︎

22. Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 2. ↩︎

23. Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 1. ↩︎

24. Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 10. ↩︎

25. Noehrer et al., “The Impact of COVID-19 on Digital Data Practices in Museums and Art Galleries in the UK and the US,” 6. ↩︎

26. Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 3. ↩︎

27. Mia Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?” in The Collective Wisdom Handbook: Perspectives on Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage - Community Review Version, eds. Mia Ridge, Samantha Blickhan, and Meghan Ferriter (PubPub, 2021), 2-3, https://britishlibrary.pubpub.org/pub/why-work-with-crowdsourcing-in-cultural-heritage/release/2?readingCollection=1b80974b. ↩︎

28. Myrsini Samaroudi, Karina Rodriguez Echavarria, and Lara Perry, “Heritage in lockdown: digital provision of memory institutions in the UK and US of America during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Museum Management and Curatorship 35, no.4 (2020): 21, https://www-tandfonline-com.proxygw.wrlc.org/doi/full/10.1080/09647775.2020.1810483; Noehrer et al., “The Impact of COVID-19 on Digital Data Practices in Museums and Art Galleries in the UK and the US,” 3; “The Audience Agency Digital Audience Survey,” The Audience Agency, November 2020, 41, https://www.theaudienceagency.org/asset/2547. ↩︎

29. Elizabeth Merritt, ”COVID-19 and Museum Volunteers,” Center For the Future of Museums Blog (blog), May 28, 2020, https://www.aam-us.org/2020/05/28/covid-19-and-museum-volunteers/. ↩︎

30. Emma Halford-Forbes, “Volunteers in Museums: Getting Them Back After COVID,” Go Industrial, accessed November 9, 2022, https://www.goindustrial.co.uk/our-blog/blog-post/volunteers-in-museums-getting-them-back-after-covid. ↩︎

31. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?," 3-4. ↩︎

32. Nina Simon, “Participatory Design and the Future of Museums,” in Letting go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-generated World, eds. Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski (Philadelphia: The Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, 2011), 21. ↩︎

33. “Search for the Stars: New year, New Project,” Food Museum (blog), accessed October 26, 2022, https://foodmuseum.org.uk/searchforthestars/. ↩︎

34. Hussein Kesvani, “A Brief History of the Internet and Internet Culture,” Finding ctrl:, https://findingctrl.nesta.org.uk/brief-history-of-the-internet/](Hussein Kesvani, “A Brief History of the Internet and Internet Culture,” Finding ctrl:, https://findingctrl.nesta.org.uk/brief-history-of-the-internet. ↩︎

35. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 6. ↩︎

36. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 7-8. ↩︎

37. Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 3. ↩︎

38. TJOwens, “Crowdsourcing Cultural Heritage: The Objectives Are Upside Down,” Trevor Owens, March 10, 2012, http://www.trevorowens.org/2012/03/crowdsourcing-cultural-heritage-the-objectives-are-upside-down/. ↩︎

39. Ridge et al., “What is Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 2; Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 5. ↩︎

40. Charles Trentelman, post to “Buddy Review System and Handwriting Help Resources,” Crowd, History Hub, February 8, 2021, 8:55 p.m., https://historyhub.history.gov/message/39780. ↩︎

41. TJOwens, “Crowdsourcing Cultural Heritage: The Objectives Are Upside Down.” ↩︎

42. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 5. ↩︎

43. Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 14. ↩︎

44. TJOwens, “Crowdsourcing Cultural Heritage: The Objectives Are Upside Down.” ↩︎

45. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 3. ↩︎

46. Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 12. ↩︎

47. Effie Kapsalis, “The Impact of Open Access on Galleries, Libraries, Museums, & Archives,” Smithsonian Emerging Leaders Development Program, April 27, 2016, 12, https://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/2016_03_10_OpenCollections_Public.pdf. ↩︎

48. Nathaniel Deines et al., “Six Lessons Learned from Our First Crowdsourcing Project in the Digital Humanities,” Iris Blog, February 7, 2018, https://blogs.getty.edu/iris/six-lessons-learned-from-our-first-crowdsourcing-project-in-the-digital-humanities/. ↩︎

49. Deines et al., “Six Lessons Learned from Our First Crowdsourcing Project in the Digital Humanities.”; Seb Chan, “Interview with Mia Ridge on Museum Metadata Games,” Fresh & New(er), January 3, 2011, https://www.freshandnew.org/2011/01/interview-with-mia-ridge-on-museum-metadata-games/. ↩︎

50. Chan, “Interview with Mia Ridge on Museum Metadata Games.”; Simon, “Participatory Design and the Future of Museums.” ↩︎

51. Old Weather, “Old Weather.” ↩︎

52. Kapsalis, “The Impact of Open Access on Galleries, Libraries, Museums, & Archives,” 12. ↩︎

53. Kapsalis, “The Impact of Open Access on Galleries, Libraries, Museums, & Archives,” 2. ↩︎

54. Kapsalis, “The Impact of Open Access on Galleries, Libraries, Museums, & Archives,” 12. ↩︎

55. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 2. ↩︎

56. Deines et al., “Six Lessons Learned from Our First Crowdsourcing Project in the Digital Humanities.” ↩︎

57. TJOwens, “Crowdsourcing Cultural Heritage: The Objectives Are Upside Down.” ↩︎

58. Deines et al., “Six Lessons Learned from Our First Crowdsourcing Project in the Digital Humanities.” ↩︎

59. Deines et al., “Six Lessons Learned from Our First Crowdsourcing Project in the Digital Humanities.” ↩︎

60. “Overview,” Crowd, History Hub, accessed November 21, 2022, https://historyhub.history.gov/community/crowd-loc. ↩︎

61. Chan, “Interview with Mia Ridge on Museum Metadata Games.”; Simon, “Participatory Design and the Future of Museums.” ↩︎

62. “Be a Virtual Volunteer!,” By the People, accessed November 20, 2022, https://crowd.loc.gov/; “General Instructions for Transcription and Review,” Smithsonian Digital Volunteers: Transcription Center, accessed November 20, 2022, https://transcription.si.edu/instructions. ↩︎

63. “What’s on the Menu?,” New York Public Library, accessed November 21, 2022, http://menus.nypl.org/. ↩︎

64. “Projects,” Zooniverse, accessed November 20, 2022, https://www.zooniverse.org/projects. ↩︎

65. Deines et al., “Six Lessons Learned from Our First Crowdsourcing Project in the Digital Humanities.” ↩︎

66. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 7-8. ↩︎

67. Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 8. ↩︎

68. “About DigiVol,” DigiVol, accessed October 25, 2022, https://volunteer.ala.org.au/about. ↩︎

69. Non-profit Crowd. “Websites for Crowdsourcing Cultural Heritage.” ↩︎

70. Deines et al., “Six Lessons Learned from Our First Crowdsourcing Project in the Digital Humanities;” Ridge et al., “Why Work with Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage?,” 2. ↩︎

71. Rachel B Levin, “How the Pandemic Changed Museums Forever (or Did It?),” USC News, 2021, https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/virtual-art-museum-tours-exhibitions-after-covid-pandemic/. ↩︎

72. Levin, “How the Pandemic Changed Museums Forever (or Did It?)." ↩︎

73. Terras, “Crowdsourcing in the Digital Humanities,” 12. ↩︎