 Thank you very much Astrid and thank you Open Belgium for making this happen, this technology is here but also cultural heritage and data, which is the topic of our talk today, Open Cultural Data in Citizen Science. Lovely. This is an initiative of an Erasmus Plus project called Citizens Heritage. It is about citizen science practices in cultural heritage with the perspective of being sustainable in higher education. This is a consortium of European partners. We started last September and we are a very enthusiastic group of partners and also we are very open to other stakeholders. That's why we organize also this event today. Our project is a compilation or a match of four dimensions that we think that in the past haven't been treated in a homogeneous way, in a joint way. These are citizen science, openness, higher education and cultural heritage. But altogether, of course, every item has been important per se, but now we try to see them as a nexus. Just one slide about the project. It targets several results. Two of them will be showcased today. The first result is a review of practices at universities in the way that universities engage in citizen enhanced open science in the area of cultural heritage. And the second result, it is a methodology about user requirements and guidelines on how cultural heritage institutions and universities can work together towards citizen science and open data. So these are two of the results that will be showcased in our project and will be also treated in our presentation today. The first result will be dealt with by Mariana and the second by Fred Trienne, who is also the coordinator of the project. Because we are open and we want to learn and listen to others, we have invited Susanna from Finland to talk about another dimension of tackling this four-dimensional scheme. So Susanna is with us and also we have a moderator, she will come just a bit later, who is Susanna Hazan from Israel. Before I leave you, I give the floor to Mariana for the first talk of this workshop. Let me give a definition and a great definition of how we see citizen science in this project. Of course you know that public participation in science is something that has been here for decades, even for centuries. So it is very common that citizens engage in science in many, many forms. It started in the 19th century actually. But what we want to emphasize here is how this engagement and enthusiasm and collaboration between citizens and researchers can lead and can enhance the open science objective. How open data can be reused to strengthen scientific endeavors. I would like also to share my preferred slide. It comes from a non-horizon project, DITOS, where it very nicely shows the combination between open science and citizen science. So we see citizen science as a component of open science in a way that citizens not only work hand in hand with researchers, but also other teams of researchers or other teams of citizens elsewhere benefit from this interaction and this collaboration. So thank you for listening. I hand over to Mariana. Begina, are you ready? Thank you, Baderina. Yes, and thank you for hosting this roundtable everyone at Open Bay John and Aus Street. So I'm happy to be together in this roundtable with Susanna and Fred and Suzanne, who will shortly arrive. So let's see how I can share my screen now and do the presentation. Excellent, Mariana. Okay, apparently we could see your screen for a moment there. Okay. However, this is the PowerPoint presentation. Can you still see it? No. I don't see your screen anymore. It was open before, but it said it ended. So I think you have to open it again. Okay. So let's open it and try it this way maybe. Yeah, it's working. Great. So I will be discussing citizen science in the cultural heritage field as part of the study conducted within the Citizen Heritage Project by highlighting a collection of practices with Belgian partnerships. In particular within the project study, the term that is being used is citizen enhanced open science, which basically stands for citizen science seen from an openness lens. So citizen science as a term again is scholarly research done with public participation. We have been analyzing the openness dimension and provide an indicator, an indicative nine factor stack against which we are reviewing a selection of citizen science cases. So what is the scope of the Citizen Heritage Study? It is to connect the fields of citizen science, cultural heritage and higher education, examining research questions as how universities can act as citizen science incubators, how to connect civic engagement with open science and how to move towards active public engagement models in scholarly research. The study collected citizen science use cases through a desktop research that was conducted by the project partners and a public survey during January and February of 2021. Approximately 110 cases have been selected against a set of four criteria. We filtered down this pool to 25 practices, good practices that managed to meet most of the four criteria. These were then tested against of a six times typology and today's presentation contains a selection of all of these practices that involve Belgium partners. So today we focus on the openness scope which is one of the typology items of the study. This maps openness into nine categories which were formed by examining the outcomes and the research design of the citizen science cases together with good practices in open science. This includes generally open access, open data and open metadata and of course this separation is meaningful in sharing data within citizen science projects and in the cultural heritage sector. We will talk about this separation shortly and there is an indicative selection of eight cases related to cultural heritage and citizen science in Belgium or within Belgian partnerships that are part of the citizen heritage study. So some of these projects use the term citizen science whereas others use a more descriptive sense of others terms or may use other kind of similar terms as crowdsourcing or public research participation. So the REITS project initiative one is one of the early examples following a collaborative approach and creating participatory experiments. The European migration is a series of migration story sharing with the public and initiative three is Calidoscope which is about a historical review of the 50s in Europe and connects to the European collections. The Europeana will be presented shortly actually the Europeana projects by Dr. Truyen in the next presentation who was part in the development of these projects together with the photo consortium association. Pagoda explores Chinese cultural heritage within Europe by applying novel participatory practices and Europeana XXR civil science or crowdsourcing campaigns for enriching Europeana which is the aggregator of European cultural heritage content or meta aggregator. And the crowd heritage is a platform for doing crowdsourcing campaigns in order to enrich meta data of cultural content that can then be connected to Europeana. And finally there is a spot around which is a platform and a software framework for developing citizen science applications. It is not open source as far as I know however it allows for open participation and one of the projects is art spots that lets people document street art. And finally the project witnesses it's better not pronounce the Belgian word which is it has initiated an extended public transcription of historical resources about depositions within Belgian courts in the 18th and 19th century. So the methodology follows the three models classification type of civic engagement that is presented by Bonnie et al its widely cited categorization within citizen science. So contributory concerns to less interactions whereas co-creative is on the other side with more interaction to it to citizen science projects and as we see most of the projects are contributory in their civic engagement type and few are collaborative co-creative. This applies also to the rest of the 120 cases. So we view the open scope for each of the factors that cover a field on open data as a summary for all eight categories. In this case open access for all eight citizen science projects concerning Belgium or Belgium partnerships. They seem generally good. A provision should be made for when a certain project is completed and is being archived. We've seen projects kept often kept kept open after completion and others that are not accessible anymore online. The open data is fairly is partly good and the open metadata is fairly good as opposed to open data that may be sometimes not shared with open licenses. However, this is an interesting finding since many projects presented here are connected to Europe. The European data which applies the data exchange agreement which means that all metadata entering Europe must be released under CC0. So this enables open metadata to be created at large. In general, the 25 selected citizen science cases within the citizen heritage study are doing fairly good or partly good to meet certain open standards. However, within these eight selected projects and generally there is a lack. Let's say an open data, open data, more data driven and more data driven approach regarding metrics, documentation and a convenient way to download data should be also taken into account. It's also poorly covered through a data dump or a repository as a repository probably and an API. So here goes a more detailed case by case view of the open scope that has been evaluated through a set of similar open standards and open policies. Most practices are doing fairly good in applying and communicating their open access policy and data ownership. However, it seems challenging to apply the fair data principles which stand for findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data, in this case, cultural data. Since, for example, the interoperability especially needs support on an infrastructure level as well. So there is also the presentation of data driven metrics that is mostly missing and would be also useful to integrate. And finally, concluding, there are three suggestive fields where open data governance and open science is actively being developed within citizen science. And this can be relevant within an interdisciplinary context, also relevant for the cultural heritage sector. It maps the challenges in the field regarding standards, ethics and quality. For example, for citizen science, there is a certain protocol and data model that is being used PPCR core. Probably this can be also employed for cultural heritage, citizen science projects, or maybe formalized, especially for this kind of projects. There are also people oriented data principles, as for example the care principles. This can also be discussed in the context of citizen science probably. The care principles stands for collective benefit for authority to control, responsibility and ethics. It is primarily designed for indigenous people, but it can also be about local communities, about contemporary communities that follow traditional knowledge. For so this can be also principles that can be viewed within the citizen science projects, especially the ones that deal with indigenous populations. And quality of assurance where this is a field how to make data within citizen science being trustable. So the next steps are to the release the full study of the citizen heritage project within July 2021. I thought it was full actually. It will be open access and then to do a further research on fair principles, which is now out of the scope of the citizen heritage study. However, it seems that it can be an interesting way to go. So thank you from our side and I would like to welcome maybe Susanna. Or maybe Dr. Yen, here you are everyone. Hello. I'll open my camera also. So hello. Good evening. Will I do a presentation now or is it Susanna's? Yes, please Fred, you can go ahead. So I will share my screen if possible. Okay, works. Okay, so I'll present here. I will now maximize my screen but I will come back to my non-presentation mode because I need to show some websites also and then so I'll quickly go to that. Now, what we wanted to present so Sophie and I, but Sophie unfortunately had an issue in the beginning of the week and couldn't join us today, but all is well. We wanted to show some examples in the first place on what is actually going on and what the steps could be to move towards citizen science. Because there is already a lot going on in the heritage sector of including citizens and engaging users and citizens to review collections, to annotate collections, to crowdsource objects, etc. But many of these activities fall a bit short of being really citizen science and so what we aim to do in the project citizen heritage is to come up with a kind of handy guidelines that would help you to make this extra step and certainly to advocate that it doesn't require that much. Of course science always involves a lot of effort, but a lot of effort is already going on in engaging the audiences and we only have to be smart about how we do this. And so what we will publish are two things. First of all, guidelines that translate the work that Katharina and just presented and translates it into handy guidelines that you can use when you prepare an action. Research based action and we will focus on four steps. The preparation because we think a lot of the difference between a generic crowdsourcing activities or user participation activities in CHI's needs extra steps in the preparation phase to become eligible to really generate citizen science. And then we will have a look at what should be done during the research. And then of course the goal because science is still about communicating with the right scientific audience through publications to academic publications and communications in conferences etc. So there need to be a careful consideration on how the citizen engagement translates into what is published in the publications. And then a step that is mostly forgotten and that is in fact, in many cases, even in the best practice examples is completely forgotten is how do you close the circle with the citizens that actually participate. How will they know how the scientific discourse is continuing. And it is for that kind of things that we want to set up these guidelines now for in the preparation of the research action. I think it is of utmost important that you have a reflection on the role of participants because what we see in crowdsourcing and user engagement in heritage in the heritage sector and we did a large study now with within Europe also in the European Common Culture Project where my colleague Rob Davis made a substantial report on the use of crowdsourcing in the European environment. And we see that there are different roles in which citizens are involved. Sometimes they are really the object of study. So you seek participation to study the people in question and that could be in the context of intangible heritage of oral history etc. And of course this entails another relationship with these participants and it would be a little bit wrong to mistake participants that you observe with kind of objects in your lap. So there are some ethical aspects and aspects also of respect to participants that are actually part of being observed. So that is totally different role than when you use the crowd to lower a bit your workload which is often what is done. For example we ask for annotations and we ask for citizen contributions in these annotations and people spend a bit of their time to help you out. Well again this is another role and so we will describe a number of persona, typical roles of participation and for each of these roles we will see what the consequences are for a correct scientific approach. And then of course but I think you are all aware of this for any research that involves participation. You need to demonstrate just as when you do quantitative research and you do a survey among people. You need to demonstrate that your sample is representative. And we see that in crowdsourcing actions this is often overlooked and that people are just happy with the contributions and are not really monitoring if the contributions come from a representatively diverse audience. And this leads to a bias and specifically I'll come back to that in the projects that we did ourselves and how this can be an issue. And then of course what Katharina and Mariana have gathered is how our participants informed and so in our guidelines we will indeed try to indicate what kind of information should participants find on your website about your scientific project. And it is our conviction that this needs standardization and we hope in the process of the Citizen Heritage Project to come up with standardization proposals. So that when you do a project that involves citizens and citizen participation, there is a kind of standard way to inform them about what their role is, what they can expect, what will be done with their inputs, in what way they are part of the observant or part of the observance. These are all things that need some more clarification. But in fact, when you have a guideline, you can easily as a researcher check the boxes and we think that we need more of these templates to do so. On the other hand, we realize that there is a tension between user participation and managing privacy, and on the other hand, protecting author rights, because depending on the role that the citizen participant takes, they can move along from contributors to really co-authors and co-creators, and in the latter they need to be mentioned in a very different way. And one of the scientific discussions that many of you already must be aware of is that there are growing discussions about how students have contributed to research papers and are not mentioned as co-authors. And I think everybody who today works at the university knows of that kind of cases, where there is some discussion about, hey, are the contributions of master's thesis research properly addressed in the publications. And you can easily imagine that the same holds for, let's say, a kind of very proactive group of citizen participants that also were engaged in research. The same holds for citizen representative organizations that are often key players when you engage in citizen science, that you work together with community representative organizations, with patient organizations, with cultural lovers organizations, etc., like here in the cultural heritage sector. And that needs also to be better managed. And so the same kind of questions will come back while running your research action and the research action in cultural heritage can be a workshop in which citizens participate. It can be a kind of annotations campaign. It can be a translation campaign or a transcribe a ton or there are so many good examples of very efficient ways to get citizen contributions. But then again, what we will be looking at in this project is how can you make sure that during these activities you are conform research standards, so that you, for example, make sure that the contributions are identifiable and traceable. That is certainly one of the requirements that the research setup can be copied and can be tested whether in other circumstances we get similar results, etc., that these are all measures that you can take. But much more important, I think, is that you should be prepared to manage discord, conflict and divergent opinion when you engage citizens in citizen research. And often this is often a bit overlooked even in the largest citizen science efforts that were held in my region. This idea that maybe the participants have very conflicting views and divergent opinions on how to run this and how to do that are a bit overlooked. And so some best practices on managing this and also using good software tools to manage these kinds of things online or during a workshop are certainly important. And then, of course, there is the whole phase after the research where I think it is important to close the circle and to make sure that you anticipate on the website of your project in what way the participants will be kept current on the evolutions on how this research will be presented, where, in what kind of journals, in what kind of conferences, and how they, when they are interested, can keep themselves also informed. These are, in fact, quite easy to do steps. And again, we think that a bit of standardization could help there. Now, the gist of my presentation is to show you a few examples and to reflect on those. I count on Mariana or Katharina to cut me short when it becomes too long because I cannot watch the time in the same time. But feel free to just interrupt me because I think you will get the gist of what I want to say already in the first few examples. So I will now swap. 10 minutes. Yes, it's super interesting. We are a bit late, but please do. Two minutes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So some examples. One was the European migration collection days. And there, what Europeana in fact does is have a good introduction on how it works. And so we participated in many of these collection days, where people told their stories. And it was amazing because people brought an object that we then digitized and that that was harvested by heritage institutions. And the stories are published on Europeana so you can find them here in these migration stories. Now, reflecting on this, it was very intensive, very confronting also to to hear these stories. One of the things we didn't do yet is really publish historical research based on these stories because since it was an Europeana effort, it goes in too many directions. So now we think that we will do more focused collections days in the context of specific projects, so that we know that we can really publish a part of user testimonial history on the basis of that. That is something that we couldn't do on the basis of these collections since they are too diverse. The thing that we also lack here is good information on this page on what is your privacy status, on what basis will we publish it. We did this with the participants that came to the events. And so one of the reflections could already be maybe a bit more information upfront can improve these experiences. But again, this is really generating a lot of invaluable material that that can be the basis of historical research. And so it's a very important work of CHIs. It's also a very good format to do with students. And so students collaborate in these collections days. And so there is a good link between heritage institutions and education. Another project went further. And maybe that's the last that I can show within a few minutes I have. It's a project we are Europe for culture that we did for the for ASIA for the DJ DJ culture. And we hosted events in 10 cities where we co created exhibitions. So instead of just asking annotations to people and contributing to our collections and the selections that we made. We wanted the citizens to curate an exhibition together with expert curators. And so my colleagues who feel who is a digital curator guided these workshops. And so the citizens became co authors and co creators of these collections and that poses a lot of difficult questions. One of the things we did was in Finland where we had prison guards and former inmates telling stories together about life in this in this prison which is now a museum. And our colleagues in Finland made publications about that in oral history journals. So there we really had a scientific output. But of course the privacy involved of the people the people you see in the photos made agreements with us that we could publish everything. So it's a selection of these people. Others prefer not not to come forward. So that is a much more difficult format. And for that we think we have a lot of experience to share and we will put those in the recommendations. And then if I have still a few minutes. We stepped closer to what we will be using in in the citizen heritage, which are the projects that we ran on the with platform developed by and they were by our colleagues of and they were at the crowd heritage platform that you see here. And crowd heritage is really a tool to gather annotations by the public. And here it is a very successful platform, but it stops shorts of course of being able afterwards to really identify the profile of the participants. So and if we would like to have the profile we would come into more difficult waters about privacy conditions, etc. So this is certainly something that we will be talking about within our current project and how can we do this next step. We chose also to link it with openly linked open data. So that people cannot just freely annotate, but have to choose. They have to choose between a terminology that is part of this hours. And of course, on this choice element, we also need more study to see how we can better describe how we selected this design. So what the user experience is about this design and whether the participants feel that they can really express what they want. So, on the other hand, if they just freely express it, you'll get fuzzy data that you cannot really use in the heritage sector. So there are some, some cross some trade offs that you have to make. And it is really, I think in the trade offs that we will see the emergence of really citizen science and where really the citizen can know that they contributed knowingly and consciously to getting information validated. And so we need to try to erase all the friction elements, the vague practices that still exist. And ICT tools like our heritage are ideal to make this kind of thing because you can add and you can develop the software, you can add functionalities. And for example, now we will certainly be discussing what we should add in that context. Fred. Fred, in fact, what I wanted to present. Great. And I think we are very lucky to have people who have lost experience in cultural heritage along the decades to see actually the progress of how citizen engagement evolves through time. Many, many thanks, dear Fred. I would like to give the floor to our next invited speaker, Susanna, from Open Knowledge Finland. And then please stay with us. We'll be having a Q&A moderated by Susan Hazen. Flores, yours Susanna. Thank you. Thank you. And hello from Finland. It's sunny still up and then there's a little bit of snow report. Everybody needs to be talking a little bit of the weather. So I will send you a link that you can go and spend your time with the archives of last hack for open glam last year. If, you know, you get bored listening to me or listening to the presentation and also while I try to find the presentation and put it on. So I have it here. It doesn't seem too difficult this time. Here we go. And there we go. And let's see what's happening here. It hasn't come yet, but it will. Yeah. Yes, it's coming. Okay. So I am in Finland. We have this arrangement, which is quite experimental. The organization or them. I represent Avon glam, which is a working group at the open knowledge Finland has traditionally been. But this year we have started a new arrangement with Wikimedia and creative commons Finland chapters to put together the glam activities in that. Together in that group, working group. And so here I am. I'm representing our own glam at the same time as I'm representing all these three organizations. And I'm going to talk about hack for open glam, which is a cultural hackathon for open glam activities. And as we are in this session here, I'm more or less sure that everybody is familiar with these concepts. And I'm trying to bridge between the scientific view to this particular way of dealing with cultural heritage. And I think this is what my presentation is about, about bridging between these different, not these two different, but different approaches to cultural heritage and how they would be able to benefit each other. So just just put it briefly. What was hack for open glam? It was an open glam hackathon at in the context of creative commons global summit. And that was organized in October last year. And now we are setting it up for this year. And it will be taking place in September. And let's see, I will, I will tell about three different background stories of, of how this came to be. First of all, first one is the, like the timeline wise. So open glam has been organizing cultural hackathons in Finland since 2015. But there was a precedence in 2012 when the open knowledge festival was arranged in Helsinki. And there was the first first glam hackathon organized already then. And here you can see in the picture Sanne Martila who has been the driving force behind the hackathons up until last year when we, we were going to create the hack for the 2020. We have also also tested our wings with the different kinds of hackathon for, for children. And I think it was a very good experiment. But maybe we don't have continuity in education or that like the creators means personally. And therefore it hasn't been done since. But I think it's also one, one important aspect to keep in mind that the things that we are doing are educated. And that, well, I'll come back to, to those ideas. But anyway, so going back to the timeline as last year in March, everybody knows that the 13th Friday of March last year was really the time when all of the world closed down. So this was the date when we were supposed to have our hackathon. We were meeting the night before and realized that okay, now it's now it's officially a pandemic. So shall we shall we arrange our indoors closed doors three day event. And we decided not to. And we wouldn't know at that point how what to do with it. But we would then eventually propose it for the for the Creative Commons Global Summit. And it was accepted and that turned out to be a very, very good idea. So the other background story I want to present is the whole idea of ob glam hackathons. And I think here you I may be oversimplifying. But please, please comment. If you, if you, if you want to discuss what I'm going to present. And we have been, we have mostly been associated or like we have. Well, I added these pictures late in the so it's breaking my timeline. Anyway, our context has been the Nordic context where the other Nordic countries have arranged their own cultural hackathons. And these is these are the ones that we have been most in contact with the coding Da Vinci and the glam hack in Switzerland as well as the three other Nordic ones. And and now I kind of shouldn't I shouldn't add the slides in the middle. I completely lost my my story. Anyway, well, about the oversimplification. Somehow I am at the base of the let's say the original the traditional idea of glam hackathons is maybe based on a reciprocal relation between advocates of open access to cultural heritage and the glam institutions themselves. Like the advocacy perspective, which is like we promote open access in order to to have those cultural heritage assets locked in institutions to be widely used to create new cultural activities. And the institutions in in turn wish to maybe benefit from this this effort of opening and and meet these creators who can provide ideas for apps and services. So as I said, this is probably an oversimplification. But how this could probably be developing that instead of maybe have this this to do bipolar setup, there may be a more multifaceted interaction between different actors. And what we should be doing as I was referring to the children earlier, that we should challenge the digital transformation together, that that experiment and learn and play and take the activity of open glam as public engagement, which also means that that we would always always be considering it as part of the societal interactions in in in a larger scale. Take into more perspectives like the user's perspective, the citizen's perspective, a global perspective of perspectives of different maybe underrepresented communities and focus on doing together network among other events as I as I showed the glam hackathons, but also actors in different walks of life, and then develop what I see as a very, very important thing is develop the digital skills of the citizens of all ages. And then the third background story is I myself have worked with Wikimedia a lot. And I see that this working with these open platforms, and maybe open methods and technologies is something that we could say explore together. And there are important strong benefits in working with let's say Wikimedia and but but but open platforms in general, that there are global glam communities around the world that have developed rich ways of capturing and revitalizing cultural heritage. Not only Wikimedia but also creative comments and open knowledge Mozilla have have active active active activities around around working with the digital cultural heritage. And then there's the other side the academic academic digital humanities research open science part, which could and should be linked with these practices of maybe more free form volunteer contributions. And then there are the glam institutions themselves, which form another another set of actors, and that that I can see that we should be creating more interaction between all these types of working. And then the citizens should be actively engaged in all of this, but they may, there may be different configurations of how this happens. But I think there should be activities that are run from. Well, that can mobilize the whole network of these different actors. Also, well, from whichever side. That's what I would like to say. Yes. And then that the platforms are providing that they are rather accessible multilingual linked and trustworthy. And that these should be able to be mobilized for different purposes. Right. So here are I'm going to show some some things that we did in the last hackathon last year. The first one is coming up soon. No, this. And well, there's I missed this slide. There's the point of diversity, which is another direction where I think this collaboration should be taken to the diversity of languages of geography of different kinds of representation of domains and also these methods. As well as then go come together, explore, play and learn from each other. And this is what we did last year. There were workshops we before the Creative Commons Summit days, the day before there was an extensive 14 hour program of workshops and events. Spanning the whole global time zones. There were over 30 presenters in these workshops and and they would tackle very different things. This is the European and give it up workshop. And this is one of the one of the India winners whose whose work this is and we also had a few panels. A couple of two different discussion events and then the pitching session in this 14 hour program. This one was organized by the poem research group at the poem fellows at the Hamburg University. And the name of this one was the what is glam hackathon, which is the way we invited a different glam. Sorry, not this one. This one is accessing cultural heritage approaches from high to low. And the idea of this this specific panel was to compare the different methods that different glam organizations need to take or can able to take depending on what kind of resources they have at hand. They under the program projects during the hackathon were quite different multifaceted. They were translation drives to pick the tons crowdsourcing events. And the idea is that they were not necessarily all hack projects, but they were also do a tons of things that events where user or other participants were invited to. To contribute their time and effort to do something. This one is from the Finnish National Archives project where they were matching lists of missing soldiers to dog tags of fallen Finns in the Second World War. And actually there was one one casualty on one I didn't unidentified casualty was identified based on the work that was done over the hackathon. And also also have projects took place things that were experiments or trying testing different technologies, etc. So the key for next year's or this year's event is to to promote knowledge equity and to promote different languages, cultures and mindfulness about representing them on global platforms. And there's a survey I would like everyone who's interested to fill in because this is a way to to enroll in in preparations and as well as collect experiences from the last one. And I went over time myself. I'm sorry. I will stop now and give floor to questions. Super Susanna, can I ask Susan to moderate the discussion please. Lots of food for thought Susanna. Thank you very much. Hi everybody. Can I ask all our speakers to show themselves on the video. Please. And can I ask if you can see my PowerPoint or not. Yes, we can see your PowerPoint. Yes. Okay. Just for a minute. I just wanted to introduce myself. I found this meeting. Somebody got their microphone on the second. Yeah. I found the conversation fascinating. I'm actually very active in the Europeaner association network. I'm currently chairing the network and working with Fred on different activities there. And I'm looking at you talking about and think to myself, my goodness, what have I done when I contributed my own objects into the Europeaner collections on collection days. And I'm just thinking about the things you're saying. And I'm just beginning to wonder what on earth did I do. I joined in as a dedicated citizen who wanted to contribute. I offered some objects for my personal collection. My mother, for example, in the migration days collection I sat in and I described how she had migrated, what she took with her, what was important. And this is actually her identity card that she was very proud to receive when she was first became an immigrant in Israel. On sports collection day or collection week or whatever it was, I sent an image of myself as the captain of the hockey team. I don't know why I did that. That was the only historical photo I had in my collect, my own personal collection. And I thought it was a good idea. But listening to what you guys are saying, I'm beginning to wonder if I've offered up myself into this world of free data, free objects within Europeaner. What happens at this point once I've released myself, my collections, my objects, who can do what they want with it. And who is going to then take this up and comment or interact with my personal collections, which I gave up freely, obviously. I think actually Fred made an interesting comment. Who's being observed and who are the observance? I think this conversation is not a new conversation. Clifford Gertz many years ago was talking about the interpretive term, the anthropological term. And we are very clear now that we do not objectify people or objects. So this is my little contribution that I wanted to just add now. Do you have a slide for the background? Now, or should I just take it out? Do you have a background slide? No, Susan, we don't. Okay, so put something else there. I have actually put into the set that slide of as a background slide is actually the slide deck in your, your, you can use that one if you wish. Okay, that's fine. Right, so that was just my two penneth worth because I was very interested in what happens to collections once they go online. First of all, let me ask our audience if they would like to ask questions of the speakers. So please put them in the chat and then I will ask the speakers on behalf of my audience. Before I start, I have a question to all of you. Perhaps you can answer whoever feels that this is important. Let me do citizen science projects benefit cultural heritage institutions and one of the institutions of gain from these kinds of efforts. Is it in their interest and the reason I ask this is. feels that this is important to them. How do citizen science projects benefit cultural heritage institutions? And what do the institutions gain from these kinds of efforts? Is it in their interest? And the reason I ask this is, as I've been a curator, a professional curator all my life, 37 years, and curators know it all. So what can the citizen, the private citizen, bring into a collection that the curator didn't already know? So how would you deal with this idea? What do cultural heritage institutions gain from this? Who would like to answer? Shall I start, maybe? Yeah, I think that exactly the curator doesn't know it all. That is the problem that lived experiences and intangible heritage are things that you need the original sources for. And the sources are in this case, people and that can give their testimonials and to understand the correct context. And we see indeed that there are a lot of collections in cultural heritage institutions that are in need of better documentation, of better descriptions, and of better connecting to the experiences. And certainly, given the fact that communities are changing. And this means that the object that was recorded, say 50 years ago, may be lost connection to its original group of community. And that other communities come in the place that have other experiences with the same objects and give other value to these objects. And it is not for us in the heritage sector to be judgmental about history, but to record what is happening and to try to see these connections. And that is where indeed this outreach to citizens and their contributions can work. And we see that a lot of stories that didn't make the history books are now really the stories that are adamantly shared and that are told and that are surfacing. And Susanna wants to add to that. Please do. I would like to maybe make a small point of the citizens of the other subjects of history being able to take over the history writing rather than being objects of the history writing. So, yeah, changing, turning the perspective that would be important in these citizen engagement, public engagement projects. Marianne, you're nodding here. What would you like to add to this? Yes, I totally agree with what Dr. Dr. Yan and Susanna just said, maybe adding that it's also in terms of, for sure, raising awareness among the public or at the, so the series proposal, a way of dealing with the collections to one side as curators and from the other side public that gains knowledge but also gives back since this is also a matter of time and scalability. For example, a very large collection may take a lot of time for curators to actually document it and do some metadata description, whereas with citizens within it, this can be done in a very, in a very shorter time. Yes, so what about authority that are the question of questions? Katerina, would you like to add something? About authority, yes, because perhaps we should slowly close also this workshop. Perhaps let me just place a little bomb in this discussion, because by listening to Fred, definitely with his experience and his expertise, he's a professor, he knows citizen driven and citizen engagement for decades, right? It's his job, it's a scholar job. But I think that times have changed now. So we see citizens, by definition, taking an active role, whether at least it is invited by scholars or not. I think we all agree that digital activism is a reality that is much more present than the last decades. I think the agility of citizens to go down in the streets and claim things, environment, racism, me too, you name it, it's much more radical. And there are terms like guerrilla science now. Well, citizens don't even need scientists. They do science from their own. So I think it's not only about raising awareness, it's about being prepared to also the other extremes where citizens have the abilities to do things that may not be mainstream, that are not mainstream, but perhaps have a potential in how we see science, we see society and we are not isolated in our ivory towers at universities and here how societies change little by little. Well, that is a bombshell, absolutely. And I would love to debate this with you guys because on one hand, I completely agree with you obviously, it's terribly important. But on the other hand, I worked too long in a museum to give up the authenticity and the responsibility of registering and presenting objects. So I would love to come back another time and debate this in further depth, but I understand we're wrapping up now because we have to keep time. But anyway, it was great listening to you guys. Thank you very much for inviting me. Thank you. Now, so I think that this ideal closing remark, but we see that this role of custodian that we have in the heritage sector is evolving and that organizations like IACOM, like ICA, are reviewing the core mission of, and we need to think back, why did we start in the first place to make archives? Why did we come to museums and think about what that can mean in the digital world and in this new world where the citizens are more proactive and more so. So it's a rethink of the whole cycle, I would say. But there will always be kind of custodians and then, but hopefully these are the CHI people. Yeah, we'll defend our objects to the very end. It's definitely to be continued. This conversation cannot be put at rest here. It's a big conversation at the end of one, I think. It was organized at a European webinar, Susan. Yeah. So it is time to close Astrid. Astrid is our host from Open Belgium. Let us thank Open Belgium again for this wonderful opportunity and the range of other talks during these three days. Thank you very much to the participants. We hope to stay in touch with you and thank you very much for the presenters. Thank you, goodbye.