Mia Ridge’s article “Where next for open cultural data in museums?” talks about the movement and history of museums’ utilization of open cultural data. Through proper licensing, this has become more prominent, expanding availability of content to the public. This is great for a number of reasons- it’s a cost friendly way to see the objects and material for those who may not have access to museums, for research purposes, and, when archived in one place, there is much that can be done (hence our DH101 project). Ridge also brings up some of the downsides, including under usage due to incompatible licenses, poor quality, and ambiguity in the collections.
I read an article a while ago called “7 Reasons Not To Use Open Source Software.” (http://www.cio.com/article/2378859/open-source-tools/7-reasons-not-to-use-open-source-software.html) Open source software, though in a different realm than cultural objects, aims to provide the same thing- alternative options to paid commercial software, where it is usually in development. The article outlines a lot of the same downsides including lack of support and discrepancies in comparison to big name software on the market. It is important to consider that the open source software are alternatives and different options, but do not replace big name software on the market.
Per our brief class discussion last week on accessibility, and digitization of museum content, I like how Mia Ridge brought up these issues, despite the great advantages open cultural data may bring to society, because it’s a lot of things many people don’t think about. I am all for open data, being a college student in social sciences, and can benefit greatly from it, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that because these archives are massive in size, they are not perfect, and there are reasons why they are underutilized. Like open source software, is important to keep in mind that these archives do not replace a museum or the museum experience.