@article{romeinExploringDataProvenance2022,
	title = {Exploring {Data} {Provenance} in {Handwritten} {Text} {Recognition} {Infrastructure}: {Sharing} and {Reusing} {Ground} {Truth} {Data}, {Referencing} {Models}, and {Acknowledging} {Contributions}. {Starting} the {Conversation} on {How} {We} {Could} {Get} {It} {Done}},
	issn = {2416-5999},
	shorttitle = {Exploring {Data} {Provenance} in {Handwritten} {Text} {Recognition} {Infrastructure}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.46298/jdmdh.10403},
	doi = {10.46298/jdmdh.10403},
	abstract = {This paper discusses best practices for sharing and reusing Ground Truth in Handwritten Text Recognition infrastructures, as well as ways to reference and acknowledge contributions to the creation and enrichment of data within these systems. We discuss how one can place Ground Truth data in a repository and, subsequently, inform others through HTR-United. Furthermore, we want to we want to suggest appropriate citation methods for HTR data, models, and contributions made by volunteers. Moreover, when using digitised sources (digital facsimiles), it becomes increasingly important to distinguish between the physical object and the digital collection. These topics all relate to the proper acknowledgement of labour put into digitising, transcribing, and sharing Ground Truth HTR data. This also points to broader issues surrounding the use of machine learning in archival and library contexts, and how the community should begin to acknowledge and record both contributions and data provenance.},
	language = {eng},
	urldate = {2023-03-15},
	journal = {Journal of Data Mining \& Digital Humanities},
	author = {Romein, C. Annemieke and Hodel, Tobias and Gordijn, Femke and Zundert, Joris J. van and Chagué, Alix and Lange, Milan van and Jensen, Helle Strandgaard and Stauder, Andy and Purcell, Jake and Terras, Melissa M. and Heuvel, Pauline van den and Keijzer, Carlijn and Rabus, Achim and Sitaram, Chantal and Bhatia, Aakriti and Depuydt, Katrien and Afolabi-Adeolu, Mary Aderonke and Anikina, Anastasiia and Bastianello, Elisa and Benzinger, Lukas Vincent and Bosse, Arno and Brown, David and Charlton, Ash and Dannevig, André Nilsson and Gelder, Klaas van and Go, Sabine C.P.J. and Goh, Marcus J.C. and Gstrein, Silvia and Hasan, Sewa and Heide, Stefan von der and Hindermann, Maximilian and Huff, Dorothee and Huysman, Ineke and Idris, Ali and Keijzer, Liesbeth and Kemper, Simon and Koenders, Sanne and Kuijpers, Erika and Rønsig Larsen, Lisette and Lepa, Sven and Link, Tommy O. and Nispen, Annelies van and Nockels, Joe and Noort, Laura M. van and Oosterhuis, Joost Johannes and Popken, Vivien and Estrella Puertollano, María and Puusaag, Joosep J. and Sheta, Ahmed and Stoop, Lex and Strutzenbladh, Ebba and Sijs, Nicoline van der and Spek, Jan Paul van der and Trouw, Barry Benaissa and Van Synghel, Geertrui and Vučković, Vladimir and Wilbrink, Heleen and Weiss, Sonia and Wrisley, David Joseph and Zweistra, Riet},
	year = {2024},
	keywords = {Data Provenance, Ground Truth, Handwritten Text Recognition, Transkribus, eScriptorium},
}

This paper discusses best practices for sharing and reusing Ground Truth in Handwritten Text Recognition infrastructures, as well as ways to reference and acknowledge contributions to the creation and enrichment of data within these systems. We discuss how one can place Ground Truth data in a repository and, subsequently, inform others through HTR-United. Furthermore, we want to we want to suggest appropriate citation methods for HTR data, models, and contributions made by volunteers. Moreover, when using digitised sources (digital facsimiles), it becomes increasingly important to distinguish between the physical object and the digital collection. These topics all relate to the proper acknowledgement of labour put into digitising, transcribing, and sharing Ground Truth HTR data. This also points to broader issues surrounding the use of machine learning in archival and library contexts, and how the community should begin to acknowledge and record both contributions and data provenance.

@incollection{hodel2023c,
	address = {Göttingen},
	edition = {1},
	title = {Vom {Crowdsourcing} zu {Co}-{Design}},
	isbn = {978-3-8471-1571-7 978-3-7370-1571-4},
	url = {https://www.vr-elibrary.de/doi/10.14220/9783737015714.41},
	language = {de},
	urldate = {2024-04-22},
	booktitle = {Citizen {Science} in den {Geschichtswissenschaften}},
	publisher = {V\&R unipress},
	author = {Hodel, Tobias and Schneider, Christa},
	editor = {Smolarski, René and Carius, Hendrikje and Prell, Martin},
	month = may,
	year = {2023},
	doi = {10.14220/9783737015714.41},
	pages = {41--68},
}

@book{smolarski_citizen_2023,
	address = {Göttingen},
	edition = {1},
	title = {Citizen {Science} in den {Geschichtswissenschaften}: {Methodische} {Perspektive} oder perspektivlose {Methode}?},
	isbn = {978-3-8471-1571-7 978-3-7370-1571-4},
	shorttitle = {Citizen {Science} in den {Geschichtswissenschaften}},
	url = {https://www.vr-elibrary.de/doi/book/10.14220/9783737015714},
	language = {de},
	urldate = {2023-06-16},
	publisher = {V\&R unipress},
	editor = {Smolarski, René and Carius, Hendrikje and Prell, Martin},
	month = may,
	year = {2023},
	doi = {10.14220/9783737015714},
}

@book{carius_kooperationen_2020,
	address = {Göttingen},
	edition = {1},
	title = {Kooperationen in den digitalen {Geisteswissenschaften} gestalten: {Herausforderungen}, {Erfahrungen} und {Perspektiven}},
	isbn = {978-3-8471-1177-1},
	shorttitle = {Kooperationen in den digitalen {Geisteswissenschaften} gestalten},
	abstract = {Wie funktionieren Kooperationen in einem per se interdisziplinären Umfeld mit verschiedenen Herangehens- und Arbeitsweisen, Fragestellungen, Erwartungen und Zielvorgaben und welche Erfahrungen wurden damit im jeweiligen Projekt gesammelt? Der erste Band des Netzwerks für digitale Geisteswissenschaften und Citizen Science fragt nach der praktischen Ausgestaltung kooperativer Forschungsprozesse im Zusammenspiel von Geisteswissenschaft, Digital Humanities, Informatik und weiteren Akteuren. Ausgehend von einer konkreten Projekt- und/oder institutionellen Perspektive richtet sich der Blick auf den Aspekt der Kooperation als inhaltliche, organisatorische und forschungspraktische Klammer der beteiligten Wissenschaftskulturen. Ein besonderer Fokus liegt auf den Erfolgsfaktoren für eine Projektarbeit, in der es gelingt, sich auf die unterschiedlichen (fach-)spezifischen und methodischen Ansätze, Arbeits- und Denkweisen des Kooperationspartners einzulassen und in andere Sichtweisen auf das gleiche Projekt einzudenken.How do co-operations function in a per se interdisciplinary environment with different methods, approaches, questions, expectations and goals? What kind of experiences have been made in the respective projects? The first volume of the network for Digital Sciences and Citizen Science focuses on the practical design of co-operative research processes in connection with Human Sciences, Digital Humanities, Information Technology and other research fields. On the basis of an existing project and / or institutional perspective it concentrates on the aspect of co-operations as topical, organisational and research-practical frame of the parties involved. The volume also focuses on the success factors of a project, in which it is possible to adapt to various specific and methodical approaches of cooperation partners and to understand different perspectives within one project.},
	language = {Englisch, Deutsch},
	publisher = {V\&R unipress},
	editor = {Carius, Hendrikje and Prell, Martin and Smolarski, René},
	month = jun,
	year = {2020},
}

Wie funktionieren Kooperationen in einem per se interdisziplinären Umfeld mit verschiedenen Herangehens- und Arbeitsweisen, Fragestellungen, Erwartungen und Zielvorgaben und welche Erfahrungen wurden damit im jeweiligen Projekt gesammelt? Der erste Band des Netzwerks für digitale Geisteswissenschaften und Citizen Science fragt nach der praktischen Ausgestaltung kooperativer Forschungsprozesse im Zusammenspiel von Geisteswissenschaft, Digital Humanities, Informatik und weiteren Akteuren. Ausgehend von einer konkreten Projekt- und/oder institutionellen Perspektive richtet sich der Blick auf den Aspekt der Kooperation als inhaltliche, organisatorische und forschungspraktische Klammer der beteiligten Wissenschaftskulturen. Ein besonderer Fokus liegt auf den Erfolgsfaktoren für eine Projektarbeit, in der es gelingt, sich auf die unterschiedlichen (fach-)spezifischen und methodischen Ansätze, Arbeits- und Denkweisen des Kooperationspartners einzulassen und in andere Sichtweisen auf das gleiche Projekt einzudenken.How do co-operations function in a per se interdisciplinary environment with different methods, approaches, questions, expectations and goals? What kind of experiences have been made in the respective projects? The first volume of the network for Digital Sciences and Citizen Science focuses on the practical design of co-operative research processes in connection with Human Sciences, Digital Humanities, Information Technology and other research fields. On the basis of an existing project and / or institutional perspective it concentrates on the aspect of co-operations as topical, organisational and research-practical frame of the parties involved. The volume also focuses on the success factors of a project, in which it is possible to adapt to various specific and methodical approaches of cooperation partners and to understand different perspectives within one project.

@misc{riley_transcription_2020,
	type = {Blog},
	title = {Transcription {Update} – 10 {December} 2020 {\textbar} {UCL} {Transcribe} {Bentham}},
	url = {https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/transcribe-bentham/2020/12/10/transcription-update-10-december-2020/},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-01-11},
	journal = {Transcribe Bentham},
	author = {Riley, Chris},
	month = oct,
	year = {2020},
}

@article{jofre_crowdsourcing_2020,
	title = {Crowdsourcing {Image} {Extraction} and {Annotation}: {Software} {Development} and {Case} {Study}},
	volume = {014},
	issn = {1938-4122},
	shorttitle = {Crowdsourcing {Image} {Extraction} and {Annotation}},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Digital Humanities Quarterly},
	author = {Jofre, Ana and Berardi, Vincent and Brennan, Kathleen P. J. and Cornejo, Aisha and Bennett, Carl and Harlan, John},
	month = jun,
	year = {2020},
}

@article{hajibayova_theorizing_2020,
	title = {({Un})theorizing citizen science: {Investigation} of theories applied to citizen science studies},
	volume = {71},
	shorttitle = {({Un})theorizing citizen science},
	url = {https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v71y2020i8p916-926.html},
	abstract = {This article provides an analysis of theories and methodologies that have been applied in citizen science research. This study suggests a significant contribution of citizen science to various disciplines as well as overall science education, literacy, and development. A solid theoretical grounding of citizen science research, coupled with application of pertinent emergent theories to various processes associated with scientific inquiry and discovery, suggests the disciplinary traits and unique contributions. This study proposes that the current pace of citizen science research, empowered by ordinary citizens as well as technological affordances, provides solid evidence to warrant further development of citizen science as a unique discipline that can strengthen and democratize scientific inquiry.},
	language = {en},
	number = {8},
	urldate = {2021-02-23},
	journal = {Journal of the Association for Information Science \& Technology},
	author = {Hajibayova, Lala},
	year = {2020},
	note = {Publisher: Association for Information Science \& Technology},
	pages = {916--926},
}

This article provides an analysis of theories and methodologies that have been applied in citizen science research. This study suggests a significant contribution of citizen science to various disciplines as well as overall science education, literacy, and development. A solid theoretical grounding of citizen science research, coupled with application of pertinent emergent theories to various processes associated with scientific inquiry and discovery, suggests the disciplinary traits and unique contributions. This study proposes that the current pace of citizen science research, empowered by ordinary citizens as well as technological affordances, provides solid evidence to warrant further development of citizen science as a unique discipline that can strengthen and democratize scientific inquiry.

@incollection{ross_stakes_2019,
	title = {The stakes of digital labor in the twenty-first century academy. {The} revolution will not be {Turkified}},
	isbn = {978-0-429-53479-9},
	abstract = {Humans at Work in the Digital Age explores the roots of twenty-first-century cultures of digital textual labor, mapping the diverse physical and cognitive acts involved, and recovering the invisible workers and work that support digital technologies. Drawing on 14 case studies organized around four sites of work, this book shows how definitions of labor have been influenced by the digital technologies that employees use to produce, interpret, or process text. Incorporating methodology and theory from a range of disciplines and highlighting labor issues related to topics as diverse as census tabulation, market research, electronic games, digital archives, and 3D modeling, contributors uncover the roles played by race, class, gender, sexuality, and national politics in determining how narratives of digital labor are constructed and erased. Because each chapter is centered on the human cost of digital technologies, however, it is individual people immersed in cultures of technology who are the focus of the volume, rather than the technologies themselves. Humans at Work in the Digital Age shows how humanistic inquiry can be a valuable tool in the emerging conversation surrounding digital textual labor. As such, this book will be essential reading for academics and postgraduate students engaged in the study of digital humanities; human-computer interaction; digital culture and social justice; race, class, gender, and sexuality in digital realms; the economics of the internet; and technology in higher education.},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Humans at {Work} in the {Digital} {Age}: {Forms} of {Digital} {Textual} {Labor}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Roopika, Risam},
	editor = {Ross, Shawna and Pilsch, Andrew},
	month = dec,
	year = {2019},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: sPrADwAAQBAJ},
	keywords = {Language Arts \& Disciplines / Library \& Information Science / General},
	pages = {239--247},
}

Humans at Work in the Digital Age explores the roots of twenty-first-century cultures of digital textual labor, mapping the diverse physical and cognitive acts involved, and recovering the invisible workers and work that support digital technologies. Drawing on 14 case studies organized around four sites of work, this book shows how definitions of labor have been influenced by the digital technologies that employees use to produce, interpret, or process text. Incorporating methodology and theory from a range of disciplines and highlighting labor issues related to topics as diverse as census tabulation, market research, electronic games, digital archives, and 3D modeling, contributors uncover the roles played by race, class, gender, sexuality, and national politics in determining how narratives of digital labor are constructed and erased. Because each chapter is centered on the human cost of digital technologies, however, it is individual people immersed in cultures of technology who are the focus of the volume, rather than the technologies themselves. Humans at Work in the Digital Age shows how humanistic inquiry can be a valuable tool in the emerging conversation surrounding digital textual labor. As such, this book will be essential reading for academics and postgraduate students engaged in the study of digital humanities; human-computer interaction; digital culture and social justice; race, class, gender, and sexuality in digital realms; the economics of the internet; and technology in higher education.

@book{ross_humans_2019,
	title = {Humans at {Work} in the {Digital} {Age}: {Forms} of {Digital} {Textual} {Labor}},
	isbn = {978-0-429-53479-9},
	shorttitle = {Humans at {Work} in the {Digital} {Age}},
	abstract = {Humans at Work in the Digital Age explores the roots of twenty-first-century cultures of digital textual labor, mapping the diverse physical and cognitive acts involved, and recovering the invisible workers and work that support digital technologies. Drawing on 14 case studies organized around four sites of work, this book shows how definitions of labor have been influenced by the digital technologies that employees use to produce, interpret, or process text. Incorporating methodology and theory from a range of disciplines and highlighting labor issues related to topics as diverse as census tabulation, market research, electronic games, digital archives, and 3D modeling, contributors uncover the roles played by race, class, gender, sexuality, and national politics in determining how narratives of digital labor are constructed and erased. Because each chapter is centered on the human cost of digital technologies, however, it is individual people immersed in cultures of technology who are the focus of the volume, rather than the technologies themselves. Humans at Work in the Digital Age shows how humanistic inquiry can be a valuable tool in the emerging conversation surrounding digital textual labor. As such, this book will be essential reading for academics and postgraduate students engaged in the study of digital humanities; human-computer interaction; digital culture and social justice; race, class, gender, and sexuality in digital realms; the economics of the internet; and technology in higher education.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	editor = {Ross, Shawna and Pilsch, Andrew},
	month = dec,
	year = {2019},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: sPrADwAAQBAJ},
	keywords = {Language Arts \& Disciplines / Library \& Information Science / General},
}

Humans at Work in the Digital Age explores the roots of twenty-first-century cultures of digital textual labor, mapping the diverse physical and cognitive acts involved, and recovering the invisible workers and work that support digital technologies. Drawing on 14 case studies organized around four sites of work, this book shows how definitions of labor have been influenced by the digital technologies that employees use to produce, interpret, or process text. Incorporating methodology and theory from a range of disciplines and highlighting labor issues related to topics as diverse as census tabulation, market research, electronic games, digital archives, and 3D modeling, contributors uncover the roles played by race, class, gender, sexuality, and national politics in determining how narratives of digital labor are constructed and erased. Because each chapter is centered on the human cost of digital technologies, however, it is individual people immersed in cultures of technology who are the focus of the volume, rather than the technologies themselves. Humans at Work in the Digital Age shows how humanistic inquiry can be a valuable tool in the emerging conversation surrounding digital textual labor. As such, this book will be essential reading for academics and postgraduate students engaged in the study of digital humanities; human-computer interaction; digital culture and social justice; race, class, gender, and sexuality in digital realms; the economics of the internet; and technology in higher education.

@article{strasser_citizen_2019,
	title = {“{Citizen} {Science}”? {Rethinking} {Science} and {Public} {Participation}},
	volume = {32},
	copyright = {Copyright (c) 2018 Bruno J. Strasser},
	issn = {2243-4690},
	shorttitle = {“{Citizen} {Science}”?},
	url = {https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/60425},
	doi = {10.23987/sts.60425},
	abstract = {Since the late twentieth century,  “citizen science” has become an increasingly fashionable label for a growing number of participatory research activities. This paper situates the origins and rise of the term “citizen science” and contextualises “citizen science” within the broader history of public participation in science. It analyses critically the current promises — democratisation, education, discoveries — emerging within the “citizen science” discourse and offers a new framework to better understand the diversity of epistemic practices involved in these participatory projects. Finally, it maps a number of historical, political, and social questions for future research in the critical studies of “citizen science”.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2021-09-06},
	journal = {Science \& Technology Studies},
	author = {Strasser, Bruno J. and Baudry, Jérôme and Mahr, Dana and Sanchez, Gabriela and Tancoigne, Elise},
	month = may,
	year = {2019},
	note = {Number: 2},
	pages = {52--76},
}

Since the late twentieth century,  “citizen science” has become an increasingly fashionable label for a growing number of participatory research activities. This paper situates the origins and rise of the term “citizen science” and contextualises “citizen science” within the broader history of public participation in science. It analyses critically the current promises — democratisation, education, discoveries — emerging within the “citizen science” discourse and offers a new framework to better understand the diversity of epistemic practices involved in these participatory projects. Finally, it maps a number of historical, political, and social questions for future research in the critical studies of “citizen science”.

@book{strasser_collecting_2019,
	address = {Chicago},
	edition = {1},
	title = {Collecting {Experiments}: {Making} {Big} {Data} {Biology}},
	isbn = {978-0-226-63504-0},
	shorttitle = {Collecting {Experiments}},
	abstract = {Databases have revolutionized nearly every aspect of our lives. Information of all sorts is being collected on a massive scale, from Google to Facebook and well beyond. But as the amount of information in databases explodes, we are forced to reassess our ideas about what knowledge is, how it is produced, to whom it belongs, and who can be credited for producing it.  Every scientist working today draws on databases to produce scientific knowledge. Databases have become more common than microscopes, voltmeters, and test tubes, and the increasing amount of data has led to major changes in research practices and profound reflections on the proper professional roles of data producers, collectors, curators, and analysts.  Collecting Experiments traces the development and use of data collections, especially in the experimental life sciences, from the early twentieth century to the present. It shows that the current revolution is best understood as the coming together of two older ways of knowing—collecting and experimenting, the museum and the laboratory. Ultimately, Bruno J. Strasser argues that by serving as knowledge repositories, as well as indispensable tools for producing new knowledge, these databases function as digital museums for the twenty-first century.},
	language = {Englisch},
	publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
	author = {Strasser, Bruno J.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2019},
}

Databases have revolutionized nearly every aspect of our lives. Information of all sorts is being collected on a massive scale, from Google to Facebook and well beyond. But as the amount of information in databases explodes, we are forced to reassess our ideas about what knowledge is, how it is produced, to whom it belongs, and who can be credited for producing it. Every scientist working today draws on databases to produce scientific knowledge. Databases have become more common than microscopes, voltmeters, and test tubes, and the increasing amount of data has led to major changes in research practices and profound reflections on the proper professional roles of data producers, collectors, curators, and analysts. Collecting Experiments traces the development and use of data collections, especially in the experimental life sciences, from the early twentieth century to the present. It shows that the current revolution is best understood as the coming together of two older ways of knowing—collecting and experimenting, the museum and the laboratory. Ultimately, Bruno J. Strasser argues that by serving as knowledge repositories, as well as indispensable tools for producing new knowledge, these databases function as digital museums for the twenty-first century.

@incollection{bemme_offene_2019,
	title = {Offene {Daten} und die {Zukunft} der {Bürgerforschung} in {Wissenschaftlichen} {Bibliotheken}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QHRC4},
	abstract = {Wir zeigen methodische Ansätze, Werkzeuge, Communities und Projektbeispiele für Open Citizen Science im Kontext der SLUB Dresden, die als Landes- und Universitätsbibliothek mehrere Perspektiven und Nutzergruppen der Bürgerforschung adressiert. 
    Hosted on the Open Science Framework},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-01-11},
	booktitle = {Forum {Citizen} {Science} 2019},
	publisher = {OSF},
	author = {Bemme, Jens and Munke, Martin},
	editor = {Bartoschek, Thomas and Nüst, Daniel and Pesch, Mario},
	year = {2019},
	doi = {10.17605/OSF.IO/QHRC4},
	pages = {27--39},
}

Wir zeigen methodische Ansätze, Werkzeuge, Communities und Projektbeispiele für Open Citizen Science im Kontext der SLUB Dresden, die als Landes- und Universitätsbibliothek mehrere Perspektiven und Nutzergruppen der Bürgerforschung adressiert. Hosted on the Open Science Framework

@misc{samuel_amazons_2018,
	title = {Amazon's {Mechanical} {Turk} has {Reinvented} {Research}},
	url = {https://daily.jstor.org/amazons-mechanical-turk-has-reinvented-research/},
	abstract = {Online services like Amazon's "Mechanical Turk" have ushered in a golden age in survey research. But is it ethical for researchers to use them?},
	language = {en-US},
	urldate = {2021-09-06},
	journal = {JSTOR Daily},
	author = {Samuel, Alexandra},
	month = may,
	year = {2018},
}

Online services like Amazon's "Mechanical Turk" have ushered in a golden age in survey research. But is it ethical for researchers to use them?

@misc{graf_swissair_2018,
	title = {Die {Swissair} reiste nach {Stockholm}-{Bromma}},
	url = {https://blogs.ethz.ch/crowdsourcing/en/2018/10/19/die-swissair-reiste-nach-stockholm-bromma/},
	abstract = {Anfang Oktober lancierten wir den Aufruf zu einer unbekannten Reise der Swissair nach Schweden (siehe Blogpost hier).Von der Reportage mit insgesamt 128 Bildern konnten bereits 35 näher beschriftet werden. Es fehlen noch 53 Detailbeschriftungen, abgelegt in der Kategorie "Wissen Sie mehr?" Swissair/Schweden.},
	language = {de-DE},
	urldate = {2021-01-11},
	journal = {ETH-Bibliothek {\textbar} Crowdsourcing},
	author = {Graf, Nicole},
	year = {2018},
}

Anfang Oktober lancierten wir den Aufruf zu einer unbekannten Reise der Swissair nach Schweden (siehe Blogpost hier).Von der Reportage mit insgesamt 128 Bildern konnten bereits 35 näher beschriftet werden. Es fehlen noch 53 Detailbeschriftungen, abgelegt in der Kategorie "Wissen Sie mehr?" Swissair/Schweden.

@incollection{sterne_participatory_2016,
	address = {Minneapolis, Minnesota ;},
	series = {Electronic mediations},
	title = {Participatory {Design} and the {Open} {Source} {Voice}},
	isbn = {978-1-4529-5205-5},
	language = {eng},
	number = {51},
	booktitle = {The {Participatory} {Condition} in the {Digital} {Age}},
	publisher = {University of Minnesota Press},
	author = {Pullin, Graham},
	editor = {Sterne, Jonathan and Barney, Darin and Coleman, Gabriella and Ross, Christine and Tembeck, Tamara},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Electronic books., Internet, Participation, Political participation, Social aspects, Social participation},
	pages = {101--122},
}

@book{sterne_participatory_2016-1,
	address = {Minneapolis, Minnesota ;},
	series = {Electronic mediations},
	title = {The {Participatory} {Condition} in the {Digital} {Age}},
	isbn = {978-1-4529-5205-5},
	language = {eng},
	number = {51},
	publisher = {University of Minnesota Press},
	editor = {Sterne, Jonathan and Barney, Darin and Coleman, Gabriella and Ross, Christine and Tembeck, Tamara},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Electronic books., Internet, Participation, Political participation, Social aspects, Social participation},
}

@article{seidmann_are_2016,
	title = {Are games a viable solution to crowdsourcing improvements to faulty {OCR}? – {The} {Purposeful} {Gaming} and {BHL} experience},
	issn = {1940-5758},
	url = {http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/11781},
	abstract = {The Missouri Botanical Garden and partners from Dartmouth, Harvard, the New York Botanical Garden, and Cornell recently wrapped up a project funded by IMLS called Purposeful Gaming and BHL: engaging the public in improving and enhancing access to digital texts (http://biodivlib.wikispaces.com/Purposeful+Gaming). The goals of the project were to significantly improve access to digital texts through the applicability of purposeful gaming for the completion of data enhancement tasks needed for content found within the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL). This article will share our approach in terms of game design choices and the use of algorithms for verifying the quality of inputs from players as well as challenges related to transcriptions and marketing. We will conclude by giving an answer to the question of whether games are a successful tool for analyzing and improving digital outputs from OCR and whether we recommend their uptake by libraries and other cultural heritage institutions.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {33},
	journal = {The Code4Lib Journal},
	author = {Seidmann, Max J. and Flanagan, Mary and Rose-Sandler, Trish and Lichtenberg, Mike},
	month = jul,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Crowdsourcing, Gamification},
}

The Missouri Botanical Garden and partners from Dartmouth, Harvard, the New York Botanical Garden, and Cornell recently wrapped up a project funded by IMLS called Purposeful Gaming and BHL: engaging the public in improving and enhancing access to digital texts (http://biodivlib.wikispaces.com/Purposeful+Gaming). The goals of the project were to significantly improve access to digital texts through the applicability of purposeful gaming for the completion of data enhancement tasks needed for content found within the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL). This article will share our approach in terms of game design choices and the use of algorithms for verifying the quality of inputs from players as well as challenges related to transcriptions and marketing. We will conclude by giving an answer to the question of whether games are a successful tool for analyzing and improving digital outputs from OCR and whether we recommend their uptake by libraries and other cultural heritage institutions.

@article{randall_purposeful_2015,
	title = {Purposeful {Gaming}: {Work} as {Play}},
	issn = {1361-3200},
	shorttitle = {Purposeful {Gaming}},
	url = {http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue74/randall},
	abstract = {Purposeful Gaming: Work as Play},
	number = {74},
	urldate = {2015-10-28},
	journal = {Ariadne},
	author = {Randall, Patrick},
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Crowdsourcing, Gamification},
}

Purposeful Gaming: Work as Play

@article{andro_correction_2015,
	title = {La correction participative de l’{OCR} par crowdsourcing au profit des bibliothèques numériques},
	issn = {1292-8399},
	url = {http://bbf.enssib.fr/contributions/la-correction-participative-de-l-ocr},
	abstract = {Dans le cadre de leurs projets de numérisation, les bibliothèques génèrent une OCR brute comportant souvent des erreurs qui peuvent ensuite être corrigées par des prestataires faisant appel à de la main d’œuvre à bas coût. Mais les bibliothèques peuvent aussi faire appel à des internautes bénévoles (crowdsourcing explicite), à des internautes rémunérés (Amazon Mechanical Turk Marketplace), à des internautes qui corrigent l’OCR sous la forme de jeux (gamification) ou encore à des internautes qui corrigent de l’OCR sans le savoir (crowdsourcing implicite de reCAPTCHA). Dans cet article, nous étudions ces approches et comparons la rentabilité de ces expérimentations concrètes.},
	language = {FR},
	journal = {Bulletin des bibliothèques de France},
	author = {Andro, Mathieu and Saleh, Imad},
	month = jun,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Crowdsourcing},
}

Dans le cadre de leurs projets de numérisation, les bibliothèques génèrent une OCR brute comportant souvent des erreurs qui peuvent ensuite être corrigées par des prestataires faisant appel à de la main d’œuvre à bas coût. Mais les bibliothèques peuvent aussi faire appel à des internautes bénévoles (crowdsourcing explicite), à des internautes rémunérés (Amazon Mechanical Turk Marketplace), à des internautes qui corrigent l’OCR sous la forme de jeux (gamification) ou encore à des internautes qui corrigent de l’OCR sans le savoir (crowdsourcing implicite de reCAPTCHA). Dans cet article, nous étudions ces approches et comparons la rentabilité de ces expérimentations concrètes.

@book{finke_citizen_2014,
	address = {München},
	title = {Citizen {Science}: {Das} unterschätzte {Wissen} der {Laien}},
	isbn = {978-3-86581-466-1},
	shorttitle = {Citizen {Science}},
	abstract = {Charles Darwin und Gregor Mendel gelten zu Recht als herausragende Figuren der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Sie waren auf ihren Gebieten Amateure, keine Berufsforscher im heutigen Sinne. Was sie antrieb, war eine unstillbare Neugier, die auch heute noch vielen Laien zu Eigen ist und in leidenschaftlich gepflegten Hobbys und ehrenamtlicher Forschung in vielen Problemfeldern der Zivilgesellschaft ihren Ausdruck findet. Doch Wissenschaft und Forschung gelten mittlerweile als Privileg der Profis, das oftmals lebensnähere Wirken der Laien als zweitklassig. Dabei sind ihre Leistungen bedeutsamer denn je: das Jahrhundertprojekt Wikipedia wäre ohne Citizen Science undenkbar und auch  erfolgreiches bürgerschaftliches Engagement kommt ohne fundierte Sachkenntnisse nicht aus. Peter Finke legt die erste Einführung in die Ideenwelt von Citizen Science vor und lädt ein, die unterschätzte Welt der Wissensbürger zu entdecken. Sein Fazit: Wenn wir wirklich eine Wissensgesellschaft werden wollen, müssen wir unsere akademischen und politischen Maßstäbe neu justieren.},
	language = {de},
	publisher = {oekom verlag},
	author = {Finke, Peter and Laszlo, Ervin},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {act\_Crowdsourcing, goal\_Dissemination, meta\_GiveOverview},
}

Charles Darwin und Gregor Mendel gelten zu Recht als herausragende Figuren der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Sie waren auf ihren Gebieten Amateure, keine Berufsforscher im heutigen Sinne. Was sie antrieb, war eine unstillbare Neugier, die auch heute noch vielen Laien zu Eigen ist und in leidenschaftlich gepflegten Hobbys und ehrenamtlicher Forschung in vielen Problemfeldern der Zivilgesellschaft ihren Ausdruck findet. Doch Wissenschaft und Forschung gelten mittlerweile als Privileg der Profis, das oftmals lebensnähere Wirken der Laien als zweitklassig. Dabei sind ihre Leistungen bedeutsamer denn je: das Jahrhundertprojekt Wikipedia wäre ohne Citizen Science undenkbar und auch erfolgreiches bürgerschaftliches Engagement kommt ohne fundierte Sachkenntnisse nicht aus. Peter Finke legt die erste Einführung in die Ideenwelt von Citizen Science vor und lädt ein, die unterschätzte Welt der Wissensbürger zu entdecken. Sein Fazit: Wenn wir wirklich eine Wissensgesellschaft werden wollen, müssen wir unsere akademischen und politischen Maßstäbe neu justieren.

@incollection{haklay_citizen_2013,
	address = {Dordrecht},
	title = {Citizen {Science} and {Volunteered} {Geographic} {Information}: {Overview} and {Typology} of {Participation}},
	isbn = {978-94-007-4587-2},
	shorttitle = {Citizen {Science} and {Volunteered} {Geographic} {Information}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7},
	abstract = {Within volunteered geographic information (VGI), citizen science stands out as a class of activities that require special attention and analysis. Citizen science is likely to be the longest running of VGI activities, with some projects showing continuous effort over a century. In addition, many projects are characterised by a genuine element of volunteering and contribution of information for the benefit of human knowledge and science. They are also tasks where data quality and uncertainty come to the fore when evaluating the validity of the results. This chapter provides an overview of citizen science in the context of VGI – hence the focus on geographic citizen science. This chapter highlights the historical context of citizen science and its more recent incarnation. It also covers some of the cultural and conceptual challenges that citizen science faces and the resulting limitation on the level of engagement. By drawing parallels with the Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS) literature, the chapter offers a framework for participation in citizen science and concludes with the suggestion that a more participatory mode of citizen science is possible.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-09-06},
	booktitle = {Crowdsourcing {Geographic} {Knowledge}: {Volunteered} {Geographic} {Information} ({VGI}) in {Theory} and {Practice}},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	author = {Haklay, Muki},
	editor = {Sui, Daniel and Elwood, Sarah and Goodchild, Michael},
	year = {2013},
	doi = {10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7},
	keywords = {Citizen Science, Geographic Information System, Global Position System Receiver, Volunteer Computing, Volunteer Geographic Information},
	pages = {105--122},
}

Within volunteered geographic information (VGI), citizen science stands out as a class of activities that require special attention and analysis. Citizen science is likely to be the longest running of VGI activities, with some projects showing continuous effort over a century. In addition, many projects are characterised by a genuine element of volunteering and contribution of information for the benefit of human knowledge and science. They are also tasks where data quality and uncertainty come to the fore when evaluating the validity of the results. This chapter provides an overview of citizen science in the context of VGI – hence the focus on geographic citizen science. This chapter highlights the historical context of citizen science and its more recent incarnation. It also covers some of the cultural and conceptual challenges that citizen science faces and the resulting limitation on the level of engagement. By drawing parallels with the Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS) literature, the chapter offers a framework for participation in citizen science and concludes with the suggestion that a more participatory mode of citizen science is possible.

@incollection{graham_heritagecrowd_2013,
	title = {The {HeritageCrowd} {Project}:: {A} {Case} {Study} in {Crowdsourcing} {Public} {History}},
	shorttitle = {The {HeritageCrowd} {Project}},
	url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv65sx57.24},
	abstract = {Digital history is public history: when we put materials online, we enter into a conversation with individuals from all walks of life, with various voices and degrees of professionalism. In this essay, we discuss our experience in relinquishing control of the historical voice in order to crowdsource cultural heritage and history. What is the role of the historian when we crowdsource history? Whose history is it anyway—the historian’s or the crowd’s? Which crowd can lay claim to it?   \textit{Wikipedia} , the exemplar par excellence of what crowdsourcing can accomplish, has perhaps the most succinct and elegant definition of the term:},
	urldate = {2021-03-08},
	booktitle = {Writing {History} in the {Digital} {Age}},
	publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
	author = {Graham, Shawn and Massie, Guy and Feuerherm, Nadine},
	editor = {Dougherty, Jack and Nawrotzki, Kristen},
	year = {2013},
	doi = {10.2307/j.ctv65sx57.24},
	pages = {222--232},
}

Digital history is public history: when we put materials online, we enter into a conversation with individuals from all walks of life, with various voices and degrees of professionalism. In this essay, we discuss our experience in relinquishing control of the historical voice in order to crowdsource cultural heritage and history. What is the role of the historian when we crowdsource history? Whose history is it anyway—the historian’s or the crowd’s? Which crowd can lay claim to it? Wikipedia , the exemplar par excellence of what crowdsourcing can accomplish, has perhaps the most succinct and elegant definition of the term:

@article{causer_building_2012,
	title = {Building {A} {Volunteer} {Community}: {Results} and {Findings} from {Transcribe} {Bentham}},
	volume = {006},
	issn = {1938-4122},
	shorttitle = {Building {A} {Volunteer} {Community}},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Digital Humanities Quarterly},
	author = {Causer, Tim and Wallace, Valerie},
	month = oct,
	year = {2012},
	keywords = {Crowdsourcing},
}

@book{easley_networks_2010,
	title = {Networks, {Crowds}, and {Markets}. {Reasoning} {About} a {Highly} {Connected} {World}},
	isbn = {978-0-521-19533-1},
	url = {http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/computer-science/algorithmics-complexity-computer-algebra-and-computational-g/networks-crowds-and-markets-reasoning-about-highly-connected-world},
	abstract = {A unique probabilistic approach to studying pattern matching problems in computer science, telecommunications, molecular biology and more.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2014-09-05},
	publisher = {CUP},
	author = {Easley, David and Kleinberg, Jon},
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {*****, act\_RelationalAnalysis, goal\_Analysis, t\_NetworkAnalysis},
}

A unique probabilistic approach to studying pattern matching problems in computer science, telecommunications, molecular biology and more.

@techreport{holley_many_2009,
	title = {Many hands make light work: {Public} collaborative {OCR} text correction in {Australian} historic newspapers},
	url = {http://nla.gov.au/ndp/project_details/documents/ANDP_ManyHands.pdf},
	abstract = {An overview of public collaborative OCR text correction in the'Australian Newspapers' 
service.},
	institution = {National Library of Australia},
	author = {Holley, Rose},
	month = mar,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Crowdsourcing},
}

An overview of public collaborative OCR text correction in the'Australian Newspapers' service.

@book{noauthor_collective_nodate,
	title = {The {Collective} {Wisdom} {Handbook}: {Perspectives} on {Crowdsourcing} in {Cultural} {Heritage} - community review version},
	shorttitle = {The {Collective} {Wisdom} {Handbook}},
	url = {https://britishlibrary.pubpub.org/the-collective-wisdom-handbook-perspectives-on-crowdsourcing-in-cultural-heritage---community-review-version},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2023-07-13},
	publisher = {PubPub},
	note = {Book Title: The Collective Wisdom Handbook: Perspectives on Crowdsourcing in Cultural Heritage - community review version},
}

@article{ernst_vom_nodate,
	series = {Zeitschrift für {DH}},
	title = {Vom {Urheber} zur {Crowd}, vom {Werk} zur {Version}, vom {Schutz} zur Öffnung? {Kollaboratives} {Schreiben} und {Bewerten} in den {Digital} {Humanities}},
	url = {http://fvmww.diphda.uberspace.de/vom-urheber-zur-crowd-vom-werk-zur-version-vom-schutz-zur-%C3%B6ffnung-kollaboratives-schreiben-und},
	doi = {nN},
	abstract = {Open-Review-Plattformen und Wikis verändern die wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisproduktion, Soziale Medien und Wissenschaftsblogs die Wissenschaftskommunikation. Diese digitalen Publikationsweisen stellen die Veröffentlichungspraxen und Autorschaftskonzepte der Geisteswissenschaften praktisch und kategorial vor einige Probleme. Daher ist es notwendig, den Begriff ›wissenschaftliche Autorschaft‹ angesichts neuer Formen des kollaborativen Schreibens einer Revision zu unterziehen und die Wissenschaftlichkeit der neuen Medienformate zu reflektieren. Dies kann exemplarisch an selbstkontrollierten digitalen Veröffentlichungsinfrastrukturen und Modellen eines offeneren Immaterialgüterrechts untersucht werden.

Open-review projects and wikis are changing academic knowledge production, just as academic blogs and social media are influencing scholarly communication. These digital forms of publishing challenge the usual practices of publishing and the concepts of authorship within the humanities, both practically and categorically. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the concept of ›scholarly authorship‹ by differentiating new forms of academic collaborative writing and to reflect on the academic quality of the new media formats within the humanities. This can be shown when analyzing self-curated digital publishing infrastructures and open license models of intellectual property.},
	language = {de},
	number = {Sonderband},
	author = {Ernst, Thomas},
	keywords = {Object: Digital Humanities, Open Access, act\_Collaborating, activity: Enrich, activity: Reflect},
}

Open-Review-Plattformen und Wikis verändern die wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisproduktion, Soziale Medien und Wissenschaftsblogs die Wissenschaftskommunikation. Diese digitalen Publikationsweisen stellen die Veröffentlichungspraxen und Autorschaftskonzepte der Geisteswissenschaften praktisch und kategorial vor einige Probleme. Daher ist es notwendig, den Begriff ›wissenschaftliche Autorschaft‹ angesichts neuer Formen des kollaborativen Schreibens einer Revision zu unterziehen und die Wissenschaftlichkeit der neuen Medienformate zu reflektieren. Dies kann exemplarisch an selbstkontrollierten digitalen Veröffentlichungsinfrastrukturen und Modellen eines offeneren Immaterialgüterrechts untersucht werden. Open-review projects and wikis are changing academic knowledge production, just as academic blogs and social media are influencing scholarly communication. These digital forms of publishing challenge the usual practices of publishing and the concepts of authorship within the humanities, both practically and categorically. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the concept of ›scholarly authorship‹ by differentiating new forms of academic collaborative writing and to reflect on the academic quality of the new media formats within the humanities. This can be shown when analyzing self-curated digital publishing infrastructures and open license models of intellectual property.

@misc{christina_manzo_et_al_by_nodate,
	type = {{DHQ}: {Digital} {Humanities} {Quarterly}:},
	title = {By the {People}, {For} the {People}: {Assessing} the {Value} of {Crowdsourced}, {User}-{Generated} {Metadata}},
	url = {http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/1/000204/000204.html},
	abstract = {With the growing volume of user-generated classification systems arising from media tagging-based platforms (such as Flickr and Tumblr) and the advent of new crowdsourcing platforms for cultural heritage collections, determining the value and usability of crowdsourced, "folksonomic," or user-generated, "freely chosen keywords"  [21st Century Lexicon] for libraries, museums and other cultural heritage organizations becomes increasingly essential. The present study builds on prior work investigating the value and accuracy of folksonomies by: (1) demonstrating the benefit of user-generated "tags" - or unregulated keywords typically meant for personal organizational purposes - for facilitating item retrieval and (2) assessing the accuracy of descriptive metadata generated via a game-based crowdsourcing application. In this study, participants (N = 16) were first tasked with finding a set of five images using a search index containing either a combination of folksonomic and controlled vocabulary metadata or only controlled vocabulary metadata. Data analysis revealed that participants in the folksonomic and controlled vocabulary search condition were, on average, six times faster to search for each image (M = 25.08 secs) compared to participants searching with access only to controlled vocabulary metadata (M = 154.1 secs), and successfully retrieved significantly more items overall. Following this search task, all participants were asked to provide descriptive metadata for nine digital objects by playing three separate single-player tagging games. Analysis showed that 88\% of participant-provided tags were judged to be accurate, and that both tagging patterns and accuracy levels did not significantly differ between groups of professional librarians and participants outside of the Library Science field. These findings illustrate the value of folksonomies for enhancing item "findability," or the ease with which a patron can access materials, and the ability of librarians and general users alike to contribute valid, meaningful metadata. This could significantly impact the way libraries and other cultural heritage organizations conceptualize the tasks of searching and classification.},
	urldate = {2015-09-24},
	author = {{Christina Manzo et al.}},
	keywords = {activity: Collaborate},
}

With the growing volume of user-generated classification systems arising from media tagging-based platforms (such as Flickr and Tumblr) and the advent of new crowdsourcing platforms for cultural heritage collections, determining the value and usability of crowdsourced, "folksonomic," or user-generated, "freely chosen keywords" [21st Century Lexicon] for libraries, museums and other cultural heritage organizations becomes increasingly essential. The present study builds on prior work investigating the value and accuracy of folksonomies by: (1) demonstrating the benefit of user-generated "tags" - or unregulated keywords typically meant for personal organizational purposes - for facilitating item retrieval and (2) assessing the accuracy of descriptive metadata generated via a game-based crowdsourcing application. In this study, participants (N = 16) were first tasked with finding a set of five images using a search index containing either a combination of folksonomic and controlled vocabulary metadata or only controlled vocabulary metadata. Data analysis revealed that participants in the folksonomic and controlled vocabulary search condition were, on average, six times faster to search for each image (M = 25.08 secs) compared to participants searching with access only to controlled vocabulary metadata (M = 154.1 secs), and successfully retrieved significantly more items overall. Following this search task, all participants were asked to provide descriptive metadata for nine digital objects by playing three separate single-player tagging games. Analysis showed that 88% of participant-provided tags were judged to be accurate, and that both tagging patterns and accuracy levels did not significantly differ between groups of professional librarians and participants outside of the Library Science field. These findings illustrate the value of folksonomies for enhancing item "findability," or the ease with which a patron can access materials, and the ability of librarians and general users alike to contribute valid, meaningful metadata. This could significantly impact the way libraries and other cultural heritage organizations conceptualize the tasks of searching and classification.