Crowd sourcing: is it plausible to have a collective interpretation, or a user based interactive work associated with societies or museums? The article “Grappling with the Concept of Radical Trust“held the central theme of “radical trust.” The article addresses the notion that although open source sites such as Wikipedia do their intended services, museums and historical societies should play a more valuable role with the public. The other side of this is, that in accepting user generated content doesn’t have to mean people will abandon scholarly curation of our collections and interpretation of history. Instead there is the need of a force to help the public distinguish the difference, and to identify which content is from the public and which is scholarly.
In ” Can Museums Allow Users to Be Participants?“, Matthew MacArthur raises a fascinating observation about the present day importance of social networking on the internet. Crowd Sourcing is the product of this “symbolic shift in emphasis from the internet as a collection of pages to the Internet as a connection between people”. The idea of a folksonomy, using user based tagging to make the information more retrievable and allowing the web to form relationships between museums and people intimates an outreach to people that may have not know about this particular museum or historical society.
After reading these articles, and thinking about society as this evolutionary move towards the digital world, I really do believe that museums and historical sites/societies just need to embrace becoming at least somewhat interactive. It is a better marketing strategy, and having user interaction and promotion through web 2.0 for these places is really important to reaching people and acquiring more visitors or supporters.