"Prior to RDA, the primary goal of authority work was identification and disambiguation." ...you want those unique "headings" or "authorized access points." Generally doesn't include biographical or historical data (this is somewhat different from archival work)

"Catalogers presume that they are recording facts about the person, but there are plenty of places in an authority record where judgment or biases may creep in and potentially cause harm for the individual being described."

People may also consciously/unconsciously censor things which THEY consider to be derogatory to that person. Billey uses the example of Maya Angelou as sex worker. It's in her autobio, and many other places.

Did catalogers judge that it did didn't matter? That it wasn't relevant to her work? Did they fear it would make Dr. Angelou lesser in someone's eyes?

............I hadn't encountered this, but after my run-in with people who thought "prisoner" was an occupation, I should not be surprised that some catalogers thought Occupation: Slaves, was the best way to express it...

Billey isn't going to get into technical definitions of occupation and forced situations but ask whether this is a necessary and accurate way of recording that a person was enslaved.

Also, authorities for the most famous people who were enslaved (and who then rebelled against that--Turner, Tubman, Vesey, etc.) DON'T have the occupation "Slave." Billey isn't arguing we add it to them, but that this demonstrates more inconsistency.

Now, Billey's pivoting to the utility of such data. Is there at least a defense of utility and has it improved our lives/discovery processes? Publications by women politicians in the united states: 19 results in Connexion Entity Attributes, 7526 in Wikidata.

Oh and move to the question of PII ... though from having redacted such, I'll note that there's also a distinction between Personally Identifiable Information and Protected PII. e.g. my selfies are PII but not protected. In SOME contexts my image _should_ be protected.

HOWEVER just because something doesn't fall under "yeah absolutely have to protect it at all times" -- e.g. employer, doesn't mean you should just put it out there all of the time you're not supposed to be protecting it either.

Field Billey identifies as PII include fuller form of name, address (yeah def), birth date (heck yes), and place of birth. [did you know you can do a decent job w/getting socials from just that info?] Also maybe gender & affiliation.

I'm going to pause for a second and grab a phrase from my own book chapter re: trans people's dead names: "Does a public discussion of one’s complex name give catalogers license to ignore expressed wishes and display it in every catalog record of one’s work forever?"

There's a difference between information being out there and our decisions to codify it as "authority" and just saying a thing doesn't license everyone to use that thing about you forever.

Open and shared datasets mean open and shared sharing of whatever kind of data has been put out there, even if we change it later. We can't control where it went.

The next section header is "unreliable library systems" and oh I just sad-laughed.

After 25 years of FRBR, 10 years of FRAD, over 5 years of MARC 3xx, we are really not using them in any meaningful way. Few things are using authorities metadata for user experience.

I think the point earlier about US women politicians is relevant here. If we only have wee bits of data, it's not worth making actionable to find 19 women when we know we'd leave out so many others...

Redundancy and reuse -- this is somewhat related to my own chapter, which includes a question of whether given our history we're the best people to do some of this stuff.

Rather than retype existing data, for which we don't have budgets and which we've proved we're not great at

...should we enhance by pulling in from other APIs and sources like ORCID? (I think this would involve spending some time being sure you could match authority IDs)

This could also bring in problems, and/but it needn't be permanently stored in our systems and we could evaluate (or fix external data)...

And what can we do about standards? Well, we don't seem to have much power in our authority bodies [a mood]. We could choose to err on the side of very basic records, though Billey does include Occupation which is useful but we also NEED to be better @ it.

Billey proposes recording information about people as they talk about themselves... and/but I think it's important to consider in there what they feel comfortable saying & what they want recorded forever. Is it a tweet or an autobiography? Huge diff.

Then some proposals from Thompson -- potential for information to harm them through outing or violation or right to privacy? indication they consent to share it? WILL IT HELP THE USER'S SEARCH PROCESS?

Ending with a beautiful sentiment "We try to record information about people, but people are complex and ever-changing beings ... [poem ] ... we cannot fix what is always in flux."

Sign in to participate in the conversation
glammr.us Mastodon

glammr.us is a space for folks interested in productive conversation about, well, galleries, libraries, archives, museums, memory work and records. It is pronounce β€œglamorous” as our work are often charmingly or fascinatingly attractive, especially in a mysterious or magical way. Sometimes it is also full of excitement, adventure, and unusual activity (oh, yes). It is also inspired by Toys’R’us to showcase the fun playful side of glammr.us tooters. But you don't necessarily have to only post about GLAMMR-related topics, bring your whole self. Talk about fun things you saw, your exciting day or even your struggles. Many of us are Twitter refugees looking for an inclusive and community supported approach to social media. If any of these things sound good to you, consider joining us by contributing as little as a $1 a month on patreon to help keep our server online. Take a look at our code of conduct.