‘Paper trails’: my presentation at the 5th WCILCOS conference

I’m still digesting all that I heard at the 5th WCILCOS conference and cogitating about the exciting possibilities for international collaborative work that have emerged from it. I’m hoping to pull together some more thoughts about my discussions with folk from Canada and the US about mixed-race overseas Chinese families and children.

In the mean time, though, here are the slides of my talk and the first (and much longer) version of the paper I wrote a couple of months ago: Paper trails: Anglo-Chinese Australians and the White Australia Policy (pdf, 1.9mb).

Topic modelling in the archives

There seems to be a lot of topic modelling going on at the moment. Any why not? Projects like Mining the Dispatch are demonstrating the possibilities. Tools like Mallet are making it easy. And generous DHers like Ted Underwood and Scott Weingart are doing a great job explaining what it is and how it works.

I’ve talked briefly about using topic modelling to explore digitised newspapers, something that the Mapping Texts project has also been investigating. But I’ve also been following with interest Chad Black’s use of algorithmic techniques, including topic modelling, to look for local variations amidst the legal system of the early modern Spanish empire.

As part of the Invisible Australians project, Kate and I are exploring the bureaucracy of the White Australia Policy. In particular, we’re interested in the interaction between policy and practice, between the highly-centralised bureaucracy and the activities of individual port officials. Like Chad, we’re interested in mapping local variations — to try and understand the bureaucracy from the point of view of an individual forced to live within its restrictions.

I recently gave a presentation about the project at Digital Humanities Australasia (post coming soon!), and in preparation I decided to try a few topic modelling experiments. They were very simple, but I was impressed by the possibilities for exploring archival systems.

The problem I started with was this. The workings of the White Australia Policy are well documented by records held by the National Archives of Australia. Some series within the archives are specifically related to the operations of the policy — such as those containing many thousands of CEDTs. But there are also general correspondence series created by the customs offices in each state, as well as the Commonwealth Department of External Affairs which administered the Immigration Restriction Act (responsibility was later taken by the Department of Home and Territories and it’s successors). These general correspondence series are important, because they often include details of difficult or controversial cases — those that required a policy judgment, or prompted a change in existing practices. But how do you find relevant files within series that can contain large numbers of items?

Series A1, for example, is a correspondence series created by the Department of External Affairs. It contains more than 60,000 items. Past research tells us that amongst these 60,000 files are records of important policy discussions relating to White Australia. But these files tend to be labelled with the names of the people involved, so unless you know the names in advance they can be difficult to find.

Mitchell Whitelaw’s A1 Explorer, part of the Visible Archive project, lets you to explore the contents of Series A1 in a easy and engaging way. But while the A1 Explorer provides new opportunities for discovery, it doesn’t offer the fine-grained analysis we need to sift out the files we’re after. And so… topic modelling.

The process was pretty simple. While I can dip into my bag of screen-scrapers to harvest series directly from the NAA’s RecordSearch database, there was already an XML dump of A1 available from data.gov.au. So I extracted the basic file metadata from the XML and wrote the identifiers and titles out to a text file, one item per line. Following the instructions on the website I then loaded this file into Mallet:

/Applications/Mallet/bin/mallet import-file --input ./A1.txt --output A1.mallet --keep-sequence --remove-stopwords

Then it was just a matter of firing up the topic modeller:

/Applications/Mallet/bin/mallet train-topics --input ./A1.mallet --output-state ./A1.gz --output-doc-topics ./A1-topics.txt --output-topic-keys ./A1-keys.txt --num-topics 40

Again, I just followed the examples on the Mallet site.

Once it was finished I opened up A1-keys.txt to browse the ‘topics’ Mallet had found. The results were intriguing. There are a large number of applications for naturalisation in A1, so it’s no surprise that ‘naturalisation’ figures prominently in a number of the topics. What was more interesting was the way Mallet had grouped the naturalisation files. For example:

naturalization christian hans hansen jensen petersen andersen nielsen larsen christensen johannes jens niels pedersen andreas johansen martin jorgensen


naturalisation certificate giuseppe salvatore frank la leo samios spina sorbello leonardo fisher natale patane torrisi barbagallo luka rossi ross

Based on the co-occurrence of names within the file titles, Mallet had created groupings that roughly reflected the ethnic origins of applicants. It makes sense when you think about what Mallet is doing, but I still found it pretty amazing.

Mallet also found clusters around the major activities of the department, such as the administration of the territories. But of most interest to us was:

1 0.55539 passport ah student exemption students lee wong chinese young deserter education sing wing chong readmission son hing chin wife

The Chinese names alongside words such as ‘readmission’ and ‘wife’ suggested that this topic revolved around the administration of the White Australia Policy. This was easy to test. In A1-topics.txt was a list of every file in the series and their weightings in relation to each of the topics. I wasn’t sure what was a reasonable cut-off value to use in assessing the weightings, but after a bit of trial and error I fixed on a value of 0.7. I then just extracted the identifiers of every file that had a weighting greater than 0.7 for this topic. I used the identifiers to build a simple web page that Kate and I could browse. I also included links back to RecordSearch so we could explore further.

Browse the full list

It’s a pretty impressive result. Instead of fumbling with the uncertainties of keyword searches, we now have a list of more than 1,300 files that are clearly of relevance to Invisible Australians. There’s a few false positives and there are likely to be other files that we’ll have missed altogether, but now we have a much clearer picture of the types of files that are included and how they are described.

And that was at my first attempt, simply using the default settings. I’m now starting to play around with some of Mallet’s configuration options to see what sort of difference they make. I’m also keen to try out GenSim, a topic modelling package for Python.

I’m really excited about the possibilities of these sort of tools for analysing the contents of archival descriptive systems, something I mentioned in my Digital Humanities Australasia paper. Much more to come on this I suspect…

Something Australian at WCILCOS 2012 (Vancouver, Canada)

In a bit over a week, I’ll be heading (a long way) north to the 5th WCILCOS International Conference of Institutes and Libraries for Chinese Overseas Studies in Vancouver, Canada. The conference theme is ‘Chinese through the Americas’, but there is a small Australasian representation among the papers. I’m particularly excited to be going to Vancouver because I’m hoping to hear lots about the work that Henry Yu and others have been doing with the Chinese Canadian Stories project at the University of British Columbia (UBC).

Here’s the abstract of the paper I’ll be presenting. A version of the paper will be available on the UBC website after the conference.

Paper trails: Anglo-Chinese Australians and the White Australia Policy

This paper discusses the overseas travels of Australians of Anglo-Chinese descent in the early decades of the 20th century. It explores their experience of overseas travel and their negotiation of bureaucratic processes under the White Australia Policy.

In the early 20th century, Anglo-Chinese Australians travelled overseas, primarily to Hong Kong and China, on holidays, for education, business and to visit family. Like other ‘non-white’ Australians, they were subject to the regulations of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, under which they did not have an automatic right of return to Australia, even though they were Australian-born British subjects.

Australia’s early immigration regulations were designed to keep out unwanted ‘non-white’ arrivals, most famously through use of the Dictation Test, and the legislation was not clear on how officials should deal with those who were both Australian-born and of mixed race. Consequently, over the following decades officials developed a set of administrative practices in which their ideas of community belonging and cultural knowledge, as well as race, determined the outcomes of cases involving Anglo-Chinese Australians. The development of these administrative practices was an iterative process, where officials responded to the actions of Chinese and Anglo-Chinese Australians who, in turn, responded to and negotiated changing legislation and government policies.

‘That famous fighting family’

A little article of mine* appears in issue 9 of Inside History magazine (March–April 2012). The article discusses the experiences of Chinese Australians during World War I through the experiences of the Sam family from West Wyalong, New South Wales.

I first came across the Sam family in the file of youngest son, Percy, who travelled with his father to China in 1915. It was noted in their applications for exemption from the Dictation Test that a number of Percy’s brothers were serving in the First AIF – they were, in fact, at Gallipoli. It seemed such an irony that at the same time as his brothers were fighting for their country overseas, Percy was made to comply with the regulations of the Immigration Restriction Act, something that suggested he was less than a true Australian.

The way that Chinese Australians were treated during World War I was full of contradictions. Some young men were able to enlist, others weren’t. I don’t mention it in the article, but Chinese nationals were required to register as aliens during wartime (and afterwards) – so there were also cases of Chinese fathers having to report to the police to register as aliens while their Australian-born sons were away fighting for country and empire.

Unfortunately, I can’t provide a link to an online copy of the article, so if you’re interested you might just have to go and buy a copy of the magazine.

* Kate Bagnall, ‘That famous fighting family’, Inside History, issue 9, March–April 2012, pp. 37–40.

Ah Yin family of Adelong, c.1897

Every time I poke around in series NAA: SP42/1, I find something new and interesting that I hadn’t noticed before.

Today’s find is a photograph of the family of Ah Yin (or Ah Yen), who was a storekeeper at Adelong in southern New South Wales, and his wife, Ah Hoo (or Ah How). The family, with six children, left for China in 1897.

The file NAA: SP42/1, C1916/7308 PART 1 relates to a request for one of the Ah Yin daughters, Sarah (b. 1890), to be permitted to return to Australia in 1910.

More on Sarah Ah Yen’s return to Australia from the Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 1915.

Invisible Australians at AHA2012

I recently attended the American Historical Association meeting in Chicago where I gave a presentation on Invisible Australians in Session 138: ‘Crowdsourcing History: Collaborative Online Transcription and Archives’.

You can find out more at the session blog, where you also contribute details of your own crowdsourcing projects. Session 138 also came equipped with its very own hashtag and managed to generate a remarkable 200+ tweets. A fascinating collection of projects was discussed, both by the panel and by contributors from the audience.

My presentation introduced the records created through the administration of the White Australia Policy and talked about how Invisible Australians aims to extract and link biographical information about the people forced to live within its restrictions. It’s going to be a lot of work and we’re going to need your help! Stay tuned for news about our first online working bee.

You can browse my slides on SlideShare:

Invisible Australians: Living under the White Australia Policy

As well as plenty of positive Twitter coverage, Invisible Australians was mentioned in Jennifer Howard’s round-up of the AHA conference in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

It’s encouraging to find so much international interest in our project and it points towards some interesting collaborations in the future.

Inside the bureaucracy of White Australia

Invisible Australians is primarily concerned with assembling biographical information about individuals subject to the restrictions of the White Australia Policy. But as we extract their details from a variety of government documents, we will also be documenting the evolution of government policy and the workings of the bureaucracy that implemented it.

With this in mind, I’ve recently started to think about how we might model the internal operations of the White Australia Policy. I’ll be pursuing this further in a paper I’ll be presenting at Digital Humanities Australasia 2012. The outline of my paper is below. More details coming in the new year!

Inside the bureaucracy of White Australia

Abstract for Digital Humanities Australasia 2012.

With the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, the new Australian nation put in place a framework to protect its racial purity – what was to become known as the White Australia Policy. While the outlines of this policy are well known, what is less well-recognised is the White Australia Policy was a massive bureaucratic exercise. Administering this system of racial exclusion and control involved the co-operation of federal and state governments and a complex, evolving web of legislation, regulations and guidelines.

Many thousands of people sought to build lives and families within these restrictions. Case files help us to understand some of the interactions between individuals and government, but the scale of the enterprise defies easy analysis. To understand how the White Australia Policy worked, how it affected people’s lives, we need a way of navigating its internal structures, logic and history. This paper will outline a project to reconstruct the bureaucratic machinery of the White Australia Policy by mining and linking data from a variety of sources.

Historical descriptions of government agencies are already available in machine-readable forms from the National Archives of Australia, the State Records Office of NSW and the Public Records Office of Victoria. In addition, descriptions of records created by these agencies can themselves be mined for patterns. These structures can then be combined with information extracted from legislation, newspapers and Hansard to build up a rich model of the policy in practice.

We hope that by exploring this model and relating it to existing case studies, we will be able to plot local variations in administration as well as longer-term structural changes. Most importantly, we hope to be able to visualise the bureaucracy from the point of view of the people it sought to restrict.

Posts and reposts

It’s been really exciting to see interest in Invisible Australians developing over the last few months. As well as a steady stream of encouraging tweets, there have been a number of mentions in the blogosphere. I thought I’d bring a few of them together.

In his post A walk with love and data, Peter Binkley describes The real face of White Australia. What’s particularly pleasing is that Peter detects a ‘sense of responsibility’ motivating our work. It’s important to us to think carefully about how we use and represent the data — the people. It’s something Kate touched on in her post about the faces experiment, and it was one of the themes in a talk I gave about the project last year.

The Archival Platform is a initiative explicitly concerned with the social and political dimensions of archives, so we were excited when they asked permission to reblog my post about building the faces browser.

More recently, my talk at the National Digital Forum attracted a lot of attention. Our wall of faces even made it onto the front page of Digital Humanities Now.

Barbara Fister posted a very thoughtful and moving response on the Library Babel Fish blog at Inside Higher Ed. Both in the article and the comments, Barbara finds inspiration in what we’re trying to do with Invisible Australians:

But then you get these dreamers who decide to do something entirely awesome because it needs doing and nobody else is doing it. They are bringing information to light and sharing it, not because they have to or because it will get them something. This project is about people who are totally outside the academic sphere, who cannot reward the researchers. It’s both extraordinary historical scholarship and brilliantly outward-looking.

Wow. Of course, I don’t think we’re alone in this and I gave a few examples of projects I admire in my talk. But at those times when we’re both feeling exhausted and finding it hard to pay the bills, it’s encouraging to know that there are people out there who think the project is worthwhile and that we’re not entirely crazy.

Thanks folks!

It’s all about the stuff: collections, interfaces, power and people

This is the full version of a paper I presented at the National Digital Forum, 30 November 2011.

In 1901, one of the first acts of the Commonwealth of Australia was to create a system of exclusion and control designed to keep the newly-formed nation ‘white’. But White Australia was always a myth. As well as the Indigenous population, there were already many thousands of people classified as ‘non-white‘ living in Australia — most were Chinese, but there were also Japanese, Indians, Syrians and Indonesians.

Here are some of them…

The real face of White Australia

The administration of what became known as the White Australia Policy created a huge volume of records, much of which is still preserved within the National Archives of Australia. These photographs are attached to certificates that non-white residents needed to get back into the country if they decided to travel overseas. There are thousands upon thousands of these certificates in the Archives. Thousands of certificates representing thousands of lives — all monitored and controlled.

But is is too easy to see these people as the powerless victims of a repressive system. There were many acts of resistance. Some argued against the need to be identified ‘just like a criminal’. Others exercised control over their representation, submitting formal studio portraits instead of mug shots.

Most commonly and most powerfully, people resisted the policy simply by going ahead and living rich and productive lives.

My partner, Kate Bagnall, is helping to rewrite Australian-Chinese history by overthrowing the stereotype of the culturally isolated Chinese man living a lonely, meagre existence surrounded by gambling and opium dens. By mining the available records, by reading against the grain of contemporary reports and by working with family historians, Kate is documenting their intimate lives — their wives, their lovers, their families and descendants — the sorts of relationships that sent a shudder through the edifice of White Australia. Power can be reclaimed in many subtle and subversive ways.

‘The real face of White Australia’ is an experiment. It uses facial detection to technology to find and extract the photographs from digital copies of the original certificates made available through the National Archives of Australia’s collection database. The photographs you see here come from just one series, ST84/1. There’s no API to the collection so I reverse-engineered the web interface to create a script that would harvest the item metadata and download copies of all the digitised images. There are 2,756 files in this series. On the day I harvested the metadata, 347 of those files had been digitised, comprising 12,502 images. It took a few hours, but I just ran my script and soon I had a copy of all of this in my local database.

Then came the exciting part. Using a facial detection script I found through Google and an open source computer vision library, I started experimenting with ways of extracting the photos. After a few tweaks I had something that worked pretty well, so I pointed my aging laptop at the 12,502 images and watched anxiously as the CPU temperature rose and rose. It took a few emergency cooling measures, but the laptop survived and I had a folder containing 11,170 cropped images. About a third of these weren’t actually faces, but it was easy to manually remove the false positives, leaving 7,247 photos.

These photos. These people.

With my database fully primed and loaded it was just a matter of creating a simple web interface using Django for the backend and Isotope (a jQuery plugin) at the front. Both are open source projects. All together, from idea to interface, it took a bit more than a weekend to create, and most of that was waiting for the harvesting and facial detection scripts to complete. It would be silly to say it was easy, but I would say that it wasn’t hard.

What we ended up with was a new way of seeing and understanding the records — not as the remnants of bureaucratic processes, but as windows onto the lives of people. All the faces are linked to copies of the original certificates and back to the collection database of the National Archives. So this is also a finding aid. A finding aid that brings the people to the front.

According to Margaret Hedstrom the archival interface ‘is a site where power is negotiated and exercised’. Whether in a reading room or online, finding aids or collection databases are ‘neither neutral nor transparent’, but the product of ‘conscious design decisions’. We would like to think that this interface gives some power back to the people within the records. Their photographs challenge us to do something, to think something, to feel something. We cannot escape their discomfiting gaze.

But this interface represents another subtle shift in power. We could create it without any explicit assistance or involvement by the National Archives itself. Simply by putting part of the collection online, they provided us with the opportunity to develop a resource that both extends and critiques the existing collection database. Interfaces to cultural heritage collections are no longer controlled solely by cultural heritage institutions.

It’s these two aspects of the power of interfaces that I want to focus on today.

There are a growing number of examples where the records created by repressive or discriminatory regimes have, in Eric Ketelaar’s words, ‘become instruments of empowerment and liberation, salvation and freedom’. Nazi records of assets confiscated during the Holocaust have been used to inform processes of restitution and reparation. Government records have helped members of Australia’s Stolen Generations trace family members. Descendants of inmates incarcerated by American colonial authorities in what was the world’s largest leprosy colony in the Philippines, have embraced the administrative record as an affirmation of their own heritage and survival. Records can find new meanings. Power can be reclaimed.

Technology can help. Tim Hitchcock has described how something as simple as keyword searching can turn archives on their heads. Recordkeeping systems tend to reflect the structures and power relations of the organisations that create them. The ‘hierarchical and institutional nature of most archives’, Hitchcock argues, ‘contains an ideological component which is sucked in with every dust-filled breath’. But digitisation and keyword searching free us from having to follow the well-worn paths of institutional power. We can find people and follow their lives against the flow of bureaucratic convenience. We can gain a wholly new perspective on the workings of society. ‘What changes’, Hitchcock asks, ‘when we examine the world through the collected fragments of knowledge that we can recover about a single person, reorganised as a biographical narrative, rather than as part of an archival system?’

Projects such as Unknown no longer may help us answer that question.

Unknown no longer

It’s aiming to extract the names and biographical details of slaves from the 8 million manuscript documents held by the Virginia Historical Society. The documents include court records, receipts, wills and inventories. Here is a page from the ‘Inventory of Negroes at Berry Plain Plantation, King George County, Virginia’ for 1855, listing names, occupations and valuations.

Tim Hitchcock is one of the directors of London Lives a project that similarly seeks to find the people in 240,000 manuscript pages documenting the lives of plebeian Londoners in the 17th century.

London Lives

More than three million names have already been extracted from the records of courts, workhouses, hospitals and other institutions. Work is continuing to link these names together, to merge these various shards of identity and piece together the experiences of London’s poorest inhabitants.

Remember me from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is working with photographs taken by relief agencies in the aftermath of World War Two. The photographs are of displaced children who survived the Holocaust but were separated from families. What happened to them? The project is seeking public help to identify and trace the children.

Remember me

These are all projects about finding people. Finding the oppressed, the vulnerable, the displaced, the marginalized and the poor and giving them their place in history. This is what Kate and I hope to do with Invisible Australians, the broader project of which our faces experiment is part.

Invisible Australians

‘Invisible Australians’ aims to extract more than just photographs. We want to record and aggregate the biographical data contained within the records of the White Australia Policy — to extract the data and rebuild identities.

But we want to do more, we want to link these identities up with with other records, with the research of family and local historians, with cemetery registers and family trees, with newspaper articles and databases we don’t even know about yet. We want to find people, families and communities.

It’s ridiculously ambitious and totally unfunded. But it is possible.

The most exciting part of online technology is the power it gives to people to pursue their passions. As with the faces, we don’t need the help of the National Archives. We need the records to be digitized, but that’s happening anyway and we can afford to be patient. Most of the tools we need already exist, and are free. In the past 12 months, for example, there have been a number of open source tools released for crowd-sourced transcription of manuscript records.

People with passions, people with dreams, people who are just annoyed and impatient, don’t have to wait for cultural institutions to create exactly what they need. They can take what’s on offer and change it.

Interfaces can be modified. It is amazingly easy to write a script that will change the way a web page looks and behaves in your browser. I was frustrated by the standard interface to digitized files in the National Archives of Australia’s Recordsearch database — so I changed it.

Before and after

Not only did make it look a bit nicer, I added new functions. My script lets you print a whole file or a range of pages and display the entire contents of the file on a pretty cool 3d wall.

I’ve shared this script, and a few other Recordsearch enhancements. Anyone can install them with a click and use them.

Wragge Labs Emporium

Interfaces are sites of power and we can claim some of that power for ourselves. Online technologies not only free us from the having to brave the physical intimidation of the reading room, they free us up to engage with the records in new ways. The archivist-on-duty would probably not be pleased if I pulled out some scissors and started snipping photos out of certificates. Or if I pulled a file apart and pasted it’s contents on the wall. But online we are free to experiment.

The power of cultural heritage organisations is perhaps expressed most forcefully in their ability to control the arrangement and description of their collections. ‘Every representation, every model of description, is biased’, note Verne Harris and Wendy Duff, ‘because it reflects a particular world-view and is constructed to meet specific purposes’. Archives, libraries and museums are already starting to share this power, by allowing tagging, or seeking public assistance with description through crowd sourcing projects. But most of the these activities still happen within spaces created and curated by the institutions themselves. Our cathedrals of culture might be opening their doors and inviting the public to participate in their ceremonies, but that doesn’t make them bazaars. The architecture stills speaks of authority.

In any case, people already have a space where they can explore and enrich collections — it’s called the internet.

It would be great to see cultural institutions doing more to watch, understand and support what people are doing with collections in their own spaces — following them as they pursue their passions, rather than thinking of ways to motivate them.

A quick example… You might have heard of Zotero, it’s an open source project that lets you capture, annotate and organize your research materials.


One cool thing about Zotero is that you can build and contribute little screen scrapers, called translators, that let Zotero extract structured data from any old collection database. You might not be surprised to learn that I’ve created a translator for Recordsearch. Another cool thing about Zotero is that you can share the stuff that you collect in public groups.

Invisible Australians Zotero group

Put those two cool things together and what do you have? Well to me they spell out user generated finding aids — parallel collection databases created by researchers simply pursuing their own passions.

Linked Open Data greatly increases opportunities for collection description to leak into the wider web. If objects and documents are identified with a unique URL, then anyone can can make and publish statements about them in machine-readable form. These statements can then be aggregated and explored. Initiatives such as the Open Annotation Collaboration will hasten the development of these shared descriptive and interpretative layers around our cultural collections.

And of course all this descriptive and interpretative work can be harvested back to enhance existing collection databases. We could start doing it now — though I will spare you today my rant about the possibilities of mining footnotes.

As well as exploring the possibilities of user-generated content, cultural institutions are starting to open up their collection data for re-use. APIs are great (though Linked Open Data is better), and New Zealand is lucky to have an organisation like DigitalNZ which just gets it. People can and will make cool things with your stuff.

But again, we don’t have to wait for everything to be delivered in a convenient, machine-readable form. If it’s on the web anybody can scrape, harvest and experiment.

You probably all know about the National Library of Australia’s newspaper digitisation project — it’s building a magnificent resource. But I wanted to do more than just find articles. I wanted to explore and analyze their content on a large scale. So I built a screen scraper to extract structured data from search results, and then used the scraper to  power a series of tools. I have a harvester that lets you download an entire results set — hundreds or thousands of articles — with metadata neatly packaged for further analysis.


Or what about a script that graphs the occurrence of search terms over time, and allows you to ask questions like When did the Great War become the First World War?.

When did the Great War become the First World War?

In the end I got a bit carried away and built my own public API to the Trove newspaper database.

Unofficial Trove newspapers API

I think it’s important to note that the tools I developed were guided by the types of questions I wanted to ask. While we should welcome APIs and celebrate their possibilities, we should also remain critical. APIs are interfaces, they too embed power relations. Every API has an argument. What questions do they let us ask? What questions do they prevent us from asking?

Even as we move from the age of lumbering, slow-witted data silos into the rapidly-evolving realms of Linked Open Data, we have to constantly question the models we make of the world. Ontologies and vocabularies are culturally determined and historically specific. Yes, they too are interfaces, complete with their own distributions of power and authority. But we can revisit and change them. And we can relate our new models to our old models, capturing complex, long-term shifts in the way we think about the world. That’s incredibly exciting.

All of this hacking, harvesting, questioning, enriching and meaning-making makes me think about the possibilities of grassroots leadership. Online technologies enable people to take cultural institutions into unexpected realms. They can build their own interfaces, ask their own questions, determine their own needs — they can point the way instead of simply waiting to be served.

You might wonder what the National Library of Australia thinks of my various scrapers and harvesters. I can’t speak for them, but I can say that they’ve awarded me a fellowship to explore further the possibilities of text-mining in their newspaper database.

The idea of grassroots leadership brings me back to the title of this talk — ‘It’s all about the stuff’. It seems to me that we tend to model the interactions between cultural institutions and the public as transactions. The public are ‘clients’, ‘patrons’, ‘users’ or ‘visitors’. But the sorts of things I’ve been talking about today give us a chance to put the collections themselves squarely at the centre of our thoughts and actions. Instead of concentrating on the relationship between the institution and the public, we can can focus on the relationship we both have with the collections.

It’s all about the stuff.

It’s all about the respect and responsibility we both have for our collections.

It’s all about the respect and responsibility we both have for people like this.