The Mukurtu website was quite different than the Omeka website. Mukurku had more options for people who might want to collect data differently, usually from the perspective of another people group. Their website actually has examples of the type of data they enable people to record, such as the Native Health Database, Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal, and Chugachmiut Heritage Archive. When it comes to recording data, Mukurku gives people a wider variety of options to categorize information. For example, the metadata fields that are unique to Mukurku are: original date description, cultural narrative, traditional knowledge, key words, longitude, latitude, location, community records. All of these categories total up to be almost twice as many as the Omeka website. It shows that Mukurka has thought through their categories more than Omeka, allowing for more diverse knowledge to be produced and shared by community groups who might not have had the ability otherwise.
2 thoughts on “Lab 5”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Very nice. I thought that it was interesting how much more complex the Mukurtu page was in terms of its metadata
Well said! I agree that Mukurtu had many more metadata fields and provided access to more unique and culturally specific Digital Heritage where Omeka was more generalized. I also got the impression that Mukurtu protected certain aspects of its Digital Heritage from the general public which was only made accessible to members of a specific cultural community.