User:Monetmilo/sandbox

For Dewey Decimal Classification, under Influence and Criticism.

Treatment of Indigenous peoples

DCC has been criticized by library and information science scholar Hope A. Olsen for presuming universality. For example, Indigenous literature is classified in the 890s under “Literatures of other languages”; Olsen explains that is generalization is problematic because of its presumption of homogeneity that obscures differences and diversity. This is type of generalization has been widely critiqued by Indigenous scholars like Daniel Sims, who argues that the false homogeneity often applied to Indigenous peoples in Canada perpetuates a lack recognition of Indigenous diversity and upholds harmful stereotypes.

It has also been argued that these implicit biases that have been located within DDC’s hierarchal structure affect the discoverability of materials. DDC is organized from a non-Indigenous perspective, and therefore it is argued by Indigenous librarians that DDC isn’t capable of adequately organizing Indigenous collections. Under DDC, many Indigenous materials would be placed into the History section, even if they are not about Indigenous histories. The relegation of Indigenous Knowledge into the past furthers myths and stereotypes and limits the possibility of finding Indigenous materials in other sections. When Indigenous frames of reference are not accounted for within a classification system a collections accessibility to Indigenous users is reduced.

For Library of Congress Subject Headings under Criticism

Indigenous Studies

The LCC's attempt at classifying indigenous materials is deemed inappropriate by many scholars of Indigenous studies, Indigenous Librarianship, and library and information science as it fails to accurately represent the identities and works of Indigenous peoples. LCSH have been criticized for their failure to acknowledge the sovereignty of Indigenous nations and for the way they quarantine Indigenous materials into their own section under Class E. Some subject headings have been referred to by library and information science scholars as discriminatory, inappropriate, and misguided. The majority of Indigenous material are confined to 'E 99---Native American tribes and cultures', strictly separating Indigenous historical material from the rest of U.S History. Classifying the majority of Indigenous materials as 'history' also give the problematic impression that Indigenous people no longer exist. Most materials on Indigenous art are placed under Class E instead of Class N, leading to the implications that Indigenous art is not serious art. LCSH also fail to represent how Indigenous ways of learning focus heavily on spatial, social and cultural relationships.

LCSH use the term "Indian" which is considered inappropriate for scholarly use outside of referencing the Indian Act, or similar historical legislature. The ambiguous nature of the word also perpetuates a cycle of miscataloguing. On WorldCat, the search terms "Indians---Food" give results on South Asian Cuisine, while "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to Indigenous cooking.

While there are attempts to reform aspects of LCC by changing subject headings and terminology, it should be noted that these changes do not address the structural inequalities that inform LCC and LCSH. Similar to the Dewey Decimal Classification, LCC is not fundamentally able to describe and conceptualize Indigenous epistemologies, cultures, and languages.

For Data Sovereignty under Indigenous Context

Indigenous Data Sovereignty

Discussions of Indigenous Data Sovereignty for Indigenous peoples of Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America are currently underway. Indigenous Data Sovereignty is defined as "the right of Indigenous peoples to determine the means of collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination and reuse of data pertaining to the Indigenous peoples from whom it has been derived, or to whom it relates." Data sovereignty is seen by Indigenous peoples and activists as a key piece to self-governance structures and important pillar of Indigenous sovereignty as a whole. Indigenous Data Sovereignty is supported by the rights of Indigenous peoples' as described by the Untied Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The decolonization of data is seen by activists as a way to give power to Indigenous people to "determine who should be counted among them" and would be able to better reflect the "interests, values and priorities of native people". Indigenous Data Sovereignty centres Indigenous collective rights regarding people, territories, lifeways, and natural resources. Scholars also argue that given the power over their own data, Indigenous peoples would be able to decide which data gets disseminated to the public and what does not, a decision typically made by the settler government. What Indigenous Data Sovereignty looks like in practice differs between communities. The way that data is managed will align with the practices, laws, and customs of the Indigenous peoples that data comes from.

In New Zealand, Te Mana Raraunga, a Māori data sovereignty network, created a charter to outline what Maori data sovereignty would look like. Some of the requests in the charter included "asserting Māori rights and interests in relation to data", "advocating for Māori involvement in the governance of data repositories" and "Supporting the development of Māori data infrastructure and security systems".

In Canada, Gwen Phillips of the Ktunaxa nation of British Columbia has been advocating for Ktunaxa data sovereignty and other pathways towards self-governance in the community.

For Open Data under Arguments for and against

Indigenous Data

Scholars have critiqued the Open Data movement for its inappropriate handling Indigenous data. It has been argued that Open Data poses unique risks to Indigenous Peoples and therefore has specific needs. This is partly because some data collected about Indigenous peoples, often by governing bodies, do not adequately represent the communities the data describes. By making inaccurate data about Indigenous communities Open can have negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples.

CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance, FAIR Data Principles, are two initiatives that work to address issues raised by open data and further Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

Indigenous scholars like Maggie Walter, Michele Sunia, and Tahu Kukutai write about the importance of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and its relationship to the Open Data Movement.

For Open Access under Inequality and Open Access

Indigenous Knowledge and Open Access

It is common for Indigenous Knowledge to have specific rules associated with them that are dependent on where that knowledge was derived and what community it came from. Often, these rules regulate access to materials; access can be determined according to gender, whether the knowledge is sacred or not, and many other sets of protocols that are unique across Indigenous cultures. It has been argued that the Open Access movement is not wholly compatible with the handling Indigenous Knowledge, because respecting Indigenous protocols and their right to sovereignty mean that some Indigenous Knowledge should not be Open.

Traditional Knowledge Labels is one initiative that is working to further Indigenous Data Sovereignty and address the tensions between Open Access and Indigenous Knowledge Systems.