under-35 age bracket across U.S. society shows more interest in Web 2.0 technologies

than older generations who did not grow up with computer technology.

       One unexpected request by the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki staff was that I submit my project

protocol to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board for official University

approval.2 I believe the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki's request for this official paperwork reflects Native

distrust rooted in past hegemonic interactions with multiple non-Native institutions.

American Indian communities require explicit and transparent project goals and

methods as a means of protecting themselves. The request for the protocol approval

highlights that, despite the increasingly casual view by the general public of sharing

information in a Web 2.0 format, providing cultural information in the form of a wiki

comment may be approached with caution by Tribal members. Because cultural

information has been appropriated by museums in the past, wiki input is likely to be

viewed by Tribal members as both personal and political, and needs to be treated by

the museum with care and respect. In my protocol submission for the Institutional

Review Board, I developed an "informed consent" document outlining how the

participants' wiki comments would be used and explaining the overarching goals of the

Florida Museum Project (Appendix C).

Project Applications

       In addition to the availability on the website, the digitized collections information

and images will be added to the Florida Museum collections files in the form of a CD

with all digital object images and catalog cards, as well as the complete Florida

Ethnographic Collection (FEC) Excel document. These files can be applied to a number

2 The Institutional Review Board is a University entity that inspects all methods used in research projects involving
human subjects. The purpose of the review is to prevent research subjects from harm.