In September 2009, I gave a presentation at the UMAC conference when it was at Berkeley of a paper I wrote with three other authors. Sadly, the original paper was gutted and published in a much modified form. It was a good but painful lesson in academic politics, sharing, and open access. Most of the advances in digital outreach cited in the paper have been modified and a lot of the content had to be taken down.
If you are looking for peer-reviewed academic papers that cite blogs and photo-sharing sites like Flickr, and Youtube for outreach in archaeology and disseminating museum collections, there you go. One of the most interesting parts of the paper, the ethics statement for the digital dissemination of human remains was cut, but it remains on the Dilmun Bioarchaeology Project blog here. My query to the IVSA about ethics and visuality in regard to this project was quoted in the Visual Studies article about their new ethics statement, so it was a sort of end-around publication.
Anyway, I had big plans for the project, but ended up pretty much walking away from it. Not everyone thinks that museum collections that the public pay for should be shared with that public. Mind-boggling, but true. The rest of the team is still doing good work with the collection of Dilmun artifacts and human remains in the museum.
So, here’s the paper:
It should go without saying as this is a single-author archaeology blog, but:
These views are my own and are probably not shared by my co-authors and should not reflect on them in any way.
Colleen Morgan 
This is cryptic and confusing. Who gutted the paper? Is the link to the original version or to the shortened published version? What does “there you go” mean? Who did what? What are the general principles, and what are the lessons?
I’m afraid it will have to remain cryptic for now, and I probably shouldn’t have posted anything at all. I suppose I wanted a caveat posted along with the paper being published–you’re right though, it is a fairly unhelpful mishmash, much like the paper itself.
It’s the kind of story where I can imagine the frustration involved; I have a paper locked up by similar sorts of arguments that causes me similar annoyance. So, my sympathies, but you will have (and may already have) many more publications that matter more than this one to you. The paper as it there stands is more of an advert than a research document, I would have to say, but it does make one want to look up Cornwall’s papers and try and get more of a sense of him. Unfortunately, I can’t help feeling that it doesn’t do the dead he found the same favours. (Also, it uses percentages for samples of less than 100, which is a pet hate of mine. Why not just give the numbers at that sort of level?)