The Digital Heritage of the Battle to Contain COVID-19 in Australia and Its Implications for Heritage Studies

Abstract

One of the major public health measures to manage and contain the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was to engage in systematic contact tracing, which required gastronomy, community and sporting venues to keep patron registers. Stand-alone and web-based applications, developed by a range of private IT providers, soon replaced pen-and-paper lists. With the introduction of a uniform, state-wide, mandatory data collection system, these private applications became obsolete. Although only active for four months, these applications paved the way for the public acceptance of state-administered collection systems that allowed for an unprecedented, centralized tracking system of the movements of the entire population. This paper discusses the cultural significance of these applications as a game changer in the debate on civil liberties, and addresses the question of how the materiality, or lack thereof, of this digital heritage affects the management of ephemeral smartphone applications, and its preservation for future generations.

The Decentralized Generation of Public Knowledge during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Examples from Australia

“…Private websites, however, are usually not archived unless they have been nominated to sites such as the WayBack Machine [62]. Of the sixteen venue-based electronic contact register sites documented in another paper [13], only one has been archived by the WayBack Machine. A test run at the time of writing (4 March 2023) showed that the "find a RAT" website [38] as well as the "where to buy rapid COVID test kits" website [34] were still up and running, while the RAT website operated by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia was no longer operational.…”

“…From a digital heritage perspective, this dichotomy of such ephemeral sites is illuminating. While some services will persist by virtue of being archived by the WayBack Machine, other examples of personal initiative will perish unless they have been documented by other actors [13].…”

“…As argued elsewhere, now is the time to act when processes are still in place and observable, when ephemeral, physical and virtual sites can still be documented and when digital and physical artifacts are still able to be collected [12]. This paper examines some of these essentially ephemeral digital applications; their creation and use as examples of decentralized generation of public knowledge; and as examples of virtual cultural heritage [13]. Given that this paper is a deliberation, it does not follow the standard IMRAD (Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion) format of papers.…”

“…Registering attendance at a community-based basketball game via a contact tracing appl cation. COVID-19 check-in process with publicly posted QR code and resulting digital epheme (Lauren Jackson Sports Centre, Albury, NSW, December 2020)[13].…”

Media Promotion in the Function of Preserving Cultural Heritage from the Unesco List: Statistical Findings and Analysis

“…The legacy of the 21st century digital reality consists of all three domains: tangible, intangible and virtual. (Spennemann, 2023) The use of artificial intelligence through numerous algorithms is increasingly prevalent in the promotion of cultural heritage, and its importance can first confirm its relevance during the process of creating multimedia content. Based on predefined criteria and previous experience, Sančanin and Penjišević (2022) indicate the importance of an algorithm for recognizing visual content that could be acceptable for different purposes.…”