{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01992287917737789, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005784061696658098, 'mean_word_length': 5.740259740259741, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Retaining Metadata in Remixed Cultural Heritage Objects

Memory institutions have been working to incorporate features into their digital collections that empower users to take ownership of cultural narratives. The advent of technologies like annotation tools and crowdsourced tagging have allowed libraries, archives, and museums to promote user content as part of an institutional narrative, albeit a somewhat tertiary one (Salomon, 2013). Collecting institutions including the Smithsonian, MoMA, Australian Museum, and British Library have been developing initiatives that encourage users to remix openly available digital content. A remix appropriates components of existing resources and incorporates them into a new work. 
 
This movement towards user-generated remixed content is cost effective for institutions and engaging for patrons. Increased interactivity is emblematic of the changing role of libraries, archives and museums (Reiskind 2012, pp. 6). The future of cultural memory institutions will be one that embraces collection diversity and incorporates user-generated material into institutional narratives. This is already happening in social media, crowdsourced tagging, API development, and remixing. Work to ensure that associated metadata is harvested along with media content is still in its naissance. Increased endorsement of remixing as a way of engaging with cultural heritage material requires a metadata infrastructure that can support description of remixed content in a way that is comprehensive, interoperable, and scalable.