Cultural Heritage (CH) data hold invaluable knowledge, reflecting the history, traditions, and identities of societies, and shaping our understanding of the past and present. However, many CH collections contain outdated or offensive descriptions that reflect historical biases. CH Institutions (CHIs) face significant challenges in curating these data due to the vast scale and complexity of the task. To address this, we develop an AI-powered tool that detects offensive terms in CH metadata and provides contextual insights into their historical background and contemporary perception. We leverage a multilingual vocabulary co-created with marginalized communities, researchers, and CH professionals, along with traditional NLP techniques and Large Language Models (LLMs). Available as a standalone web app and integrated with major CH platforms, the tool has processed over 7.9 million records, contextualizing the contentious terms detected in their metadata. Rather than erasing these terms, our approach seeks to inform, making biases visible and providing actionable insights for creating more inclusive and accessible CH collections.

Web resources in linked open data (LOD) are comprehensible to humans through literal textual values attached to them, such as labels, notes, or comments. Word choices in literals may not always be neutral. When outdated and culturally stereotyping terminology is used in literals, they may appear as offensive to users in interfaces and propagate stereotypes to algorithms trained on them. We study how frequently and in which literals contentious terms about people and cultures occur in LOD and whether there are attempts to mark the usage of such terms. For our analysis, we reuse English and Dutch terms from a knowledge graph that provides opinions of experts from the cultural heritage domain about terms' contentiousness. We inspect occurrences of these terms in four widely used datasets: Wikidata, The Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus, Princeton WordNet, and Open Dutch WordNet. Some terms are ambiguous and contentious only in particular senses. Applying word sense disambiguation, we generate a set of literals relevant to our analysis. We found that outdated, derogatory, stereotyping terms frequently appear in descriptive and labelling literals, such as preferred labels that are usually displayed in interfaces and used for indexing. In some cases, LOD contributors mark contentious terms with words and phrases in literals (implicit markers) or properties linked to resources (explicit markers). However, such marking is rare and non-consistent in all datasets. Our quantitative and qualitative insights could be helpful in developing more systematic approaches to address the propagation of stereotypes via LOD.