Web 2.0 & Archives

Leah Pearse Adrienne LaiTim McMillan

Overview Defining Web 2.0 Web 2.0 terms and applications

Archival institutions & Web 2.0: Examples of Current Uses

Review of traditional archival public services

Archival theory & Web 2.0 Web 2.0: Problems & Issues

“Web 2.0 is a term you love to hate or hate to

love but either way, you'll know you'll get

folk's attention by saying it.”

Dion Hinchcliffe,“The State of Web 2.0,” available at

http://web2.wsj2.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm, last accessed April 4, 2007.

Defining Web 2.0 Vague term No standard definition Play on the version numbers used to designate software upgrades

Hints at an improved version of the Web

Implies significant changes

Defining Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is the moniker for an emerging set of Internet-based technologies and an emerging philosophy on how to use them

Alexandra Krasne, “What is Web 2.0 Anyways?: Indispensible Tools Your Non-profit Should Know About,” Techsoup.org, available at http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter

/webbuilding/page4758.cfm, last accessed April 7, 2007.

Web 2.0 Philosophies

Variations on a Theme

OpennessTrustInnovation Ease of UseSocial Interaction

Sharing Decentralization

Participation Creation of Content

Michael Stephens, Web 2.0 & Libraries: Best Practices for Social Software, Chicago: ALA TechSource, 2005, 11-12

Battle of the Webs

Web 1.0 Passive absorption

Static Personal websites Britannica Online Email/E-Newsletters

Directories

Web 2.0 Active contribution

Dynamic Blogging Wikipedia RSS Feeds Folksonomy & tagging

Image from http://buhlerworks.typepad.com/buhlerworks/2006/09/this_is_what_we.html

Web 2.0 Technologies

…a selection

Blogs

“A frequent, chronological publication of personal thoughts and Web links.”

a.k.a. “web logs” or “weblogs”

Incremental posts

“Anatomy of a Blog.” Academic Blogging: Strategies for Using Weblogs to Promote Active Learning and Professional Development. Available at

http://edtech.tennessee.edu/~set31/02_01.htm. Last accessed April 1, 2007.

Blogs

Self-archiving Easily updated Can tag/categorize posts User participation through commenting

Many basic blogging services are free

Blogger

Movable Type

ArchivesBlogshttp://archivesblogs.com/

Wikis Collaborative websites that allow users to rapidly and easily add, remove, edit and change the content of pages

Means “quick” in Hawaiian Fitting for its easy usability

Wikis

Viewable history of changes by others

Typically doesn’t require registration

Allows linking to any number of pages

Basic wiki services often free.Visit our wiki! Go to http://arst540.pbwiki.com. If you would like to edit the wiki, the password is: 540

Wikipedia

RSS Acronym for

Rich Site SummaryReal Simple Syndication

A family of web feed formats that deliver frequently updated digital content

RSS Aggregators

Consolidates RSS subscription feeds in one place

Easy to read display Facilitates current awareness Facilitates sharing of content

Bloglines

Google Reader

Folksonomy User generated taxonomy

Used to categorize and retrieve information

Facilitates easy searching, discovering, and navigating over time

Uses open ended labels called tags in web environment

Tagging Assigning keywords or terms to a piece of information

Tags usually chosen informally and personally by the user Not part of formal taxonomy or controlled vocabulary

Easy and flexible way for users to organize information on own terms

Social Bookmarking

Allows Internet bookmarks and tagged information to be shared with other users

Facilitates folksonomy/tagging community

del.icio.us

Amazon.com

Archival institutions & Web 2.0

Examples of Current Uses

Archives: First Steps Towards Web 2.0

Digitization of archival materials

Putting finding aids online & making them searchable

EAD Centralized online databases of archival holdings (like BCAUL)

Characteristics of Web 2.0

Peter Van Garderen identifies 3 main themes:

Usability Openness Community

Usability Simple design User-friendly interfaces Embedded technology RSS & Aggregation of information

“Customer-friendly” features

The Ohio Memory Project

http://www.ohiomemory.org/index.html

Archives Hub

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/

Openness Open Architecture/Standards

Cross-platform communication Combination of content: mash-ups

Open Sources Freeware!

Open Content “Copyleft” Digital archives Encourages the non-commercial use of archival materials

Creative Archive License Group

http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/index.html

Collaboration between the BBC, the bfi, Channel 4 and the Open University

Archival content - film clips, BBC programmes, images, audio - made available for download Material must be used for non-commercial purposes Pilot project ended in Sept 2006 Currently undergoing a Public Value Test at the BBC

Internet Archive & Television Archive

Automated collection of websites“Wayback machine” allows access to expired URLsCopies of TV broadcasts not widely available to publichttp://www.archive.org/index.php and http://www.televisionarchive.org/

Community Forums/Chat rooms “Comments” sections Wikis Tagging Uploading content

Zoekplaatjes.nl

http://zoekplaatjes.nl

Smithsonian Photography Initiative

http://photography.si.edu/

Polar Bear Expedition Project

http://polarbears.si.umich.edu/

Beyond the Archival Edge Helps compensate for archivists’ limitations (time, budget, scope of activities, etc.)

Outreach to underserved communities

Education & Dissemination

What Was Here

http://whatwashere.com

Moving Here

http://movinghere.org.uk

Revolution in the Archives?

“A citizen-archivist accepts the necessity of intervention in the world on behalf of archives & archival activities. A citizen-archivist tends to think that many issues that seem at first glance to be very narrowly defined as archival issues actually have economic and social implications, and a primary concern of the citizen-archivist would be access. Here is a case where technology can act to either limit or expand access to cultural heritage… Technology in the service of archival access can enable ethical behaviour.”- Rick Prelinger, "Are the Archives Doomed?" Presented at the

School of Information Sciences and Johnson Institute Policy, Ethics & Accountability Lecture Series, University of Pittsburgh, January 26, 2006. Podcast available at http://www.digital-citizen.org/?p=59. Last accessed April 5, 2007.

Archival theory & Web 2.0

Review of traditional archival public services

Traditional Perspectives Granting access to records in the repository.

Providing reference services in the reading room.

Generally considered to be of peripheral importance.

Little discussed in archival literature. “Almost all writing on archival training overlooks reference activities; let alone public programming.” T. Cook, Archivaria 31.

A Peripheral Archival Function? Economically impracticable. Not enough human resources or expertise. Archivists are inundated with more “important” work. “Outreach and use come last; something to be undertaken only when all the rest of the work has been done.” T. Ericson, Archivaria 31.

Lack of user interest in archives vis-à-vis museums and libraries.

Primary and Secondary Responsibilities First articulated by Jenkinson in his Manual of Archives Administration.

Primary: the safeguarding of the records from physical and moral damage. Physical damage: corruption by fire, water, theft, etc.

Moral damage: damage to the intellectual integrity and impartiality of the fonds.

Secondary: the provision of services to the users.

The Archivist’s Public Roles

Impartiality is key! No interest in the user’s interpretation of the records’ intellectual content.

The archivist is only to act as a mediator between the user and the record

Communicate knowledge of context and not content.

Public Roles cont.

Reference in the reading room. Viewed as a somewhat onerous task.

“Ad hoc and inefficient.” G. Blais and D. Enns, Archivaria 31.

No corpus of specific research strategies and techniques.

Hierarchies of users. The academic research historian and the amateur genealogist.

Community Outreach Archivists have come to realize that the public’s use of archives is their ultimate justification.

The collective memory of society does not belong to the archives but to the public.

The Library and Archives of Canada Act (2004). Clause 7.B: the archives is responsible for making Canadians’ “documentary heritage known to Canadians and to anyone with an interest in Canada and to facilitate access to it.”

Community Outreach cont. The 2004 Act places the onus for public engagement on the national repository.

Explicitly justifies active archival communication to the public.

Implicitly calls for the development of activist public programming efforts.

“Trickle down” effect for smaller repositories?

Professional Reticence Difficult to balance the expectations of potential users with the realities of archives.

Concern about the preponderance of “commerce-speak” in calls to sell the cultural worth of archival programs.

Enduring ethical questions about over-publicizing specific records or fonds in order to stoke public interest in archives.

Archives and the Web Virtual archives are already in existence.

LAC and City of Vancouver Archives maintain regular online exhibits. LAC’s Canada and the First World War COV’s African Heritage and City Hall

Limited user interaction. Email is the only means of communicating with the archivists.

Web 2.0: Problems & Issues

Web 2.0 Recap Usability Openness:

Open Structure Open Access to Content

Community Participation & collaboration

Web 2.0: Hype or Hope? Collaborative aspects of popular Web 2.0 sites have garnered some bad press… Middlebury College (VT) Dept. of History bans students from citing information found on the popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. (Feb. ’07)

Allegations of corruption added to the Wikipedia entry of US Rep. Tom Feeney (FL) during 2006 Congressional Elections.

Many other examples of data manipulation. Does it encourage copyright infringement?

Web 2.0: Hype or Hope? Ethical concerns about editorial comments/opinions on blogs

Customization of information: “moral damage” to archives?

Questions about the enduring value of many Web 2.0 applications. Just another dot com bubble? Venture capitalists branding their corporate identity to social networking sites and blogs.

Intense competition: how much attention can archives hope to receive?

This graph is based on quantitative research: measures the number of hits over time to popular Web 2.0 sites.

Initial spikes of interest followed by a sharp drop-off.

Conclusion Web 2.0 has no standard definition, but can be seen as a range of technologies and philosophies about new ways that people interact with information on the Internet.

Web 2.0 applications can help archives expand the reach of their public programming functions & promote interaction amongst their users

Archivists should take care to not simply jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon, but to consider the long term view of archives & archival theory

However, archivists need to acknowledge that they exist to serve the public as much as they serve the records.

Discussion Why do you think archives are slower in adopting Web 2.0 technology than their library and museum counterparts?

Does the use of Web 2.0 technology in archives undermine the archivist’s traditional role as mediator between the user and the records?

Is the protection of the records more important than making efforts to facilitate public access to their intellectual patrimony?

Shy about speaking up in class? You can contribute to the discussion via our wiki (the password is ‘540’): http://arst540.pbwiki.com/Discussion%20Points