Course talk:ARST573/Archives: A Place

Hi Amy, Excellent wiki - I really enjoyed reading through it. The one thing I noticed was that your wiki is quite long not (not that this is a problem) but I was wondering whether the subsection "Description Standards" is directly relevant to the concept of place. It is very well written but since you already spend a good deal of time discussing provenance in the subsection before, I was thinking maybe the 'Description Standards" subsection could be incorporated briefly into your discussion of provenance... Just a thought. Amazing job and such an interesting topic!

Thanks so much, Kaitlin. I felt that way as I wrote through that entire section. I'm a write-it-all-out-then-scale-it-back type and will definitely be keeping your points in mind as I do a thorough edit in the next couple of days. What do you think if Description Standards gets absorbed into Principle of provenance? (Without making it much longer, that is) That's my inclination.

Looks good to me Amy - I agree with your decision.

Hey Amy, Fantastic work! I hope you don't mind -- I incorporated your wording of "highlighted reading" (versus what I previously had: "further reading") and added you to my "related pages" section since your section "where do archives belong" (specifically "cultural property") definitely applies to Southeast Asia. Good luck with finishing touches! Best, Alison

Hi Amy,

Your page looks really good and you cover so much on the concept of archives as place including different time periods and different definitions and concepts of "place." As I was reading, I kept thinking of different concepts you could discuss, such as definitions, and then realized that you had already done that.

Just a few formatting suggestions that you are free to disregard:

• The "See also" sections with a list of links within other sections, such as "Early Definitions," "Regional Repositories" look a bit odd visually. Perhaps instead of giving each link its own line, you could separate them by commas making them less visually awkward. Or, perhaps, move them to the end of the section, but this is going against general wiki formatting.
• Hannah mentioned not capitalizing phrases like "principle of provenance," "respect for original order," and "respect des fonds" but as these are such important concepts in archival theory and practice perhaps you could make them bold to emphasize them.

One rewording suggestion:

In the second paragraph on "Post-custodial Theory," where you quote Frank Upward and Sue McKemmish: "describe post-custodialism, for example, as being to “think of custody in terms of..."

To make it read a little easier you could change it to: "describe post-custodialism, for example, as thinking "of custody in terms of..."

Turning "think" into a present participle and starting the quote with "of" makes the language a little smoother but it is up to you.

Great page!!

Hi again Amy,

Your wiki looks really good. I like your use of photos. You probably would have caught these in your final edit, but since I noticed a few typos/grammatical errors, here they are: "principle of provenance," "respect for original order" and respect des fonds" do not need to be capitalized. In your section "The Physical Landscape" in the sentence: "Anthropologist Julie Cruikshank argues that the glaciers along the Saint Elias Mountain range bordering the Yukon and British Columbia exert and “imaginative force”..." "and" should be "an." In the caption for the photograph of the Bibliothèque et archives nationales du Québec, "Québec" is spelt incorrectly.

The link for "respect des fonds" does not work under the section "Principle of Provenance."

All the best, -H

I've yet to do a thorough proof-read so your edits are very much appreciated and super helpful—thank you!

one more proofing note: your link to Major James Skitt Matthews doesn't work, it creates a new page for him instead of taking you somewhere with existing content. Otherwise, am really enjoying your page.

All the links should be redirecting properly now. Thanks, guys!

Hi Amy,

Sorry for the late message, I've finally managed to read our pod's pages! You have a very thorough outline - I think this page will develop into a really useful resource. I'm looking forward to reading the Case Studies, especially the Riot Grrrl archives one. Like Sarah, I also like that your concept of place for this wiki encompasses online spaces. Will you be discussing archives as place and access and/or privilege?

Ideas about access will feature in the Riot Grrrl case study and sections I have in mind that touch on different archive spaces as controlled sites of interaction. I hadn't had it in mind to feature hugely beyond that, but will keep it closer to the front of my mind as I keep going. Thanks!

I just read your updated section on the Riot Grrrl archives case study and I really like the way you presented their approach to access and acknowledgment of privilege. Looks great!

Thanks! I really enjoyed learning about this case study, too. Highly recommend the article I cited (Keenan and Darms “Safe Space: The Riot Grrrl Collection.” Archivaria 76) if you're in need of summer reading.

Hello again fellow pod member,

Your page is coming along really well!

I have a couple of small suggestions. As wikis are designed for general readers, I think linking the word "archives" in your introduction would be helpful. I agree with Victor that providing some context to who Luciana Duranti is would also be helpful, just like you did with "archivist Laura Millar." If you do end up referring to others in your text, like Terry Cook, same thing. When one of the archivists and researchers you refer to have either their own website or a Wikipedia page, I think you could also hyperlink their names to those. So for example, Duranti's name could be linked to her website, and Terry Cook to the Wikipedia page on him. Just an idea to provide more context and help familiarize the reader with them.

Catching all the places for relevant links is a work in progress—thanks for helping point out some gaps so far (and anticipate others!)

On that topic, do you have recommendations for how often the same topic should be linked? ie. Should 'archival science' or 'Duranti' be linked just the first time, or every single time? Since sections of a Wiki are so often read independently from one another I'm leaning towards linking the first time it's mentioned within a section or sub-section….but maybe that's still overkill.

That is a good question. I think it depends. I have noticed with wikis that words are often linked at the beginning of each section, like you're thinking of doing and I agree that doing that makes sense due to the way wikis are often read, especially if it has been a while since the last time the word was used. However, sometimes I think the term, person or place only needs to be linked the first time it is used if it is not that central to the reader's understanding of the text (but has been provided with a link the first time it is used due to wiki convention). Hope that helps!

It does—for letting me bounce questions off you!

Hi Ms. Spooner,

great choice of topic and a really interesting one, especially for a wiki. I like how your overview goes right into what Archives are (a tough task that never gets old). I like how you narrowed it down right away to what you want to talk about, "place", and didn't get lost in a big explanation of the other definitions of archives. Your topic easily lends itself to images which I see you have selected and incorporated nicely. There's a good balance between the theoretical and concrete, as the concept of place, while a tangible thing, is nevertheless also a concept. Looking at your contemporary definitions outline I get a heart attack at the thought of having to cover all of that heavy stuff in the time we have left, but good choice still as far as content. All in all, you have chosen great headings that encapsulates this topic more or less, and you've made it relevant with modern case studies (e.g., Riot Grrrl archives).

One thing I want to Even though everyone and their goldfish knows who Professor Duranti is, perhaps a very brief intro to contextualize her as a speaker would be a good idea? I had similar comments on my use of "talking heads and academics", and it makes sense in the context of a wiki, where it is supposed to be more for a general audience (as far as I understand, apologies if I'm wrong about this).

Obviously looking forward to seeing this wiki develop and come into full bloom.

Take care,

V

Thanks for the encouragement!

As I mentioned to Hannah, adding all the right links is happening in stages. Good to know I have both your eagle eyes on this, though.

Hi Amy,

I think you've done an excellent job on your wiki so far, and especially in your introduction. There's so much potential ground to cover with your topic. A few suggestions I have:

• I was a little confused about this title: "First Repositories, First Definitions" (maybe just me?!); but then I realized what you are trying to convey. Perhaps tweaking this title a little would help (up to you). I understand how this fits under your "Background" heading, but if you are going to expand on this area considerably, maybe you could make this a separate Level 2 section on its own?
• Also, consider putting "Contemporary Definitions" as a separate "Level 2" heading altogether -- or could it be nested under "Recasting Archives as Place" alongside Post-Custodial thought?
• This may be beyond the scope of your wiki, but what about a separate section for "Virtual Archives", where you could nest "Online Archives" and speak to the challenges the virtual archive pose to the definition of Archive as a place?

Good job with the pictures

JT

Uh oh, is the logic of my page only clear to me? I'm really trying to keep all of section 1 very broad context. I'll keep your very helpful points in mind as I keep going, but maybe you could take another quick glance at it once it's up and see if it's any clearer once I have some proper text in there? I hope to have that part up soon.

Aren't online archives all virtual archives by definition? What's the difference you see between the two? Either way—check back for more in the online archives section, I touch on a few different 'types'.

Hi Amy,

I like this topic, it seems like it will be an interesting one to read once it's completed! While it's still pretty early, I think something you could definitely keep in mind with this one is that it would really benefit from pictures. I'd say think about adding a section for a gallery of examples of archival institutions or reading rooms. It could really add to the discussion of archives as a place. Good luck with your page!

Kelsey

Thanks Kelsey, Images are on the agenda, but I've been focusing on getting more of the writing developed first. It's helpful to hear that you think they'd be so helpful—I'll move it closer to the top of the priority list.

Hi Amy,

I like how you start with the theory of archives as place and then go on to the more practical concept of archives with reading rooms and even digital archives.

My only critique is that the wording is very complicated in many places. I know the sentence structure and formatting of a wiki can be difficult to transition to after writing so many essays. I know I found it that way. I think for this style it is important to use clear, simple language in order for it to be accessible. One sentence I found very difficult to read was: "The earliest European iterations of archival repositories have directed our understanding and definitions of what archives are and by adhering to the Principle of provenance, archivists aim to maintain records’ context of creation once transferred for permanent preservation from creator to institution." Just a suggestion (with changes in italics): "The earliest European concepts of archival repositories have defined our understanding of what archives are. By adhering to the Principle of provenance, archivists aim to maintain the context of the creation of the records once they have been transferred to the repository for permanent preservation by the creator or custodian.

Looking forward to reading more.

Hi Sarah,

YES, 'Wiki language' is really slowing me down. I know I have work to do writing-style wise and it's helpful to know where I'm at with it so far. Thanks so much for your input, fixing ridiculous sentences is a problem I always have at the draft stage (Wiki-style or otherwise…), and suggested edits like yours are very helpful and appreciated.

Interested to hear you like the first sections. My initial focus was just on different 'places' and the exploring traditional ideas and theory kind as introductory context snuck in at the last minute and I wasn't sure about it. I'll keep beefing them up!

Hi Amy,

This is a really interesting topic and I look forward to reading more! Just a wording suggestion for your opening sentence: "What archives are can be defined three ways: as the material, as a program, and as the place where records are deposited". A more direct opening might be: "Archives can be defined in three ways:..."

Best, Hannah