Course talk:ARST573/Personal Archives

hi Adena, for a final small note, I thought you might want to link out the term "manuscript" when you talk about the difference between personal archives in Canada and the manuscript tradition in the US. The SAA has some definitions of manuscript collection and manuscript that are interesting: http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/m/manuscript-collection. Good job on the page.

Thanks Shyla! Just giving it a final read through and then I'll be done :-D

Hey Adena,

Your page is looking really good. Specifically, you have done a really great job explaining the history of personal archives scholarship, as well as the controversy and differences of opinions, in your page.

However, I wondered if in your "Appraisal" section the following sentences might be putting too much of your own views into the "objective" and "neutral" style of Wiki writing. You write: "Current literature regarding appraisal of personal archives generally divides it into two camps: material that supports the research interests of users and material that fits the 'collecting policy' of the institution." Which I think is great and remains neutral. However, you follow it up with more subjective sentences: "Both of these directions are flawed in some way. By prioritizing use as a means of determing [spelling error] value, archival institutions will end up with unbalanced, narrow, and possibly biased collections." The second statement seems fine, but saying that both of these directions "are flawed" is a personal judgement, whether it is your own or the author's. Also, in your next sentence, you state: "Furthermore, we are not able to tell in the present what research will be conducted in the future or what archival material it will require." The use of the word "we" is what I think might be inadvisable. I suggest putting something along the lines of "archivists" or reword it to be less personal sounding.

Other than these small things, it is coming along very nicely.

- Jason

Thanks Jason, I'll take a look at the language in that section. Some of that un-neutral opinion is coming from readings I've done but I need to make that clearer with citations.

I edited it a bit - I'd appreciate if you could take a look and let me know what you think!

Hey Adena,

I looked over the changes you made. I am still not sure that the section reads neutral, or at least identifies who is making these statements, despite having a citation. I might try something like:

"Pollard says that there are weaknesses in both directions. She[or He? not sure of Pollard's sex] says, that by prioritizing use as a means of determining value, archival institutions will end up with unbalanced, narrow, and possibly biased collections."

Another way of stating it is to use less definite language. Such as:

"Some archivists have identified weaknesses in both directions. They suggest that by prioritizing use as a means of determining value, archival institutions may end up with unbalanced, narrow, and possibly biased collections."

I prefer the second example, but of course you can do whatever seems best to you.

I am not criticizing your writing at all. I am merely suggesting that for this style of writing (Wiki), identifying the author of a thought or viewpoint is crucial, which you do by providing a citation, but writing from an objective-sounding viewpoint is also key in order to not come off as biased. I think you do this well throughout the rest of the page.

Your page is really looking great though. I like the new introduction section.

- Jason

Edited again - thoughts? I'm definitely more comfortable in either a paper-writing tone or a casual blog writing tone. (or a creative writing tone). I think I'm too opinionated for the wiki style! (although at least I don't have vendetta against 'comprised of' http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/05/why-wikipedias-grammar-vigilante-is-wrong)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I really like your edits. I think it reads much more clear whose opinion is being expressed. Great job!

Also, thanks for the link! Wow, what an odd hobby that guy has.

Hi Adena, Great page so far! I really liked your discussion about the theoretical issue/ ideas regarding personal archives, I thought you did a really good job bringing it all together. Have you thought of adding some discussion around issues with social media profiles in your Digital Personal Archives section? Also you might be planning to add this to the introduction to the Diversity and Representation section, but I think going a bit more into general issues about how the archivists decides who is "important" enough to have their records in the archives might really help to frame this section.

I hadn't thought that much about social media profiles but that's definitely something to consider! I'll have to see if I can find any articles about it otherwise it will just be me :-P And another good point about what/who is "important" enough....food for thought.

Thanks for your feedback!

That's an interesting point. I wonder if a mention of the developing area of digital estates might be useful in that section too?

Thanks Shyla! The more I write about this topic the more I feel like I'm over looking!

Just checking in again to see what you'd done with the digital archives section - obviously this is a huge topic in itself but you've done a really good job bringing it all together. The linking of personal digital recordkeeping to hoarding is so fascinating! Also slightly disturbing when I look at my own practices...

Yeah I rewrote it a couple times because I kept straying into digital preservation which is a topic in and of itself! Glad you think it's worked out. And yes, I'd highly recommend the Chen article. have a few quibbles with the article but it provides fascinating reading.

Hi Adena,

Your page is very thorough, I liked the section on using personal archives to increase the diversity of collections. You go into Feminist issues there quite a bit, were you planning on going further with issues like ethnic or social class diversity as well?

My main suggestion for you though is that I think an overview section at the top would be helpful. Your "definition" section could pretty much be switched to be an overview and intro at the very beginning, and your first section could just go into more detail about what makes personal archives distinct.

Hi Kelsey,

I'm definitely planning to include an overview/intro section (should probably get on that...)

I'm planning to do a bit more on the ethnic/class diversity but a lot of what I've found about it is not focused on personal archives specifically and has tended to overlap with what other classmates have written on their wiki pages. So I think I'm going to provide more linking and general commments than specific details (unless I find an amazing personal archives social class case study paper in the next week). It's a good point though and does need fleshing out!

Thanks for your feedback!

Hi Adena, I think your page is looking great so far. You've put so much work into discussing the position of personal archives in archival theory and it's really well done. I have some questions about the structure of the page currently though. Are you going to expand on the "Types of Materials" section more? If you're not planning to do more than a paragraph or two, it might work better to bring that up when you're discussing the definition of a personal archive as it seems to me that while the types of materials you've mentioned (so far) aren't particularly unique, the way they're handled in personal archives sets them apart. Is Mukurtu included as an example of diversity because it is a community archive? I think it would be nice to see more of why you've chosen your specific diversity examples in this section. Good luck in developing your page further! It's a super interesting topic. Best, Allison

Hi Allison,

Thanks for the points on structure. I took out the types of materials section because as you pointed out, it wasn't particularly unique to personal archives.

I'm definitely planning to expand the diversity & representation section, hopefully using Mukurtu as an example of personal records being presented under a different set of cultural protocols.

Thanks for your feedback!

Hi Adena,

I enjoyed reading your wiki! A few suggestions I have: perhaps beside Types of Material, you could give a link to a prominent example? I'll second Allison's comment below about expanding that section, or else those types of material do not seem unique to archives in general. Also, your section "Position in Archival Theory" is block heavy, but with great info; perhaps you could use a few subheadings, and then use "Challenges" as a separate heading altogether, so it would be the 6th section, instead of nested as 5.1; placing Original Order, Appraisal and Provenance as nested subheadings- in order to make them more prominent, as I believe they are key to your wiki.

This is strong, I enjoyed it a lot. The diversity and representation section seems weak in comparison to the rest, I wonder if you might consider expanding on it a bit? Maybe bring in some more of the theory, ideas of how to work with people to build participatory appraisal, how different communities have different ideas of what constitutes a record, the challenges that brings to archival practice? I'm thinking of Katie Shilton and Ramesh Srinivasan's article about the power of representation and participatory practices.

It would also be interesting to see Australia in the personal archives around the world section, given McKemmish's early article.

I'm definitely planning to exapnd the diversity/representation section. Do you have a citation for the Katie Shilton and Ramesh Srinivasan article? I haven't heard of that before and it sounds cool! I had also considered including Australia in the around the world section. There's a later McKemmish article written with Frank Upward that I want to review but haven't got to yet :)

hi, here is a pdf: http://rameshsrinivasan.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/6-Shilton-Srinivasan-Multicultural-Archives-final.pdf I'm not sure how much it mentions personal archives, but it does talk about under represented groups extensively. Hopefully still helpful!

Thanks! I'll check it out.