Library 2.0, Archive 2.0, and Finding Aid 2.0 (I’m not good at witty titles, nor short entries)

I’ve spent the better part of the morning researching Library 2.0 and Archive 2.0, and thinking about the two realms of social media connectivity possible between the two.  Though both libraries and archives are still trying to figure out how this whole “social media thing” applies to and beyond them, I feel that libraries do have a leg up because users have always been more central to libraries than archives. The characterization of “archivist as gatekeeper,” keeping the hounds away from the precious primary-sources still lingers, though that perspective is becoming more and more outdated as users advocate for transparency and access to the archival record.

In addition to Library 2.0, Michael Casey and Laura Savastinuk published an article in Library Journal in 2006 , entitled “Service for the Next-Generation Library“. Casey and Savastinuk highlight many of the points on participation that they later discuss in Library 2.0, that “the heart of Library 2.0 is user-centered change….[library 2.0] encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and the virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services.”  This increased level of involvement for users is empowering in the library setting, and I think the implications could be even more radical for archives, if they can figure out how to understand and harness these new capabilities in a way that asks users what they need rather than telling users what they can and cannot do.

Casey and Savastinuk do drop this enegmatic line, though, when discussing Library 2.0: “While not required, technology can help libraries create a customer-driven, 2.0 environment. Web 2.0 technologies have played a significant role in our ability to keep up with the changing needs of library users. Technological advances in the past several years have enabled libraries to create new services that before were not possible, such as virtual reference, personalized OPAC interfaces, or downloadable media that library customers can use in the comfort of their own homes.”

All of these new interactive opportunities sound awesome, but I don’t understand what they mean by that caveat “technology not required.” Technology IS required! Certainly, the beauty of social media is that it is ubiquitous and available to most people, but from the library and especially the archival perspective, it will require new platforms such as ICA ATOM or a proprietary service to make finding aids available to the public in a digital format, let alone a format that encourages participation on the part of the user. Casey and Savastinuk highlight the “customizable and participatory services” possible, which I think closely relates to Chapter V of their book Library 2.0, which deals with wikis in the library context.

Speaking of wikis, here’s what Wikipedia had to say about Library 2.0:

“Like Web 2.0, a full-featured Library 2.0 OPAC gets better the more that users are involved in the process of interacting with the catalog and sharing content.

• Browser + Web 2.0 Applications + Connectivity = Full-featured OPAC
• Harness the library user in both design and implementation of services
• Library users should be able to craft and modify library provided services
• Harvest and integrate ideas and products from peripheral fields into library service models
• Continue to examine and improve services and be willing to replace them at any time with newer and better services.
• Ripping off Web 2.0 is the ultimate main key concept of this library 2.0″

Rather than “ripping off” I would say that Library 2.0 is an appropriation of Web 2.0, which is both very post-modern and very much what social media itself is all about.

 

Then, while searching “archives 2.0,” I came across an article by Joy Palmer entitled “Archives 2.0: If We Build It, Will They Come?” She points out what I was kind of saying:

“The emergence of Archives 2.0 is less about technological change than a broader epistemological shift which concerns the very nature of the archive, and particularly traditional archival practice which privileges the ‘original’ context of the archival object. In ‘Archives 2.0’ the archive is potentially less a physical space than an online platform that supports participation. In this potentially radical vision, users can contribute to the archive, engage with it, and play a central role in defining its meaning.” BUT “…the alternative face of this celebratory stance is a more cautious or even a concerned one, revealing many of the anxieties and tensions that have existed around authority, control, truth-telling and trust.”

Issues of copyright, transparency, and trust are going to be increasingly difficult for archives especially. I was telling my boss at the Burchfield Penney Arts Center about some cool ways that the Vancouver City Archives and the National Archives in the US have been utilizing Twitter–by writings fun little posts about a certain document, and then linking to the document on flickr. Tullis pointed out that there are concerns with copyright and who actually holds the copyright–google, for example, retains copyright of any image posted on their sites. This is a non-starter for archives, and especially archives of cultural or artistic works.

Palmer related some 2.0 obstacles Sharon Howard, working on the Old Bailey Proceedings Online Project identified a few other obstacles, such as the necessity of  posts being mediated by archivists, which therefore make users contributions not transparent. Users could not get the instant-gratification “high” of seeing their impact in “real-time”.  Howard identified instant gratification and usefulness as “key motivators for effective-crowd-sourcing” (Palmer).  Howard related her feelings that wikis are not the answer for archives and primary-source history projects because they are non-intuitive. Palmer argued that this indicated that interactive tools must be simple to use, and enjoyable to use as well. The coding on wiki sites isn’t horribly complicated, but it is daunting to the novice user. T

Palmer also discusses the implications and possibilities of “Finding Aid 2.0″ a concept I find to be very fascinating and relevant. The finding aid is the current accordance of archives, however imperfect and unstandardized. Finding aids do need to become digitally accessible, as well as more intuitive! The complications of understanding finding aids can sometimes put wikis to shame, but I think there’s a huge opportunity for overlap and cohesion here. Finding aids are often outdated as soon as they are made, and often do not reflect newer accruals of records. Digitization of finding aids into a STANDARDIZED meta-format is the first step, and coding languages such as EAD are attempting to tackle that. Some archives already take advantage of 2.0 capabilities to encourage users to post their family histories in relation to a place, photo, or document. There is a huge opportunity for integration of living histories within the archival record by utilizing social media, but it is up to the archivists to first establish the framework for careful, and necessary, steps forward.

Some fun examples of Archives 2.0:

Polar Bear Expedition Collections

Old Bailey Proceedings Online

UK National Archives: Your Archives

MemoryBC.ca

The Great War Archive (participatory poetry archive–awesome implications for oral histories)

The Galaxy Zoo (participatory galexy identification project)