Comments on: Archival Materials: A Practical Definition (con’t) http://archivemati.ca/2007/01/23/archival-materials-a-practical-definition-continued/ digital archives consulting and research Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:37:31 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Peter Van Garderen http://archivemati.ca/2007/01/23/archival-materials-a-practical-definition-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-120 Peter Van Garderen Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:05:52 +0000 http://archivemati.ca/?p=63#comment-120 Reflecting on the merger of Canada’s National Library and Archives in 2002, Ian Wilson (the National Librarian and Archivist) notes that users: "want access to the extraordinary riches we hold and [] don't frankly care if something comes from a library or an archive. I suspect they don't care if it comes from a museum either. They want access to the stuff — a highly technical term so common to all of our institutions. They want access to the content, the stuff." [Wilson, Ian. “<a href="http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/wilson/wilson.html">Converging Content</a>” <em>Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings</em> (Archives & Museum Informatics, 2005) (last accessed on January 25, 2007)] Archivists and librarians emerged as specialists in the modern age to deal pragmatically with practical administrative issues. The theory and institutions, which dogmatically locked terminology and practices into place, followed later. For example, in discussing the history of the <em>Dutch Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives</em>, Eric Ketelaar notes that the Manual was proposed as a methodology or a best practice that was open for discussion amongst colleagues. “In practice, however, the rules were seen as inviolable dogmas and what was meant to be an instrument became a bible for archivists; the methodology became a doctrine.” [Ketelaar, Eric. “Time future contained in time past. Archival science in the 21st century” <em>Journal of the Japan Society for Archival Science</em> (1), pp.3-4] The new, unprecedented wave of information distribution and access which has been brought about by the Internet and its related technologies have once again created pragmatic administrative issues for the management of information collections. It is very likely that the practical solutions that are implemented to address these issues will conflict with some of the existing theory and institutions. Ketelaar points out that this should be expected. As a science, archival theory “examines received notions for their pertinence and relevance, it is continuously speculating, experimenting, inventing, changing and improving”. [Ketelaar, Eric. “Time future contained in time past", pp.2-3] Wilson is more direct: "The web world has little patience with institutional walls and boundaries, and even less patience with an information priesthood that tries to insert itself between the inquirer and the source material, or which seeks to limit direct access…The web enables us to overcome the territorial boundaries that have arisen over the decades — when we broke up the past, ripped it apart and put some in museums and some in archives and libraries, some in historic sites. The web can enable us to overcome those boundaries and reassemble the past in web world." [Wilson, Ian. "Converging Content"] Reflecting on the merger of Canada’s National Library and Archives in 2002, Ian Wilson (the National Librarian and Archivist) notes that users: “want access to the extraordinary riches we hold and [] don’t frankly care if something comes from a library or an archive. I suspect they don’t care if it comes from a museum either. They want access to the stuff — a highly technical term so common to all of our institutions. They want access to the content, the stuff.” [Wilson, Ian. “Converging Content” Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings (Archives &#38; Museum Informatics, 2005) (last accessed on January 25, 2007)]

Archivists and librarians emerged as specialists in the modern age to deal pragmatically with practical administrative issues. The theory and institutions, which dogmatically locked terminology and practices into place, followed later. For example, in discussing the history of the Dutch Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives, Eric Ketelaar notes that the Manual was proposed as a methodology or a best practice that was open for discussion amongst colleagues. “In practice, however, the rules were seen as inviolable dogmas and what was meant to be an instrument became a bible for archivists; the methodology became a doctrine.” [Ketelaar, Eric. “Time future contained in time past. Archival science in the 21st century” Journal of the Japan Society for Archival Science (1), pp.3-4]

The new, unprecedented wave of information distribution and access which has been brought about by the Internet and its related technologies have once again created pragmatic administrative issues for the management of information collections. It is very likely that the practical solutions that are implemented to address these issues will conflict with some of the existing theory and institutions. Ketelaar points out that this should be expected. As a science, archival theory “examines received notions for their pertinence and relevance, it is continuously speculating, experimenting, inventing, changing and improving”. [Ketelaar, Eric. “Time future contained in time past", pp.2-3]

Wilson is more direct: “The web world has little patience with institutional walls and boundaries, and even less patience with an information priesthood that tries to insert itself between the inquirer and the source material, or which seeks to limit direct access…The web enables us to overcome the territorial boundaries that have arisen over the decades — when we broke up the past, ripped it apart and put some in museums and some in archives and libraries, some in historic sites. The web can enable us to overcome those boundaries and reassemble the past in web world.” [Wilson, Ian. "Converging Content"]

]]>