Just what are they up to?

I remembered after reading Terry Cook’s article – “Archival Appraisal and Collection: Issues, Challenges, New Approaches” in which he discusses illegal records destruction – that I had read articles last week about Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney attempting to keep (what arguably should be) public records private.

First, Sarah Palin: The hacker group ‘Anonymous’ reportedly cracked into the VP candidate’s Yahoo email after reports that she had been using this email account for governmental business. Under law, however, any email relating to the “official functions of governor must be archived and not destroyed.” This same law allows that personal messages can be deleted.
One would think then that the Yahoo email was set-up to allow personal emails to be sent and that this account would not be used for governmental business, as it is a personal account, inaccessible through the Freedom of Information Act. It would seem, however, that this assumption may be wrong and Governor Palin may in fact be skirting the FOIA. One has to wonder what sort of business she is attending to…

The other attempt to skirt the FOIA comes from VC Dick Cheney. He has been known to argue for secrecy concerning the President’s energy policy and in the use of torture in terrorist interrogations, and now he is attempting to prevent access to the records created during his tenure in office. A group of historians have sued, arguing that “the records were valuable for future generations to study and understand the events and policies of the Bush administration since 2001.”
Cheney contends that the vice presidency is not covered in the Presidential Records Act, created in the aftermath of Watergate, to ensure presidential AND vice presidential records are saved.
Again, one has to wonder just what Cheney has been up to… The only benefit is that at present, the historians seem to be winning the case.

An infinite archive of crap?

During yesterday’s class discussions, we contemplated the difficulties in creating an infinite, digital archive. Some of our concerns centred on quantity, incompatibility issues, and storage space. All of course are valid concerns, but I was left wondering, what about quality?
Over the course of discussion we determined that should one wish to save all the born-digital material that we are currently producing, we would need countless new & huge libraries, were it all to be saved. Some of the born-digital media we discussed came out of email and Facebook. Let’s focus on Facebook, shall we? Is this the type of material we would really want to save?
Think about some of the ‘debates’ that have occurred on various Facebook groups. Many of them are reminiscent of MC Hammer’s song about big butts. Well, at least the very beginning of that song:
“Oh my god Becky, look at her butt. It is so big… Eugh… she looks like one of those rap guys girlfriends.”
You get the picture.
The sad part is though – The beginning of that song is more grammatically correct and coherent than many of the postings you find on Facebook. Do we really want future historians to look back upon these tidbits and wonder if there was something wrong with the water we were drinking?
I for one do not believe that we need to even consider saving every bit of born-digital media we’re currently creating. As I mentioned in class, there is way too much repetition, and quite frankly, a lot of what’s out there is embarrassing – not just to me, but for my generation.

9/11 and Public History

As I browsed through the morning headlines on msn.com, I came across a photo essay by Newsweek, which commemorates the 9/11 attacks. It is a collection of photos that demonstrates how people around the globe are able to remember and grieve with pieces of steel beams from the towers.
While each memorial site established has an element of public history to it, I found one photo in particular especially oriented towards the involvement of individuals in their history. Number 17 shows a man signing a piece of beam that will be included in the official ground zero memorial. This beam is covered in people’s signatures, messages to lost loved ones, and numerous statements of rest in peace.

I find it hard to believe that this disaster took place seven years ago – in many ways, it seems like just yesterday. Like anyone else alive when it happened, I know exactly what I was doing when I received word. I remember the family members I was concerned about who lived and worked in the area. I remember wondering if immediately the United States would go to war, a war that Canada would find itself embroiled in. Being an American citizen, I worried that perhaps my older brothers would find themselves, while living in Canada and being equally Canadian citizens, drafted and forced to serve in an American war.

I also find it amazing the healing potential that these pieces of steel beam have. Sharing in the grief of that day is far more accessible given the transport of the beams across the world. Individuals with no personal connection can now have one, simply by visiting these various sites, that up until now I had no idea even existed.

The man can't read long passages...

...but he certainly can write them!

I'm speaking, of course, about the web article written by Nicholas Carr in which is discusses the idea that the way in which we think is being altered by our experiences with the internet. He complains that his mind has adapted to the quick series of results provided by search engines like google; small snipets of information easily read and digested.
One would think then, given his newly developed disinterest in reading long passages that perhaps he would have become disinterested in writing long passages. That assumption, unfortunately, is incorrect. His article is only just over 4000 words, but I honestly expected a shorter statement from an author who just told me he glosses over anything more than a couple of paragraphs long.
Once he told me that, I found myself gazing at the scroll bar... which had given away the length of the article well before I had begun reading.

He certainly raised some valid points, but I really did expect a more concise version! Hopefully I'm not the only one!