Access restrictions, if done well, are tools for ensuring that as much information as possible is made available as broadly as possible while still respecting and adhering to individual privacy, corporate confidentiality, legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and agreements. In order to promote access, rather than present unnecessary barriers to it, restrictions on the availability of archival materials for research should follow these principles:
- They should be as broad as necessary to be practicable, but no broader. Where this point falls will vary between restriction types, collections and repositories, but as archivists we should champion increasing access whenever we can.
- They should be clear, as concise as possible, and avoid jargon of any type. A typical user should be able to understand the access restrictions. Not sure if your restrictions pass this test? Why not ask a user? This isn’t just a usability issue; it’s an equal access issue.
- They should spell out exceptions and make the implicit explicit. Publishing information about exceptions, appeals and alternatives that may exist helps ensure that all users have equal access to that information, and that learning about them does not require additional inquiry or personal interaction with
a gatekeeper an archivist.
- They should acknowledge the role of professional judgement and enable appeal. In support of professional transparency and accountability, we need to explain restrictions well enough that researchers can understand both their basis and application, and challenge either element if they have good cause to believe our judgment is in error.
DACS gives some good guidance on what to include in an access restriction. In keeping with and expanding on that, a specific practice that I find helpful is to pay attention to the Five Ws and one H of access restrictions: who, what, where, when, why and how. Most access restrictions will not address all of these, but asking whether or not each applies can be useful when drafting restrictions.
Over the past two years, Maureen, Carrie, Meghan, Cassie and their guests have turned this blog into a powerhouse of know-how around working smarter with archival metadata. Some of us really enjoy this type of work; we find it crazy satisfying and it aligns well with our worldviews. We acknowledge, with some pride, that we are metadata geeks. But not all archivists are like this, AND THAT’S TOTALLY OKAY. We all have different strengths, and not all archivists need to be data wranglers. But we can all produce clean metadata.
Today, though, I’m going to take a BIG step backward and talk for a few minutes about what we actually mean when we talk about “clean” data, and I’ll share a few basic things that any archivist can do to help prevent their painstakingly produced metadata from becoming someone else’s “clean up” project later.
As Maureen explained in the very first Chaos —> Order post, the raison d’etre of all of this is to use computers to do what they do best, freeing the humans to do what they do best. Computers are really good at quickly accomplishing tasks like indexing, searching, replacing, linking and slicing up information for which you can define a rule or pattern, things that would take a human tens or hundreds of hours to do by hand and wouldn’t require any of the higher-level processes that are still unique to humans, let alone the specialized training or knowledge of an archivist. Clean data is, quite simply, data that is easy for a computer to digest in order to accomplish these tasks.
If you follow me on Twitter, you may have seen that the task I set out for myself this week was to devise a way to describe web archives using the tools available to me: Archivists’ Toolkit, Archive-It, DACS and EAD. My goals were both practical and philosophical: to create useful description, but also to bring archival principles to bear on the practice of web archiving in a way that is sometimes absent in discussions on the topic. And you may have seen that I was less than entirely successful.
Appropriate to the scope of my goals, the problems I encountered were also both practical and philosophical in nature:
- I was simply dissatisfied with the options that my tools offered for recording information about web archives. There were a lot of “yeah, it kind of makes sense to put it in that field, but it could also go over here, and neither are a perfect fit” moments that I’m sure anyone doing this work has encountered. A Web Archiving Roundtable/TS-DACS white paper recommending best practices in this area would be fantastic, and may become reality.
- More fundamentally, though, I came to understand that the units of arrangement, description and access typically used in web archives simply don’t map well onto traditional archival units of arrangement and description, particularly if one is concerned with preserving information about the creation of the archive itself, i.e., provenance.