I'd like to take some time to respond to a comment I received pertaining to my previous post. I love reading the few comments that I receive but this one, written by French Panic, particularly irked me because I felt the writer did not fully understand my point of view. Alas, the rebuttal.
The beauty of Facebook is that all of the information stored on individual profiles can be accessed via the Internet which, barring all unforeseen circumstances, has a lifespan of many years to come. I recognize that digital sources are fallible. So do archivists and computer engineers - they are adapting to this realization. Google and Facebook are working to figure out where and how to store their massive caches. My point wasn't that Facebook should be hiring archivists to store profile information on software/hardware that will be obsolete in 2 years, but rather that Facebook accounts can be accessed easily over the Internet and that this could benefit researchers, historians, and other archivists in the years to come if the Internet is still available and Facebook allows this sort of access (perhaps in the same way the National Library and Archives allows access to its restricted materials upon the death of a donor or other stipulation). As it is, Facebook has amended their policy regarding deceased users. The previous policy was that an account was deleted after a 30 day "memorialization period", but after pressure from families and friends, the "memorialization period" is now indefinite.
And yes, Facebook is a massive repository. The term repository refers to anything from a permanent archive collection to a garbage can that is emptied every week. The National Library and Archives, another massive repository, is constantly changing - accessioning and deaccessioning records all the time. Although Facebook users can add, change, or delete their profiles whenever they log in, the information they provide is similar to that which a historian would find in a diary written by an upper-class white woman of the 19th century. In fact, I think Facebook could provide historians with a broader view of the population with accounts created by people all over the world and of many different income brackets. Anyone that has access to the Internet (accessed via personal computers, library computers, friends' computers), can post pictures, a blog, or create a Facebook profile.
The difference between Facebook and the 19th century diary, however, is that the diary provides historians with a more personal perspective. As opposed to a diary, blogs and social networking websites are written and created with the knowledge that other people will read them. This does not take away from their value. These kinds of digital sources can shed light on a particular person's interests as well as society as a whole - popular forms of entertainment, social and political debates, and how we interact with each other (Marshall McLuhan's "medium is the message" comes to mind). The information on Facebook, and more generally the Internet, can help historians and researchers to build a framework of our society.
The Internet has given us a way to learn about each other. French Panic was able to connect to my blog and paste his/her response to my previous post. It has opened up an avenue of debate that would not have previously existed. If the Internet, and thus this debate, lasts for future generations to read, I wonder if they will look up my Facebook profile.
4 comments:
You raise some interesting points pertaining to Facebook as a possible future historical source. The fallibility of historical sources has always been a concern. Just like primary sources of any age, Facebook has the potential to present a picture of society and individuals with all the regular trappings of context, bias, and preservation. It will be interesting to see, even in our lifetime, how archivists and companies such as Google and Facebook adapt and attempt to preserve and store information that changes with the constant development of new mediums.
the usa today article you linked to also quotes a facebook source as saying there is a way to retrieve deleted accounts. so, even if you delete your account willingly, it might still be kicking around in facebook caches.
Hi Sarah,
First of all, I am a female, and a vaguely irked female at that - you couldn’t take a few seconds out of your day to determine my gender? Oh well, I’ll shed a few virtual tears and move on.
I think you and I are missing some shared information – I realize that I am butting in on a digital history class, not a digital archives class, and there are going to be some gaps in shared knowledge for both of us. I have run into a few too many historians in my line of work who have no clue how an archives works, and this was my feeble attempt at a vague education.
“The beauty of Facebook is that all of the information stored on individual profiles can be accessed via the Internet which, barring all unforeseen circumstances, has a lifespan of many years to come.”
It is not that I have misunderstood your point of view: I disagree with your point of view, and am merely airing my disagreement within this very public forum that you have chosen to participate in for this digital history course.
Facebook is constantly changing. Pages are updated, changed, rearranged nearly constantly. You did not address what I pointed out – where is the guarantee that this digital information is going to exist 100 years from now? I’m not saying it won’t, and I suppose it would be pretty cool to check out dead people’s pages – but how are dead people going to accept your friendship request to view all of the information they had posted? Unless some law is enacted that dead Facebook users will have the entire contents of their profiles available worldwide after x number of years (international privacy laws could prove a problem – Canadian privacy laws are extremely strict in comparison to US laws, and Quebec and Alberta have very particular privacy laws that are stronger than other provinces).
Who is going to fund the servers to store all of this information, especially as more and more accounts are being created (and abandoned) each day?
Just to be super nit-picky: “perhaps in the same way the National Library and Archives allows access to its restricted materials upon the death of a donor or other stipulation”. I believe you are referring to Library and Archives Canada – they changed their name a few years ago and are no longer called the National Library and Archives. (yes, I fully realize I am being snarky, but veracity in information sharing is important!) Restricting materials is not just a LAC thing – many archives have this policy – and it is a big problem because storing something for x number of years without allowing users access has all sorts of trickle-down effects.
Also, I am curious to know where you found the definition for “repository”. A garbage can is not a repository. A garbage can is a garbage can. Yourdictionary.com says a repository is a place for storage. Wikipedia says: Latin repositorium, place or thing for storage; from reposit- (pp. of reponere, to store, put away) + -torium,, suffix indicating a place or thing appropriate for the verb to which it is affixed.
A garbage can is a repository for garbage, I suppose. Are you saying that Facebook is a repository for garbage? Which I would TOTALLY agree with. This would be the place where I would put a smiley emoticon to emote the SENSE OF LIGHTHEARTED HUMOUR in which I am posting this reply.
Sarah, once again – I did not misunderstand your intention, and am discouraged that you cannot see the difference between a friendly internet debate and totally missing the boat. I disagree with what you are saying – that’s it. I am an archivist, you are a historian – we should be working together to understand each other’s professions.
You make some interesting & valid points; I am merely asking that you look at the larger, practical picture. Facebook could definitely provide future historians with valuable information about its users. I just want you to think about who is controlling all of this information – it’s not the users. Users can change their pages, yes, but even the fact the information still exists in a cache somewhere after the user believes their information to be deleted – you mention Marshall McLuhan, let me namedrop another literary cliché: George Orwell. Or what about Ray Bradbury’s Farenheit 451? Or Walter Miller’s Canticle for Leibowitz…. Or……Philip K. Dick, or……
Oxford Dictionary
repository |riˈpäzəˌtôrē| noun ( pl. -ries) a place, building, or receptacle where things are or may be stored : a deep repository for nuclear waste. • a place in which something, esp. a natural resource, has accumulated or where it is found in significant quantities : accessible repositories of water. • a person or thing regarded as a store of information or in which something abstract is held to exist or be found : his mind was a rich repository of the past.
Post a Comment