In case you missed it, I’ve taken all my musings about how I think Archives 2.0 should be defined and put them into a proper, formal, peer-reviewed article in the American Archivist. “What is the Meaning of Archives 2.0?” is available in the current issue (Volume 74, Number 1 / Spring/Summer 2011). If you’re an SAA member you should have it hand now and also be able to access it on the SAA website. Here’s the abstract:
At first glance the term “Archives 2.0” might refer to the use by archives of Web 2.0 applications, such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and Flickr. This article proposes a broader definition of Archives 2.0 that includes a comprehensive shift in archival thinking and practice that is related to, but not dependent on, the use of Web 2.0 tools. The article develops this interpretation and explains why this concept provides a useful starting point for conversations about future directions for the archival profession.
If anyone would like a copy of this issue, let me know. I was given a big stack of them and have no idea what I’m going to do with them, so I’m happy to give some out to deserving people. You can see the whole table of contents here.
There are many people who deserve my thanks for helping this project along, but I think the most unusual thanks need to go to the Program Committee for SAA’s 2010 Annual Meeting in DC, who decided to reject a session proposal I submitted on Archives 2.0. This inspired Tom Hyry, who was also on the rejected session proposal, to encourage me to develop my talk into an article. It would have been a great session, but now it’s a pretty good article. It presents a point of view–my point of view–which you can either agree with or not. After you’ve had a chance to read it, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the definition and argument, and also whether or not you agree that as a profession we have reached a tipping point or whether we’ve still got a ways to go.
And in addition to the 2010 Program Committee and Tom, thanks to everyone whose sound judgment, good intentions, and useful feedback made this a better article.