Adapting wiki traits to support archivist objectivity

Wikis have a long-established goal of prioritizing objective communication over interpretation by presenting details as-is. The ideally short and summative nature of a topic article acts as resistance to narratives that are counterproductive to unbiased primary research. Each artifact enters the Writing Studio ReCAP wiki without being attached to a specific research project, and is thus more likely to be presented as objectively as possible, an attribute noted as critically necessary by researchers who explore collections with their individual intentions in mind (Bloom; Glenn and Enoch “Invigorating”). When constructing the wiki’s topic articles, lack of need for an overarching narrative was key to my preservative efforts.

Topic articles are apolitical. The wiki-enabled role of objective archivist will be of notable benefit to future administrators of the Writing Studio, especially if they enter the role when they are still enculturating themselves to Georgia State University. The value of describing artifacts and documents at face value is clear: a new Studio administrator will naturally wish to assemble knowledge of the center’s past, and viewing materials that are described as-is – without narrative or agenda – offers access to the Writing Studio’s history without the potentially

artifacts into a ReCAP wiki is a release valve on the pressure of defining; the new administrator can maintain the editorial detachment of reading each document exactly as it appears. This also mitigates ethical concerns of interpreting the work of previous administrators years or decades later (McKee and Porter), while still relying on the restricted access of the wiki to keep

information from being broadcast or broadly accessible (Lamos). Thus, future Studio administrators can refer to the ReCAP wiki to rapidly assemble a neutral history to review

internally for immediate benefit, but without the political risk of narratively describing a program they didn’t participate in.

Wiki topics articles are not narratively-driven. The individual representation of artifacts for each wiki entry maintains the objectivity of the archivist while still directly supporting the researchers who will view these items later. Future researchers benefit from viewing a document without the lens of a previous researcher’s need or interpretation. Accurate representation of documents as-is without the need for interpretation up-front directly improves the potential quality of research accuracy (Chassonoff). When the ReCAP’s holdings are presented as-is, all artifacts remain compatible with multiple projects. Furthermore, since the Writing Studio archivist will not select what to present based on relevance to a specific application, there is no gatekeeping effect; therefore, all artifacts are relevant, so all artifacts will be uploaded and available for future research.

The wiki archive is protected by edit histories. Wikis passively strengthen the quality of the system the longer they operate. Changes are noted and retained each time the document is edited, creating a trackable history (Frumkin). This enables the Writing Studio’s managing archivist to assess or supplement the quality of contributors’ work, or roll back mistakes in article style or content accuracy. Critical to the need for objectivity, these edit histories also

provide wiki administrators with the ability to review changes side-by-side, with markup of even subtle changes, allowing a codified, convenient method of intervention to prevent the accidental induction of narrative. The longer the Writing Studio wiki operates, the more secure it will grow against “wiki-turfing,” the practice of disingenuously editing or propagandizing via a wiki to benefit an ill-intentioned party. This is a critically useful feature that assists in maintaining the security and continuity of digital archives, as noted by Yakel (“Digital Curation” 338). Since each edit will identify the date and editor of a change, as well as previous revisions of the article, it is easier to maintain accuracy and objectivity.

The wiki archive enables diverse curation. Simultaneously, wikis offer archivists the potential of multiple curators, which may afford greater resistance to unintended narrative (Lamos; Huvila). The inclusion of additional “junior” archivists to join the Writing Studio’s managing archivist prevents the gradual skew that may arise from a single curator’s unintended and undetected interpretive acts when composing details as simple as labeling or artifact

description. Additionally, because the wiki system offers the ability to rank levels of

responsibility or access, the additional curators and topic article composers can contribute to the archive’s work without accessing more sensitive information.

Impartiality must remain the Writing Studio archivist’s primary goal. This prevents interpretive missteps for researchers who look to the ReCAP wiki as a source of primary materials that are compatible with many research projects. Multiple archive scholars stress the impact of archivist neutrality or objectivity, requiring an inherent “inertness” from the archive (Connors 18; Gaillet “(Per)Forming;” Belsey; Glenn and Enoch “Invigorating”). The ReCAP wiki hosts artifacts without analysis or narrative. This allows archivists to maintain a neutral

presentation of the archive’s materials and remain separate from political considerations or previous researchers’ conceptual frameworks.