When attempting to properly discern the events and peoples of the past, historians are dependent upon a wide variety of historical artifacts and evidence to develop their understanding. Primary source documents, such as: chronicles, records, letters, and journals, among others, often provide us with the clearest picture, and yet can be terribly unreliable at times, whether due to: embellishment, mistake or misunderstanding, advancing a specific agenda, or even just a lack of proper context. While this doesn't discard the importance, and relevance, of primary source documents, it does explain the importance of collecting alternative sources of evidence, whether it be physical artifacts, such as pottery, architecture, tools, etc..., or otherwise. These items are capable of giving us incredible insight into the movements, actions, and capabilities of historical peoples, while also providing valuable context to the information contained any source documents. Is it just possible that, for our generation, personal metadata serves just such a role in helping to document our activities, behaviors, and values?
To turn back, again, to the "Guardian guide to metadata," there is no denying the value that collected personal metadata has in tracking human behavior and activity. Information such as: who we call, where we are when we talk in the phone, what we search the internet for, what webpages we visit, the subjects of our emails, and much more, provide tremendous insight into how we conduct our daily lives, and the information we value. Time stamps and locations of our interaction with the digital world illustrate our movements throughout the physical one, and can even be used to determine who we may have encountered and interacted with. The hidden value in such information is that it is presented without bias, without filter, and without distortion. It is simply a record of who we are, what we have done, who we have known, and even what we have thought, freed from the prejudices of our perspective, or that of an observing chronicler. What better canvas is there to work from if you are a historian seeking to understand a people and a culture?
It may be difficult for us to recognize the value that such information could hold in the future. For us, now, it is an intrusion and a violation of our privacy, and something to be averted, if at all possible. Assuming the information ever survives long enough to be of use to future generations, it is interesting to know if they would be similarly concerned with the context in which such personal data was collected. Would they too be outraged, or would they look upon it the way in which we cherish each new artifact and record that provides insight into the workings of the past?
What you've said in this post reminds me of our Archival Description class. If archival records are artefactual and aren't originally intended by their creators to serve the purposes for which we use them, then there really must be some similarities between the metadata we collect in the digital world and the ephemera and personal records created by individuals before the digital age. In other words, I'm sure there are plenty of people who, if they were still alive, might not be enthusiastic that their personal lives are available for so many to examine. That's why some donors (or their family) make archival repositories prohibit access until so many years after the individuals death. At least, that's what I assume to be true in some cases.
ReplyDeleteYou make some very interesting points here. I recently wrote a post about just how revealing personal metadata can be, but mine was from the perspective of concern over NSA surveillance. I hadn't considered that at some point all of this collected (potentially invasive) data might be of historical significance. Thanks for shedding light on a different aspect of the issue.
ReplyDeleteIt is really interesting to think about all of the primary source documents that we create everyday, especially the ones that are born digital. Sometimes I think that it is a shame that personal primary source documents that were created on computers might be lost forever in old abandoned hard drives. I know that I have old computers in closets that I have been putting off sorting through. I hope in the future there are better means to preserve our documents that are born digital.
ReplyDeleteGreat point Danielle. Even worse, it's not just information on forgotten hard drives. Digitized information is subject to degradation over time, as files are opened, altered, saved, and transferred, and are also prone to corruption. While certain formats can help preserve the integrity of the information, it does not guarantee the long-term existence of that information. Also important to consider are the fluctuations in file formats over time, and the probability that we may just lose the ability to read certain types of electronic documents as a result.
Delete