(3789,2,'2013-04-11 20:38:52','2013-04-11 20:38:52','Please contact the editor Lauren Coats if you have materials for or questions about submitting to <em>Archive Journal</em>: <a href=\"mailto:contact@archivejournal.net\">contact@archivejournal.net</a>.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\nWe are currently accepting proposals for Issues 4, \"Publishing the Archive\" (<a href=\"#CFP\">CFP</a> below).  The submission window has closed for Issue 3, a special issue on data curation.  \r\n&nbsp; <strong></strong>\r\n<p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Submission Specifications</span>\r\nWe welcome submissions in a variety of formats.   If you have a project that is in an experimental of unusual format, please contact the editor to discuss.  For more traditional textual and/or multimedia submissions, please follow these guidelines:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Text should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or .rtf file</li>\r\n	<li>Should use Chicago style for citation (Chicago Manual of Style 16e)</li>\r\n	<li>Multimedia components should be submitted as separate files:</li>\r\n	<li>Images: sent as .jpg (480 x 640).</li>\r\n	<li>Video: we prefer a link to a hosted video at Vimeo.  Please contact the editors if you’d like to send a video file instead.</li>\r\n	<li>Sound files: .wav</li>\r\n	<li>Maps: .kml</li>\r\n	<li>Material in other formats: please discuss with the editor</li>\r\n	<li>If the files are too large to send by email, please contact the editor to discuss an alternate method for submission.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<a href=\"#CFP\">CFP</a>\r\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>Call for Proposals for Archive Journal Special Issue on \"Publishing the Archive\"</strong></span>\r\n\r\n<em>Archive</em> <em>Journal </em>is now accepting project and essay proposals for the “Archives, Remixed” section of its upcoming fourth issue, “Publishing the Archive.” This issue will examine how technological developments—from discrete digitization projects and databases to linked data and APIs for extensible machine-readability—are changing how we produce and publish archives and archival research.\r\n\r\nThe overarching question of this issue is: how do new forms of structured data and new modes for exhibiting archival materials constitute something more than straightforward repositories—becoming instead publications in their own right? And, a related question: What theoretical and operational changes occur when we think of archives and collections as data aggregations in need of publishing? In this sense the term “publishing” means “making public,” but it also means providing high-quality forms of access (as well as human- and machine-friendly metadata) for using, reusing, and remixing archival data.\r\n\r\nWe invite proposals that investigate the possibilities and limits of “publishing the archive.”  Projects might include, but are not limited to:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Development of a specific archive-oriented API along with a narrative account of what the application seeks to achieve.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Textual and/or multimedia explorations of the challenges and promises of linked data with regard to specific archives, collections, or databases.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Examinations of the history of archival interoperability (for instance, thinking critically about how the evolution of metadata schemas has led to new archival structures and new ways of linking across archives).</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Analysis, modeling, or development of new modes of presenting archives on the web, including new kinds of searchability, visualizations of data, and capacity for user-driven contributions.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Analysis, modeling, or development of new tools and platforms for working in archives and collections (e.g., an application that allows scholars to produce research--annotations, essays, or experimentations--in the same space as the cultural artifact).</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Specific discussions not only about what can be published, but about what <em>should </em>be published. That is, in an environment where wholesale digital access is possible, do we need specific parameters for authoritative “editions” of the archive?</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Discussions of how to effectively address copyright restrictions preventing archival material from being published.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Discussions about what happens to analog archives that do not have a digital presence. Or, related to this: what are the effects of the digital surrogate becoming increasingly de rigueur?<strong>\r\n</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<strong>Submitting proposals</strong>\r\n\r\nAn<a href=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/home/about/#review\"> open access, peer-reviewed journal</a>, <em>Archive Journal</em> seeks content that speaks to its diverse audience of librarians, scholars, archivists, and technologists. We encourage proposals from humanities and social science researchers, archive developers and directors, and special collections librarians and library technologists. In your 500-1000 word proposal, please include:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>a description of the project’s argument and scholarly significance</li>\r\n	<li>the archives, collections, or databases to be addressed in the project</li>\r\n	<li>a description of the project components and format (e.g., traditional text or multimedia essay; a streaming media work; an archival tool, code or API, etc.; interactive visualization, etc.)</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nThis issue is being guest edited by <a href=\"http://anvilacademic.org/\">Anvil Academic</a>. If you have any questions about your proposal, please feel free to contact Korey Jackson at <a href=\"mailto:kjackson@anvilacademic.org\">kjackson@anvilacademic.org</a>.  Submit proposals to Fred Moody (<a href=\"mailto:fmoody@anvilacademic.org\">fmoody@anvilacademic.org</a>) by June 3, 2013. Proposals should include a brief (200-word) professional biography and current CV.\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <o:DocumentProperties>\r\n  <o:Version>14.00</o:Version>\r\n </o:DocumentProperties>\r\n <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>\r\n  <o:AllowPNG/>\r\n </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>\r\n</xml><![endif]-->\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><em><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Archive</span></em><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\"> <em>Journal </em>is now accepting project and essay proposals for the “Archives, Remixed” section of its upcoming fourth issue, “Publishing the Archive.” This issue will examine how technological developments—from discrete digitization projects and databases to linked data and APIs for extensible machine-readability—are changing how we produce and publish archives and archival research.</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\"><span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"> </span></span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">The overarching question of this issue is: how do new forms of structured data and new modes for exhibiting archival materials constitute something more than straightforward repositories—becoming instead publications in their own right? And, a related question: What theoretical and operational changes occur when we think of archives and collections as data aggregations in need of publishing? In this sense the term “publishing” means “making public,” but it also means providing high-quality forms of access (as well as human- and machine-friendly metadata) for using, reusing, and remixing archival data.   </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">We invite proposals that investigate the possibilities and limits of “publishing the archive.”  Projects might include, but are not limited to:</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Development of a specific archive-oriented API along with a narrative account of what the application seeks to achieve.</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraphCxSpLast\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Textual and/or multimedia explorations of the challenges and promises of linked data with regard to specific archives, collections, or databases.</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraph\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Examinations of the history of archival interoperability (for instance, thinking critically about how the evolution of metadata schemas has led to new archival structures and new ways of linking across archives).</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraph\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Analysis, modeling, or development of new modes of presenting archives on the web, including new kinds of searchability, visualizations of data, and capacity for user-driven contributions.</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraph\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Analysis, modeling, or development of new tools and platforms for working in archives and collections (e.g., an application that allows scholars to produce research--annotations, essays, or experimentations--in the same space as the cultural artifact).</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraph\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Specific discussions not only about what can be published, but about what <em>should </em>be published. That is, in an environment where wholesale digital access is possible, do we need specific parameters for authoritative “editions” of the archive?  </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraph\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Discussions of how to effectively address copyright restrictions preventing archival material from being published.</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraph\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Discussions about what happens to analog archives that do not have a digital presence. Or, related to this: what are the effects of the digital surrogate becoming increasingly de rigueur?</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\"> </span></strong></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">Submitting proposals</span></strong></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">An</span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt;\"><a href=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/home/about/#review\"><span style=\"font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\'; color: #103cc0;\">open access, peer-reviewed journal</span></a></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">, <em>Archive Journal</em> seeks content that speaks to its diverse audience of librarians, scholars, archivists, and technologists. We encourage proposals from humanities and social science researchers, archive developers and directors, and special collections librarians and library technologists. <span style=\"color: #262626;\">In your 500-1000 word proposal, please include:</span></span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\'; color: #262626;\">a description of the project’s argument and scholarly significance</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times New Roman\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraphCxSpLast\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\'; color: #262626;\">the archives, collections, or databases to be addressed in the project</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\'; color: #262626;\"><span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"> </span></span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoListParagraph\" style=\"text-indent: -.25in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: 11.0pt .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;\"><span style=\"mso-list: Ignore;\">·<span style=\"font: 7.0pt \'Times New Roman\';\">         </span></span></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\'; color: #262626;\">a description of the project components and format (e.g., traditional text or multimedia essay; a streaming media work; an archival tool, code or API, etc.; interactive visualization, etc.)</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Times\',\'serif\';\"> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">This issue is being guest edited by </span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt;\"><a href=\"http://anvilacademic.org/\"><span style=\"font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\'; color: #103cc0;\">Anvil Academic</span></a></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">. If you have any questions about your proposal, please feel free to contact Korey Jackson at </span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt;\"><a href=\"mailto:kjackson@anvilacademic.org\"><span style=\"font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\'; color: #103cc0;\">kjackson@anvilacademic.org</span></a></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">.  Submit proposals to Fred Moody (</span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt;\"><a href=\"mailto:fmoody@anvilacademic.org\"><span style=\"font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">fmoody@anvilacademic.org</span></a></span><span style=\"font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: \'Arial\',\'sans-serif\';\">) by June 3, 2013. Proposals should include a brief (200-word) professional biography and current CV.  </span></p>\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <w:WordDocument>\r\n  <w:View>Normal</w:View>\r\n  <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>\r\n  <w:TrackMoves/>\r\n  <w:TrackFormatting/>\r\n  <w:PunctuationKerning/>\r\n  <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>\r\n  <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>\r\n  <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>\r\n  <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>\r\n  <w:DoNotPromoteQF/>\r\n  <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>\r\n  <w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>\r\n  <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>\r\n  <w:Compatibility>\r\n   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>\r\n   <w:SnapToGridInCell/>\r\n   <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>\r\n   <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>\r\n   <w:DontGrowAutofit/>\r\n   <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>\r\n   <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>\r\n   <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>\r\n   <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>\r\n   <w:UseFELayout/>\r\n  </w:Compatibility>\r\n  <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>\r\n  <m:mathPr>\r\n   <m:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"/>\r\n   <m:brkBin m:val=\"before\"/>\r\n   <m:brkBinSub m:val=\"&#45;-\"/>\r\n   <m:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"/>\r\n   <m:dispDef/>\r\n   <m:lMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n   <m:rMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n   <m:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"/>\r\n   <m:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"/>\r\n   <m:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"/>\r\n   <m:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"/>\r\n  </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>\r\n</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\r\n  DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\r\n  LatentStyleCount=\"267\">\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"/>\r\n  <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"/>\r\n </w:LatentStyles>\r\n</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>\r\n<style>\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n	{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n	mso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n	mso-style-priority:99;\r\n	mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n	mso-para-margin:0in;\r\n	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n	font-size:12.0pt;\r\n	font-family:\"Cambria\",\"serif\";\r\n	mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;\r\n	mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;\r\n	mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;\r\n	mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}\r\n</style>\r\n<![endif]-->','Submit to Archive','','inherit','open','open','','27-revision-15','','','2013-04-11 20:38:52','2013-04-11 20:38:52','',27,'http://www.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/27-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(3800,10,'2013-04-18 01:32:49','2013-04-18 01:32:49','This summer, I found myself in an archive. I went to the American Antiquarian Society to participate in its 2012 Summer Seminar in the History of the Book, “Early African American Cultures of Print,” led by Jordan Stein and Lara Langer Cohen. I sat and broke bread with a group of scholars that came together to speak of history and the stories it tells or refuses to tell. We later went in search of stories—to be remembered, recovered, pieced together and then told by us. By way of our discussions on the meaning of print, ownership (bodies and copyright) and the book, I learned manners of thinking that questioned the very meaning of authorship and examined the varied ways of authenticity, racial or otherwise. Our collective discussions tested the rigid boundaries of African American identity and print culture(s) and offered instead a radically inclusive view of the intersection of printmaking, storytelling, and race.\n\nOne afternoon, I had a conversion experience. What follows remembers me on the threshing floor (or maybe, the AAS seminar room). While standing on this floor, I took up a conversation with the object (or the archival holy spirit of 18<sup>th</sup> century poet and former slave, Phillis Wheatley) that helped make me anew.\n\nTo the first edition of Phillis Wheatley’s <em>Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral</em> (1773):\n\nPhillis, I have a confession. I don’t like archives. They creep me out. I’m scared of the stories living in the bound tomes that await the curious because there’s something terrifying about the very fact of what’s past. If it’s past, it was at some point real. If it’s still here, is it the past or simply passing on—to us? I fear that history really does live (just watch reruns of <em>The Ghost Whisperer</em>). And, the stories speak despite the varied ways in which we seek to silence them—whether in the space of our memories or in boxes at our institutions. Stories find storytellers even as we bury them in the lies. Despite my fears, something happened as I looked over the extant stuff of your life (handwritten poems to the Earl of Dartmouth and the students at Cambridge, the first edition of your poems, an almanac with your likeness reprinted).\n\nI touched the past. My fingers touched the materiality of what’s right here, passed on to me by a team of archivists in climate-controlled rooms. “This is real,” I heard myself say, “Phillis, you are real.”\n\nThe old pages didn’t give me the creeps. Instead, each asked me into something beyond the spooky ephemeral quality of the past. “It’s supposed to be passed, dead, not here, right?” I held the paper (albeit through a plastic sheath) that you touched and saw the penmanship that you must have practiced. I sat with the drafted poems that did not make it into the first edition sitting to next me. I wanted more not less stuff. I didn’t want to stare at a digitized version. I wanted to sit right there. I didn’t want to run away from the story in front of me.\n\nYes, I had a conversion experience. I can hear the song now, “Was once a hater of the archive but now I’m found in it.” Admittedly, I wasn’t struck to the ground like my buddy, the itinerant minister and chaplain to the African Lodge No. 459, John Marrant and countless other Christian converts, but I did come upon a “saving change.” I said yes to it and the archive. I embarked upon a week of treasure-troving through a past that I was once taught did not exist.\n\nI can see the concerned faces of those who’ve said, “18th century African American literature, huh? Who could you possibly work on, … Zora Neale Hurston?” I laughed then as I do now. But my laughs are for me. I giggle at the fears that kept me away from the material quality of the past I study. And look forward to another time when I can frolic among the stories waiting for us to see and to hear them. So with eyes that can see and ears that can I hear, I journey on. Thank you.\n\nGeared up for the archive,\n\nTara Bynum','On the Threshing Floor; Or, Just Another Day at the Archive','This summer, I found myself in an archive. I went to the American Antiquarian Society to participate in its 2012 Summer Seminar in the History of the Book, “Early African American Cultures of Print,” led by Jordan Stein and Lara Langer Cohen. I sat and broke bread with a group of scholars that came together to speak of history and the stories it tells or refuses to tell. We later went in search of stories—to be remembered, recovered, pieced together and then told by us. By way of our discussions on the meaning of print, ownership (bodies and copyright) and the book, I learned manners of thinking that questioned the very meaning of authorship and examined the varied ways of authenticity, racial or otherwise. Our collective discussions tested the rigid boundaries of African American identity and print culture(s) and offered instead a radically inclusive view of the intersection of printmaking, storytelling, and race.','inherit','open','open','','3796-autosave','','','2013-04-18 01:32:49','2013-04-18 01:32:49','',3796,'http://www.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/3796-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3801,10,'2013-04-18 01:26:18','2013-04-18 01:26:18','This summer, I found myself in an archive. I went to the American Antiquarian Society to participate in its 2012 Summer Seminar in the History of the Book, “Early African American Cultures of Print,” led by Jordan Stein and Lara Langer Cohen. I sat and broke bread with a group of scholars that came together to speak of history and the stories it tells or refuses to tell. We later went in search of stories—to be remembered, recovered, pieced together and then told by us. By way of our discussions on the meaning of print, ownership (bodies and copyright) and the book, I learned manners of thinking that questioned the very meaning of authorship and examined the varied ways of authenticity, racial or otherwise. Our collective discussions tested the rigid boundaries of African American identity and print culture(s) and offered instead a radically inclusive view of the intersection of printmaking, storytelling, and race.\r\n\r\nOne afternoon, I had a conversion experience. What follows remembers me on the threshing floor (or maybe, the AAS seminar room). While standing on this floor, I took up a conversation with the object (or the archival holy spirit of 18<sup>th</sup> century poet and former slave, Phillis Wheatley) that helped make me anew.\r\n\r\nTo the first edition of Phillis Wheatley’s <em>Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral</em> (1773):\r\n\r\nPhillis, I have a confession. I don’t like archives. They creep me out. I’m scared of the stories living in the bound tomes that await the curious because there’s something terrifying about the very fact of what’s past. If it’s past, it was at some point real. If it’s still here, is it the past or simply passing on—to us? I fear that history really does live (just watch reruns of <em>The Ghost Whisperer</em>). And, the stories speak despite the varied ways in which we seek to silence them—whether in the space of our memories or in boxes at our institutions. Stories find storytellers even as we bury them in the lies. Despite my fears, something happened as I looked over the extant stuff of your life (handwritten poems to the Earl of Dartmouth and the students at Cambridge, the first edition of your poems, an almanac with your likeness reprinted).\r\n\r\nI touched the past. My fingers touched the materiality of what’s right here, passed on to me by a team of archivists in climate-controlled rooms. “This is real,” I heard myself say, “Phillis, you are real.”\r\n\r\nThe old pages didn’t give me the creeps. Instead, each asked me into something beyond the spooky ephemeral quality of the past. “It’s supposed to be passed, dead, not here, right?” I held the paper (albeit through a plastic sheath) that you touched and saw the penmanship that you must have practiced. I sat with the drafted poems that did not make it into the first edition sitting to next me. I wanted more not less stuff. I didn’t want to stare at a digitized version. I wanted to sit right there. I didn’t want to run away from the story in front of me.\r\n\r\nYes, I had a conversion experience. I can hear the song now, “Was once a hater of the archive but now I’m found in it.” Admittedly, I wasn’t struck to the ground like my buddy, the itinerant minister and chaplain to the African Lodge No. 459, John Marrant and countless other Christian converts, but I did come upon a “saving change.” I said yes to it and the archive. I embarked upon a week of treasure-troving through a past that I was once taught did not exist.\r\n\r\nI can see the concerned faces of those who’ve said, “18th century African American literature, huh? Who could you possibly work on, … Zora Neale Hurston?” I laughed then as I do now. But my laughs are for me. I giggle at the fears that kept me away from the material quality of the past I study. And look forward to another time when I can frolic among the stories waiting for us to see and to hear them. So with eyes that can see and ears that can I hear, I journey on. Thank you.\r\n\r\nGeared up for the archive,\r\n\r\nTara Bynum','On the Threshing Floor; Or, Just Another Day at the Archive','This summer, I found myself in an archive. I went to the American Antiquarian Society to participate in its 2012 Summer Seminar in the History of the Book, “Early African American Cultures of Print,” led by Jordan Stein and Lara Langer Cohen. I sat and broke bread with a group of scholars that came together to speak of history and the stories it tells or refuses to tell. We later went in search of stories—to be remembered, recovered, pieced together and then told by us. By way of our discussions on the meaning of print, ownership (bodies and copyright) and the book, I learned manners of thinking that questioned the very meaning of authorship and examined the varied ways of authenticity, racial or otherwise. Our collective discussions tested the rigid boundaries of African American identity and print culture(s) and offered instead a radically inclusive view of the intersection of printmaking, storytelling, and race.','inherit','open','open','','3796-revision-4','','','2013-04-18 01:26:18','2013-04-18 01:26:18','',3796,'http://www.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/3796-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3804,10,'2013-04-19 04:55:54','2013-04-19 04:55:54','This summer, I found myself in an archive. I went to the American Antiquarian Society to participate in its 2012 Summer Seminar in the History of the Book, “Early African American Cultures of Print,” led by Jordan Stein and Lara Langer Cohen. I sat and broke bread with a group of scholars that came together to speak of history and the stories it tells or refuses to tell. We later went in search of stories—to be remembered, recovered, pieced together and then told by us. By way of our discussions on the meaning of print, ownership (bodies and copyright) and the book, I learned manners of thinking that questioned the very meaning of authorship and examined the varied ways of authenticity, racial or otherwise. Our collective discussions tested the rigid boundaries of African American identity and print culture(s) and offered instead a radically inclusive view of the intersection of printmaking, storytelling, and race.\r\n\r\nOne afternoon, I had a conversion experience. What follows remembers me on the threshing floor (or maybe, the AAS seminar room). While standing on this floor, I took up a conversation with the object (or the archival holy spirit of 18<sup>th</sup> century poet and former slave, Phillis Wheatley) that helped make me anew.\r\n\r\nTo the first edition of Phillis Wheatley’s <em>Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral</em> (1773):\r\n\r\nPhillis, I have a confession. I don’t like archives. They creep me out. I’m scared of the stories living in the bound tomes that await the curious because there’s something terrifying about the very fact of what’s past. If it’s past, it was at some point real. If it’s still here, is it the past or simply passing on—to us? I fear that history really does live (just watch reruns of <em>The Ghost Whisperer</em>). And, the stories speak despite the varied ways in which we seek to silence them—whether in the space of our memories or in boxes at our institutions. Stories find storytellers even as we bury them in the lies. Despite my fears, something happened as I looked over the extant stuff of your life (handwritten poems to the Earl of Dartmouth and the students at Cambridge, the first edition of your poems, an almanac with your likeness reprinted).\r\n\r\nI touched the past. My fingers touched the materiality of what’s right here, passed on to me by a team of archivists in climate-controlled rooms. “This is real,” I heard myself say, “Phillis, you are real.”\r\n\r\nThe old pages didn’t give me the creeps. Instead, each asked me into something beyond the spooky ephemeral quality of the past. “It’s supposed to be passed, dead, not here, right?” I held the paper (albeit through a plastic sheath) that you touched and saw the penmanship that you must have practiced. I sat with the drafted poems that did not make it into the first edition sitting to next me. I wanted more not less stuff. I didn’t want to stare at a digitized version. I wanted to sit right there. I didn’t want to run away from the story in front of me.\r\n\r\nYes, I had a conversion experience. I can hear the song now, “Was once a hater of the archive but now I’m found in it.” Admittedly, I wasn’t struck to the ground like my buddy, the itinerant minister and chaplain to the African Lodge No. 459, John Marrant and countless other Christian converts, but I did come upon a “saving change.” I said yes to it and the archive. I embarked upon a week of treasure-troving through a past that I was once taught did not exist.\r\n\r\nI can see the concerned faces of those who’ve said, “18th century African American literature, huh? Who could you possibly work on, … Zora Neale Hurston?” I laughed then as I do now. But my laughs are for me. I giggle at the fears that kept me away from the material quality of the past I study. And look forward to another time when I can frolic among the stories waiting for us to see and to hear them. So with eyes that can see and ears that can I hear, I journey on. Thank you.\r\n\r\nGeared up for the archive,\r\n\r\nTara Bynum','On the Threshing Floor; Or, Just Another Day at the Archive','This summer, I found myself in an archive. I went to the American Antiquarian Society to participate in its 2012 Summer Seminar in the History of the Book, “Early African American Cultures of Print,” led by Jordan Stein and Lara Langer Cohen. I sat and broke bread with a group of scholars that came together to speak of history and the stories it tells or refuses to tell. We later went in search of stories—to be remembered, recovered, pieced together and then told by us. By way of our discussions on the meaning of print, ownership (bodies and copyright) and the book, I learned manners of thinking that questioned the very meaning of authorship and examined the varied ways of authenticity, racial or otherwise. Our collective discussions tested the rigid boundaries of African American identity and print culture(s) and offered instead a radically inclusive view of the intersection of printmaking, storytelling, and race.','inherit','open','open','','3796-revision-6','','','2013-04-19 04:55:54','2013-04-19 04:55:54','',3796,'http://www.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/3796-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3813,2,'2013-04-11 20:41:00','2013-04-11 20:41:00','Please contact the editor Lauren Coats if you have materials for or questions about submitting to <em>Archive Journal</em>: <a href=\"mailto:contact@archivejournal.net\">contact@archivejournal.net</a>.\r\nWe are currently accepting proposals for Issues 4, \"Publishing the Archive\" (<a href=\"#CFP\">CFP</a> below). The submission window has closed for Issue 3, a special issue on data curation.\r\n<strong></strong>\r\n<p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Submission Specifications</span>\r\nWe welcome submissions in a variety of formats.   If you have a project that is in an experimental of unusual format, please contact the editor to discuss.  For more traditional textual and/or multimedia submissions, please follow these guidelines:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Text should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or .rtf file</li>\r\n	<li>Should use Chicago style for citation (Chicago Manual of Style 16e)</li>\r\n	<li>Multimedia components should be submitted as separate files:</li>\r\n	<li>Images: sent as .jpg (480 x 640).</li>\r\n	<li>Video: we prefer a link to a hosted video at Vimeo.  Please contact the editors if you’d like to send a video file instead.</li>\r\n	<li>Sound files: .wav</li>\r\n	<li>Maps: .kml</li>\r\n	<li>Material in other formats: please discuss with the editor</li>\r\n	<li>If the files are too large to send by email, please contact the editor to discuss an alternate method for submission.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<a name=\"CFP\"></a>\r\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>Call for Proposals for Archive Journal Special Issue on \"Publishing the Archive\"</strong></span>\r\n\r\n<em>Archive</em> <em>Journal </em>is now accepting project and essay proposals for the “Archives, Remixed” section of its upcoming fourth issue, “Publishing the Archive.” This issue will examine how technological developments—from discrete digitization projects and databases to linked data and APIs for extensible machine-readability—are changing how we produce and publish archives and archival research.\r\n\r\nThe overarching question of this issue is: how do new forms of structured data and new modes for exhibiting archival materials constitute something more than straightforward repositories—becoming instead publications in their own right? And, a related question: What theoretical and operational changes occur when we think of archives and collections as data aggregations in need of publishing? In this sense the term “publishing” means “making public,” but it also means providing high-quality forms of access (as well as human- and machine-friendly metadata) for using, reusing, and remixing archival data.\r\n\r\nWe invite proposals that investigate the possibilities and limits of “publishing the archive.”  Projects might include, but are not limited to:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Development of a specific archive-oriented API along with a narrative account of what the application seeks to achieve.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Textual and/or multimedia explorations of the challenges and promises of linked data with regard to specific archives, collections, or databases.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Examinations of the history of archival interoperability (for instance, thinking critically about how the evolution of metadata schemas has led to new archival structures and new ways of linking across archives).</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Analysis, modeling, or development of new modes of presenting archives on the web, including new kinds of searchability, visualizations of data, and capacity for user-driven contributions.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Analysis, modeling, or development of new tools and platforms for working in archives and collections (e.g., an application that allows scholars to produce research--annotations, essays, or experimentations--in the same space as the cultural artifact).</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Specific discussions not only about what can be published, but about what <em>should </em>be published. That is, in an environment where wholesale digital access is possible, do we need specific parameters for authoritative “editions” of the archive?</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Discussions of how to effectively address copyright restrictions preventing archival material from being published.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Discussions about what happens to analog archives that do not have a digital presence. Or, related to this: what are the effects of the digital surrogate becoming increasingly de rigueur?<strong>\r\n</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<strong>Submitting proposals</strong>\r\n\r\nAn<a href=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/home/about/#review\"> open access, peer-reviewed journal</a>, <em>Archive Journal</em> seeks content that speaks to its diverse audience of librarians, scholars, archivists, and technologists. We encourage proposals from humanities and social science researchers, archive developers and directors, and special collections librarians and library technologists. In your 500-1000 word proposal, please include:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>a description of the project’s argument and scholarly significance</li>\r\n	<li>the archives, collections, or databases to be addressed in the project</li>\r\n	<li>a description of the project components and format (e.g., traditional text or multimedia essay; a streaming media work; an archival tool, code or API, etc.; interactive visualization, etc.)</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nThis issue is being guest edited by <a href=\"http://anvilacademic.org/\">Anvil Academic</a>. If you have any questions about your proposal, please feel free to contact Korey Jackson at <a href=\"mailto:kjackson@anvilacademic.org\">kjackson@anvilacademic.org</a>.  Submit proposals to Fred Moody (<a href=\"mailto:fmoody@anvilacademic.org\">fmoody@anvilacademic.org</a>) by June 3, 2013. Proposals should include a brief (200-word) professional biography and current CV.\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n<o:DocumentProperties>\r\n<o:Version>14.00</o:Version>\r\n</o:DocumentProperties>\r\n<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>\r\n<o:AllowPNG/>\r\n</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>\r\n</xml><![endif]-->\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n<w:WordDocument>\r\n<w:View>Normal</w:View>\r\n<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>\r\n<w:TrackMoves/>\r\n<w:TrackFormatting/>\r\n<w:PunctuationKerning/>\r\n<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>\r\n<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>\r\n<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>\r\n<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>\r\n<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>\r\n<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>\r\n<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>\r\n<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>\r\n<w:Compatibility>\r\n<w:BreakWrappedTables/>\r\n<w:SnapToGridInCell/>\r\n<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>\r\n<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>\r\n<w:DontGrowAutofit/>\r\n<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>\r\n<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>\r\n<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>\r\n<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>\r\n<w:UseFELayout/>\r\n</w:Compatibility>\r\n<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>\r\n<m:mathPr>\r\n<m:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"/>\r\n<m:brkBin m:val=\"before\"/>\r\n<m:brkBinSub m:val=\"&#45;-\"/>\r\n<m:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"/>\r\n<m:dispDef/>\r\n<m:lMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n<m:rMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n<m:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"/>\r\n<m:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"/>\r\n<m:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"/>\r\n<m:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"/>\r\n</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>\r\n</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\r\nDefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\r\nLatentStyleCount=\"267\">\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\nUnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"/>\r\n<w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"/>\r\n</w:LatentStyles>\r\n</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>\r\n\r\n<style>\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n	{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n	mso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n	mso-style-priority:99;\r\n	mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n	mso-para-margin:0in;\r\n	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n	font-size:12.0pt;\r\n	font-family:\"Cambria\",\"serif\";\r\n	mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;\r\n	mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;\r\n	mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;\r\n	mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}\r\n</style><![endif]-->','Submit to Archive','','inherit','open','open','','27-revision-17','','','2013-04-11 20:41:00','2013-04-11 20:41:00','',27,'http://www.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/27-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_posts_bu`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_posts_bu` (
  `ID` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `post_author` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `post_date` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00',
  `post_date_gmt` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00',
  `post_content` longtext NOT NULL,
  `post_title` text NOT NULL,
  `post_excerpt` text NOT NULL,
  `post_status` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'publish',
  `comment_status` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'open',
  `ping_status` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'open',
  `post_password` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `post_name` varchar(200) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `to_ping` text NOT NULL,
  `pinged` text NOT NULL,
  `post_modified` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00',
  `post_modified_gmt` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00',
  `post_content_filtered` longtext NOT NULL,
  `post_parent` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `guid` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `menu_order` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `post_type` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'post',
  `post_mime_type` varchar(100) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `comment_count` bigint(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`ID`),
  KEY `post_name` (`post_name`),
  KEY `type_status_date` (`post_type`,`post_status`,`post_date`,`ID`),
  KEY `post_parent` (`post_parent`),
  KEY `post_author` (`post_author`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=3602 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_posts_bu`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_posts_bu` VALUES (2,1,'2010-11-02 17:30:09','2010-11-02 17:30:09','<h3><a href=\"#welcome\">Welcome</a>  |  <a href=\"#mission\">Mission</a> |  <a href=\"#content\">Journal Content</a>  |  <a href=\"#editors\">Editorial Team &amp; Editorial Board</a>  |  <a href=\"#submissions\">Submissions</a>\r\n<a href=\"#review\">Peer Review</a>  |  <a href=\"#copyright\">Copyright &amp; Licenses</a>  |  <a href=\"#publication\">Publication</a>  |  <a href=\"#design\">Web Design</a>  |  <a href=\"#support\"> Support</a></h3>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"welcome\"></a>Welcome</h3>\r\n<p class=\"textblock\">What you see on this site is Issue 2 (Fall 2012).  Work is underway on Issue 3,  a special issue focused on data curation.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3><a name=\"mission\"></a>Mission</h3>\r\n<em>Archive</em> focuses on the use and theory of archives and special collections in higher education.\r\n<p class=\"textblock\">The academic community has invested deeply in the preservation, use, and digitization of materials in special collections, and <em>Archive</em> provides the space to reflect on this investment. The objects and texts in special collections and archives are the focus of this journal, just as they are the focus of the many projects from and in archives that have been executed and continue with great success. Digitization efforts large and small have freed archives from the bounds of brick and mortar by bringing a wealth of texts and objects into virtual circulation. Teachers and librarians have increasingly emphasized work with original materials for students at all levels as a way to enrich student experience and position students as researchers. The use of materials in special collections as the objects of scholarly study continues to be a key methodology of humanities disciplines even as new technologies, from data mining to visualizations, open up possibilities for what scholars learn from these objects. Recent archival projects have involved multiple institutions (universities and colleges, independent libraries and archives, and non-profit organizations) and multiple constituencies (including librarians, archivists, undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, university press directors, and information technologists). In this moment when archival projects, both virtual and real, have become the norm rather than the exception, <em>Archive</em> offers a way to forge connections among the projects and the communities producing them.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3><a name=\"content\"></a>Journal Content</h3>\r\n<p class=\"textblock\">The journal consists of three content areas:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li><em>360°: Analysis and Discussion in the Round</em> features an asynchronous “discussion” among contributors from various backgrounds — in the form of several individual, linked essays — on a single archive or archival topic.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Archives, Remixed: Critical Perspectives and Pathways</em> invites analytical and creative pieces that reflect on meaning-making in and through archives. The format is open to both traditional research or theoretical essays, as well as multi-modal, alternate, or experimental formats. Contributions that analyze, use, theorize, create, find ways through, or reconstitute particular archives, objects or exhibits are invited. Only original work that has not been published elsewhere will be accepted for publication.</li>\r\n	<li>Notes + Queriesserves as a community space for people to share best practices, archival finds, reports from the field, and thoughts on current work in the field.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"editors\"></a>Editorial Team</h3>\r\n<table>\r\n<thead>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td width=\"160px\"></td>\r\n<td></td>\r\n<td></td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td colspan=\"3\">\r\n<h2>Editor</h2>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Lauren Coats</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Assistant Professor of English (LSU)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td colspan=\"3\">\r\n<h2>Managing Editor</h2>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Gabrielle Dean</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Curator of Modern Literary Rare Books and Manuscripts, Librarian for English and the Writing Seminars (Johns Hopkins University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td colspan=\"3\">\r\n<h2>Technical Editor</h2>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Daniel Chamberlain</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Director, Center for Digital Learning and Research (Occidental College)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td colspan=\"3\">\r\n<h2>Contributing Editors</h2>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Cecily Marcus</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Curator in Archives and Special Collections (University of Minnesota)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Laurie N. Taylor</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Digital Humanities Librarian, Digital Library Center (University of Florida)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td colspan=\"3\">\r\n<h2>Editorial Board</h2>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Wendy Hui Kyong Chun</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Professor of Modern Culture and Media (Brown University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Dan Cohen</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Associate Professor, Department of History and Art History; Director, Center for History and New Media (George Mason University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Sharon Farb</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Associate University Librarian (UCLA)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Kathleen Fitzpatrick</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Director of Scholarly Communications (MLA) and Professor of Media Studies (Pomona College)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Julia Flanders</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Director, Women Writers Project; Associate Director for Textbase Development, Center for Digital Scholarship (Brown University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Amanda French</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>THATCamp Coordinator, Center for History and New Media (George Mason University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Chuck Henry</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>President, Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Patricia Hswe</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Digital Collections Curator (Penn State University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Tara McPherson</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Associate Professor of Critical Studies, School of Cinematic Arts (University of Southern California)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Kenneth M. Price</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>University Professor and Hillegass Chair of American Literature; Co-Director, Center for Digital Research in the Humanities (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Elliott Shore</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>CIO, Director of Libraries, and Professor of History (Bryn Mawr College)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Richard Szary</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Director, Louis Round Wilson Library; Associate University Librarian for Special Collections (UNC-Chapel Hill)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">Ed Whitley</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Associate Professor of English (Lehigh University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"name\">John Willinsky</td>\r\n<td>.......</td>\r\n<td>Khosla Family Professor of Education (Stanford University)</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n</thead>\r\n</table>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"submissions\"></a>Submissions</h3>\r\nPlease review our <a href=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/home/submit-to-archive-journal/\">submit page</a>, if you are interested in submitting to the journal, or have any suggestions for or comments about the journal.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"review\"></a>Peer Review</h3>\r\nAll materials in <em>Archive Journal</em> are peer-reviewed.\r\n\r\nPeer review is central to scholarly communication by providing feedback for improvement, ensuring the quality of published materials, and validating the scholarly merit and proper credentialing of published materials. <em>Archive Journal</em>’s peer review policy is designed to achieve these goals, while also using emerging forms of peer review. Because <em>Archive Journal</em> focuses on the use and theory of archives and special collections in higher education, offering a way to forge connections among diverse projects and the communities producing them, the review process is structured to support building connections while retaining the scholarly rigor inherent in peer review.\r\n\r\nOur review process consists of editorial and open review in the following stages:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Every submission is read by the Editorial Team to determine suitability for publication. The Editorial Team declines materials that are not appropriate at this stage; gives detailed feedback and the opportunity to resubmit for appropriate materials that need substantial revision; and gives feedback and facilitates the process towards publication for appropriate materials that need minor or no revisions. Because <em>Archive Journal</em> is an interdisciplinary space to forge connections and because the online format continues to evolve, this stage may include a series of back and forth feedback from the Editorial Team in order to ensure scholarly rigor, communicability across scholarly fields, and appropriateness of online display.</li>\r\n	<li>If deemed necessary by the Editorial Team, submissions within specialized subject areas that the Editorial Team cannot assess will be sent to reviewers with the appropriate expertise. Reviewers are encouraged to provide guidance to the Editorial Team and constructive feedback for the authors.</li>\r\n	<li>Revised submissions are reviewed after revision for final approval by the Editorial Team before publication. <em>Archive Journal</em> reserves the right to reject revised materials that are deemed not suitable for publication.</li>\r\n	<li>Following peer review and before publication, all accepted materials are copyedited for style and consistency.</li>\r\n	<li>All submissions will be subject to open review via reader comments. After an appropriate open review period has passed, the author(s) will have the opportunity to revise the submission. The final version will be posted and marked as such, with a clear link to the original version and associated open review comments.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"copyright\"></a>Copyright &amp; Licenses</h3>\r\nAuthors published in <em>Archive Journal</em> retain permanent ownership of their work via an open-access license. In order to facilitate access and preservation, <em>Archive Journal</em> retains a perpetual, non-exclusive right to publish accepted work and to include it in other aggregations and indexes. Authors are free to deposit a pre-publication version in an institutional repository, individual webpage, or similar site, as well as to reprint, reuse, or republish their work in any venue after one year.\r\n\r\nThe <em>Archive Journal</em> site is made available under the terms of a <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/\">Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>. The license grants permission for non-commercial, attributed re-use of content that is produced by <em>Archive Journal</em>.\r\n<a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/\" rel=\"license\"><img style=\"border-width: 0;\" src=\"http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/88x31.png\" alt=\"Creative Commons License\" /></a>\r\n<em>Archive</em> has made every effort to ensure that third-party materials used in this journal and on this site follows all copyright and other restrictions. If you have any more information about an item you\'ve seen on our website or if you are the copyright owner and believe our website has not properly attributed your work to you or has used it without permission, we want to hear from you. Please email us at <a href=\"mailto:contact@archivejournal.net\">contact@archivejournal.net</a> with your contact information and a link to the relevant content.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"publication\"></a>Publication</h3>\r\nPermanent access and preservation for citation and reproducible research are core components of scholarly communication. <em>Archive Journal</em> provides permanent open, online access for all journal issues.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"design\"></a>Web Design</h3>\r\n<a href=\"http://lamppostcreative.com/\">Lamppost Creative</a> serves as the current developer and designer.\r\n<a href=\"http://infernalcontraption.com/\">Infernal Contraption</a> provided the original design and layout.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3><a name=\"support\"></a>Support</h3>\r\nThe project has been generously supported with grant funds from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.','About','','publish','closed','closed','','about','','','2012-11-18 05:01:50','2012-11-18 05:01:50','',539,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/?page_id=2',0,'page','',0),(16,1,'2010-12-08 23:21:55','2010-12-08 23:21:55','','360°','','publish','closed','closed','','three-sixty','','','2012-06-23 00:22:25','2012-06-23 00:22:25','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/',0,'page','',0),(1610,13,'2012-02-17 08:00:21','2012-02-17 08:00:21','','Vodou Songs in Haitian Creole and English','','inherit','open','open','','1500-revision-15','','','2012-02-17 08:00:21','2012-02-17 08:00:21','',1500,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/uncategorized/1500-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(10,1,'2010-11-02 17:30:09','2010-11-02 17:30:09','This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.','About','','inherit','open','open','','2-revision','','','2010-11-02 17:30:09','2010-11-02 17:30:09','',2,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/11/2-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(824,13,'2011-09-08 18:17:07','2011-09-08 18:17:07','The George Peabody Library is a remarkable research library housed in a remarkable building. The goal of the Peabody Library’s first librarian was to build a library that contained the best and latest literature in all branches of knowledge except law and medicine.</p>\r\n<p>Begun in 1860, the library collection contains over 300,000 volumes largely from the 18th and 19th centuries. Notable collection strengths are archaeology, British art and architecture, British and American history, biography, English and American literature, Romance languages and literature, Greek and Latin classics, history of science, geography, and exploration and travel including a large map collection.  The collection also includes some bound manuscripts.  View more information on the history of the Peabody Library.</p>\r\n<p>The George Peabody Library is part of the Sheridan Libraries Special Collections. A portion of the collection is represented on-line in the JHU Catalog. The most complete access to the collection is contained in the library’s pioneering printed catalog, Catalog of the Library of the Peabody Institute. Issued in 1883 and 1896, these detailed dictionary catalogs described books as well as articles within journals held by the library. Copies are available on site and in many research libraries.  An overview of the Peabody Library strengths is contained in the Collections and Holdings page. ','George Peabody Library','','inherit','open','open','','810-revision-7','','','2011-09-08 18:17:07','2011-09-08 18:17:07','',810,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/09/810-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(753,13,'2011-07-10 01:42:19','2011-07-10 01:42:19','','Location','','publish','open','closed','','location','','','2011-07-10 02:32:54','2011-07-10 02:32:54','',45,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/',0,'page','',0),(754,13,'2011-07-10 01:41:41','2011-07-10 01:41:41','','Auto Draft','','inherit','open','open','','753-revision','','','2011-07-10 01:41:41','2011-07-10 01:41:41','',753,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/07/753-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(15,1,'2010-12-08 22:03:36','2010-12-08 22:03:36','This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.','About','','inherit','open','open','','2-revision-2','','','2010-12-08 22:03:36','2010-12-08 22:03:36','',2,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/2-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(17,1,'2010-12-08 23:21:49','2010-12-08 23:21:49','','360°: Analysis and Discussion in the Round','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision','','','2010-12-08 23:21:49','2010-12-08 23:21:49','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(18,1,'2010-12-08 23:22:12','2010-12-08 23:22:12','','Archives, Remixed','','publish','open','closed','','archives-remixed','','','2012-09-10 19:47:55','2012-09-10 19:47:55','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/',0,'page','',0),(19,1,'2010-12-08 23:21:59','2010-12-08 23:21:59','','Auto Draft','','inherit','open','open','','18-revision','','','2010-12-08 23:21:59','2010-12-08 23:21:59','',18,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/18-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(20,1,'2010-12-08 23:22:12','2010-12-08 23:22:12','','Archives, Remixed','','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-2','','','2010-12-08 23:22:12','2010-12-08 23:22:12','',18,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/18-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(21,1,'2010-12-08 23:22:30','2010-12-08 23:22:30','','Life in the Archive','','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-3','','','2010-12-08 23:22:30','2010-12-08 23:22:30','',18,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/18-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(24,1,'2010-12-08 23:21:55','2010-12-08 23:21:55','','360°: Analysis and Discussion in the Round','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-2','','','2010-12-08 23:21:55','2010-12-08 23:21:55','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(27,1,'2010-12-09 19:06:40','2010-12-09 19:06:40','Please contact the editor Lauren Coats if you have materials for or questions about submitting to <em>Archive Journal</em>: <a href=\"mailto:contact@archivejournal.net\">contact@archivejournal.net</a>.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe submission window has closed for Issue 3, a special issue on data curation.   We will soon be accepting proposals for Issue 4; check back for more details. <strong></strong>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>Call for Proposals for Archive Journal Special Issue on Data Curation</strong></span>\r\n\r\nThe editorial board of <em>Archive Journal</em> is pleased to announce an upcoming issue, “Curating the Digital, Curating the Analog,” which will explore how data curation shapes and informs library, archival, scholarly, and pedagogical practices.\r\n<blockquote>Understood as the “active and ongoing management of data through its life cycle of interest and usefulness to scholarly and educational activities” (<a href=\"http://cirss.lis.illinois.edu/CollMeta/dcep.html\">Data Curation Education Program</a>), data curation encompasses a range of activities: selection and appraisal, description and representation, preservation, and the work of making a resource usable and repurposable. How we store, represent, and provide access to data affects not only those in the world of libraries, archives, and museums, but also scholars, faculty, students, and artists across the disciplines. What role does data play in fields such as the digital humanities, or media studies? How does data curation involve or affect scholarly production, or approaches to pedagogy?\r\n\r\nGuest editors, Patricia Hswe and Erin O’Meara, invite submissions on data curation that address new practitioner roles, new types of scholarship, new storage needs, and new stories that are fast emerging. Possible topics for contributions include - but are not limited to - the following:\r\n<blockquote>\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Data and archives</li>\r\n	<li>Data curation practices and challenges</li>\r\n	<li>Curation of born-digital materials</li>\r\n	<li>Humanities data curation issues and practices (including management of data for humanities projects)</li>\r\n	<li>Data curation program development</li>\r\n	<li>Legacy data</li>\r\n	<li>Digital forensics</li>\r\n	<li>Curating a mixed media collection (e.g., print and digital)</li>\r\n	<li>Donors and digital donations</li>\r\n	<li>Ethnographic methods and data curation</li>\r\n	<li>Creator attitudes toward, or perceptions of, data curation</li>\r\n	<li>New roles for librarians, archivists, curators, and researchers</li>\r\n	<li>Description methods and data models (e.g., metadata, finding aids, ontologies, etc.)</li>\r\n	<li>Tools, applications, platforms</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n</blockquote>\r\n</blockquote>\r\nWe invite proposals for contributions of 5000-7000 words; shorter essays (2000-4000 words) about new tools or services are also welcome. We encourage proposals that include multimedia components (video, image, or sounds in standard formats), as well as multi-modal or experimental formats; please email the editors with any questions about submissions in alternative formats. An <a href=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/home/about/#review\">open access, peer-reviewed journal</a>, <em>Archive Journal</em> seeks content that speaks to its diverse audience of librarians, scholars, archivists, and technologists.\r\n\r\nAuthors interested in submitting to this special issue of <em>Archive Journal</em> should send a 250-word abstract about their contribution and a 1-page CV to Patricia Hswe (Digital Collections Curator, Penn State University Libraries) at <a href=\"mailto:patricia.hswe@gmail.com\">patricia.hswe@gmail.com</a> and to Erin O’Meara (Archivist, Gates Archive) at <a href=\"mailto:omeara.erin@gmail.com\">omeara.erin@gmail.com</a> by Monday, July 30.\r\n\r\nThe deadline for completed submissions (developed from accepted proposals) is Wednesday, October 10.','Submit to Archive','','publish','open','open','','submit-to-archive','','','2012-11-18 04:13:43','2012-11-18 04:13:43','',539,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/',0,'page','',0),(28,1,'2010-12-09 19:06:27','2010-12-09 19:06:27','','Submit to Archive','','inherit','open','open','','27-revision','','','2010-12-09 19:06:27','2010-12-09 19:06:27','',27,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/27-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(29,2,'2012-11-16 06:54:15','2012-11-16 06:54:15','Please contact the editor Lauren Coats if you have materials for or questions about submitting to <em>Archive Journal</em>: <a href=\"mailto:contact@archivejournal.net\">contact@archivejournal.net</a>.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nThe submission window has closed for Issue 3, a special issue on data curation.   We will soon be accepting proposal for Issue 4; check back for more details. <strong></strong>\n\n&nbsp;\n\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>Call for Proposals for Archive Journal Special Issue on Data Curation</strong></span>\n\nThe editorial board of <em>Archive Journal</em> is pleased to announce an upcoming issue, “Curating the Digital, Curating the Analog,” which will explore how data curation shapes and informs library, archival, scholarly, and pedagogical practices.\n<blockquote>Understood as the “active and ongoing management of data through its life cycle of interest and usefulness to scholarly and educational activities” (<a href=\"http://cirss.lis.illinois.edu/CollMeta/dcep.html\">Data Curation Education Program</a>), data curation encompasses a range of activities: selection and appraisal, description and representation, preservation, and the work of making a resource usable and repurposable. How we store, represent, and provide access to data affects not only those in the world of libraries, archives, and museums, but also scholars, faculty, students, and artists across the disciplines. What role does data play in fields such as the digital humanities, or media studies? How does data curation involve or affect scholarly production, or approaches to pedagogy?\n\nGuest editors, Patricia Hswe and Erin O’Meara, invite submissions on data curation that address new practitioner roles, new types of scholarship, new storage needs, and new stories that are fast emerging. Possible topics for contributions include - but are not limited to - the following:\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n	<li>Data and archives</li>\n	<li>Data curation practices and challenges</li>\n	<li>Curation of born-digital materials</li>\n	<li>Humanities data curation issues and practices (including management of data for humanities projects)</li>\n	<li>Data curation program development</li>\n	<li>Legacy data</li>\n	<li>Digital forensics</li>\n	<li>Curating a mixed media collection (e.g., print and digital)</li>\n	<li>Donors and digital donations</li>\n	<li>Ethnographic methods and data curation</li>\n	<li>Creator attitudes toward, or perceptions of, data curation</li>\n	<li>New roles for librarians, archivists, curators, and researchers</li>\n	<li>Description methods and data models (e.g., metadata, finding aids, ontologies, etc.)</li>\n	<li>Tools, applications, platforms</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n</blockquote>\nWe invite proposals for contributions of 5000-7000 words; shorter essays (2000-4000 words) about new tools or services are also welcome. We encourage proposals that include multimedia components (video, image, or sounds in standard formats), as well as multi-modal or experimental formats; please email the editors with any questions about submissions in alternative formats. An <a href=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/home/about/#review\">open access, peer-reviewed journal</a>, <em>Archive Journal</em> seeks content that speaks to its diverse audience of librarians, scholars, archivists, and technologists.\n\nAuthors interested in submitting to this special issue of <em>Archive Journal</em> should send a 250-word abstract about their contribution and a 1-page CV to Patricia Hswe (Digital Collections Curator, Penn State University Libraries) at <a href=\"mailto:patricia.hswe@gmail.com\">patricia.hswe@gmail.com</a> and to Erin O’Meara (Archivist, Gates Archive) at <a href=\"mailto:omeara.erin@gmail.com\">omeara.erin@gmail.com</a> by Monday, July 30.\n\nThe deadline for completed submissions (developed from accepted proposals) is Wednesday, October 10.','Submit to Archive','','inherit','open','open','','27-autosave','','','2012-11-16 06:54:15','2012-11-16 06:54:15','',27,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/27-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(30,1,'2010-12-09 19:55:13','2010-12-09 19:55:13','[contact]','Contact Us','','publish','open','closed','','contact','','','2012-10-17 01:16:37','2012-10-17 01:16:37','',539,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/',0,'page','',0),(31,1,'2010-12-09 19:55:11','2010-12-09 19:55:11','t','Contact','','inherit','open','open','','30-revision','','','2010-12-09 19:55:11','2010-12-09 19:55:11','',30,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/30-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(32,1,'2010-12-09 19:55:13','2010-12-09 19:55:13','t','Contact','','inherit','open','open','','30-revision-2','','','2010-12-09 19:55:13','2010-12-09 19:55:13','',30,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/30-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(33,1,'2010-12-09 19:56:20','2010-12-09 19:56:20','t','Contact','','inherit','open','open','','30-autosave','','','2010-12-09 19:56:20','2010-12-09 19:56:20','',30,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/30-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(34,1,'2010-12-08 23:23:49','2010-12-08 23:23:49','Analysis and Discussion in the Round','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-3','','','2010-12-08 23:23:49','2010-12-08 23:23:49','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(35,13,'2012-02-15 09:08:14','2012-02-15 09:08:14','<img id=\"main-pic\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-556\" title=\"walt-whitman\" src=\"http://stage.archivejournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/walt-whitman.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"228\" height=\"335\" />In this issue, five contributors critique and analyze <em><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/\" target=\"_blank\">The Walt Whitman Archive</a></em> by answering four questions about this digital archive.   We invite you to read through the roundtable by question or by author.','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-autosave','','','2012-02-15 09:08:14','2012-02-15 09:08:14','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(36,1,'2010-12-09 20:50:19','2010-12-09 20:50:19','Analysis and Discussion in the Round','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-4','','','2010-12-09 20:50:19','2010-12-09 20:50:19','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(37,1,'2010-12-09 20:59:37','2010-12-09 20:59:37','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-5','','','2010-12-09 20:59:37','2010-12-09 20:59:37','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(38,1,'2010-12-09 20:59:59','2010-12-09 20:59:59','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\n<em>Each contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).</em>','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-6','','','2010-12-09 20:59:59','2010-12-09 20:59:59','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(41,1,'2010-12-08 23:22:47','2010-12-08 23:22:47','','Archives, Remixed','','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-4','','','2010-12-08 23:22:47','2010-12-08 23:22:47','',18,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/18-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(1850,19,'2012-06-27 02:08:26','2012-06-27 02:08:26','This community space features a blog with reports from the field, from comments on archival finds to reviews of conferences or new resources to suggestions for best practices.','Notes and Queries','This community space features a blog with reports from the field, from comments on archival finds to reviews of conferences or new resources to suggestions for best practices.','publish','closed','closed','','notes-and-queries','','','2012-09-21 19:17:05','2012-09-21 19:17:05','',0,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/?page_id=1850',0,'page','',0),(642,13,'2011-04-30 20:02:34','2011-04-30 20:02:34','Having cut my teeth on <em>From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankenweiler </em>and the Indiana Jones films as a kid<em>, </em>it comes as no surprise perhaps that my scholarly career is informed and driven by archival research. I am addicted to the smell and feel of yellowed paper, ancient vellum, and the sight of spidery, faded fountain pen inscriptions makes my heart race—yes, I suffer from an incurable case of archive fever. In grad school my interest in archives led me to Britain (thank you, University of Florida!) where, beneath the blue and gold and white dome of the <a href=\"http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/history_and_the_building/reading_room.aspx\">old British Library</a>, I fancied I could still almost hear the whispered wishes for enlightenment that scholars and revolutionaries and historians had prayed for. Later, in the <a href=\"http://www.bronte.org.uk/\">Brontë parsonage museum</a> on the edge of the moors, I sat in a research room off the Brontës’ kitchen, reading their juvenilia <em>in situ. </em>In the <a href=\"http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/baldwin/baldwin.html\">Baldwin archive</a> at UF I encountered E.R.’s <em>Geography and History by a Lady for the Use of her own Children </em>(1790), the book that changed my life by opening up an entire forgotten genre of writing by middle-class women who sought to participate in the imperial project through socially sanctioned writing for children. This taught me that archives still hold so many stories and secrets; their potential sleeps very patiently.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/code-letter.jpg\"><img class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-251\" title=\"code-letter\" src=\"http://archivejournal.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/code-letter-237x300.jpg\" alt=\"coded Civil War letter\" width=\"237\" height=\"300\" /></a>The lesson helped me during my postdoc at Lehigh when, in the process of cataloguing over 400 miscellaneous letters for the <a href=\"http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/remain/\">“I remain…”</a> project, I ran across a document whose garbled syntax at first suggested too long a day, but then thrillingly emerged as a coded Civil War letter. All that year I researched the letter, talking about it to computer scientists who tried to develop an algorithm to break the Stager Cipher, discussing it with historians, presenting it to local fourth graders who eagerly peppered me with questions, and even corresponding with the NSA cryptology center to track down one of the few remaining code books about the ciphers. Though I never managed to crack it, the mystery was sustaining, engaging, and a great conversation starter wherever I went. I carried its story with me, imagined its content, and marveled at its survival. It came from the smoke of the battlefield, from the anxious hands of a telegraph operator who hurriedly crossed out mistakes and scrawled incorrect calculations in the margins on the eve of the second battle of Bull Run when so many lives and the military career of the writer hung in the balance. With the Digital Library Team, we scanned the letter, sketched its history, and <a href=\"http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/cdm4/remain_viewer.php?DMTHUMB=1&amp;cat=Civil%20War&amp;ptr=124&amp;CISOSTART=21\">put it online</a> so that others could enjoy the mystery. This year, it was gratifying when special collections librarian Ilhan Citak forwarded me an article by computer scientists Ali Assarpour and Kent D. Boklan detailing how they broke the 148-year old code. In the end, the story of the letter goes on and so many of us have yoked our own stories to it. It seems that Derrida was right when he said that the archive opens out of and into the future, gathering associations, richness, devotees, and memories as it glides past us into the future. The past becomes a present in every sense.','Cracking a Civil War Code','Having cut my teeth on From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankenweiler and the Indiana Jones films as a kid, it comes as no surprise perhaps that my scholarly career is informed and driven by archival research. I am addicted to the smell and feel of yellowed paper, ancient vellum, and the sight of spidery, faded fountain pen inscriptions makes my heart race—yes, I suffer from an incurable case of archive fever.','inherit','open','open','','235-revision-22','','','2011-04-30 20:02:34','2011-04-30 20:02:34','',235,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/04/235-revision-22/',0,'revision','',0),(1861,19,'2012-03-01 08:01:29','2012-03-01 08:01:29','<div id=\"map3d_devos\"></div>\r\n<div class=\"small light\">Installed Plugin Version: <span id=\"installed-plugin-version\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Loading...</span></div>','Walters - Beaupre Devos','','inherit','open','open','','1200-revision-16','','','2012-03-01 08:01:29','2012-03-01 08:01:29','',1200,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/1200-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(45,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:19','2010-12-09 22:15:19','[STORE-LOCATOR]','Archive Finder','','publish','open','closed','','archive-finder','','','2012-06-23 01:30:01','2012-06-23 01:30:01','',543,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/',0,'page','',0),(731,13,'2011-06-20 23:42:29','2011-06-20 23:42:29','[simplemap]','Archive Finder','','inherit','open','open','','45-revision-16','','','2011-06-20 23:42:29','2011-06-20 23:42:29','',45,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/06/45-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(732,13,'2011-06-21 00:44:36','2011-06-21 00:44:36','','Add New Archive Location','','publish','open','open','','new','','','2011-06-23 07:18:14','2011-06-23 07:18:14','',45,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/',0,'page','',0),(733,13,'2011-06-21 00:44:26','2011-06-21 00:44:26','','Add New Archive Location','','inherit','open','open','','732-revision','','','2011-06-21 00:44:26','2011-06-21 00:44:26','',732,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/06/732-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(734,13,'2011-06-21 00:49:09','2011-06-21 00:49:09','[bizdir_directory]','directory','','publish','open','open','','directory','','','2011-06-21 00:49:09','2011-06-21 00:49:09','',0,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/',0,'page','',0),(735,13,'2011-06-21 00:48:21','2011-06-21 00:48:21','','directory','','inherit','open','open','','734-revision','','','2011-06-21 00:48:21','2011-06-21 00:48:21','',734,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/06/734-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(736,13,'2011-06-21 00:44:36','2011-06-21 00:44:36',' [bizdir_addform]','Add New Archive Location','','inherit','open','open','','732-revision-2','','','2011-06-21 00:44:36','2011-06-21 00:44:36','',732,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/06/732-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(671,13,'2011-05-01 23:13:05','2011-05-01 23:13:05','<script src=\"http://www.gmodules.com/ig/ifr?url=http://code.google.com/apis/kml/embed/embedkmlgadget.xml&amp;up_kml_url=%2Fjournal%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fusa_archives.kml&amp;up_view_mode=earth&amp;up_earth_2d_fallback=1&amp;up_earth_fly_from_space=1&amp;up_earth_show_nav_controls=1&amp;up_earth_show_buildings=1&amp;up_earth_show_terrain=1&amp;up_earth_show_roads=1&amp;up_earth_show_borders=1&amp;up_earth_sphere=earth&amp;up_maps_zoom_out=0&amp;up_maps_default_type=map&amp;synd=open&amp;w=650&amp;h=600&amp;title=Archives+in+the+U.S.&amp;border=%23ffffff%7C3px%2C1px+solid+%23999999&amp;output=js\"></script>\r\n\r\n<br />\r\n<script src=\"http://www.gmodules.com/ig/ifr?url=http://code.google.com/apis/kml/embed/embedkmlgadget.xml&amp;up_kml_url=%2Fjournal%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fcanada_archives.kml&amp;up_view_mode=earth&amp;up_earth_2d_fallback=1&amp;up_earth_fly_from_space=1&amp;up_earth_show_nav_controls=1&amp;up_earth_show_buildings=1&amp;up_earth_show_terrain=1&amp;up_earth_show_roads=1&amp;up_earth_show_borders=1&amp;up_earth_sphere=earth&amp;up_maps_zoom_out=0&amp;up_maps_default_type=map&amp;synd=open&amp;w=650&amp;h=600&amp;title=Archives+in+Canada&amp;border=%23ffffff%7C3px%2C1px+solid+%23999999&amp;output=js\"></script>','Archive Finder','','inherit','open','open','','45-revision-10','','','2011-05-01 23:13:05','2011-05-01 23:13:05','',45,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/05/45-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(46,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:05','2010-12-09 22:15:05','','Yelp for Archives','','inherit','open','open','','45-revision','','','2010-12-09 22:15:05','2010-12-09 22:15:05','',45,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/45-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(47,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:19','2010-12-09 22:15:19','','Yelp for Archives','','inherit','open','open','','45-revision-2','','','2010-12-09 22:15:19','2010-12-09 22:15:19','',45,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/45-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(48,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:34','2010-12-09 22:15:34','','Archive Fever','','publish','open','closed','','archive-fever','','','2011-05-01 22:46:10','2011-05-01 22:46:10','',543,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/',0,'page','',0),(49,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:27','2010-12-09 22:15:27','','Auto Draft','','inherit','open','open','','48-revision','','','2010-12-09 22:15:27','2010-12-09 22:15:27','',48,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/48-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(50,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:54','2010-12-09 22:15:54','','News & Announcements','','publish','open','closed','','news-announcements','','','2011-10-28 22:34:23','2011-10-28 22:34:23','',543,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/',0,'page','',0),(51,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:43','2010-12-09 22:15:43','','Auto Draft','','inherit','open','open','','50-revision','','','2010-12-09 22:15:43','2010-12-09 22:15:43','',50,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/50-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(52,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:54','2010-12-09 22:15:54','','News & Announcements','','inherit','open','open','','50-revision-2','','','2010-12-09 22:15:54','2010-12-09 22:15:54','',50,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/50-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(53,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:34','2010-12-09 22:15:34','','Archive Fever','','inherit','open','open','','48-revision-2','','','2010-12-09 22:15:34','2010-12-09 22:15:34','',48,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/48-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(55,1,'2010-12-09 22:15:20','2010-12-09 22:15:20','','Yelp for Archives','','inherit','open','open','','45-revision-3','','','2010-12-09 22:15:20','2010-12-09 22:15:20','',45,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/45-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(299,2,'2011-03-05 01:19:58','2011-03-05 01:19:58','<strong>What about the digital form – as opposed to working with the materials in analogue form, for example  – works well for you, and what does not? How does this site\'s digital form contribute to the archive\'s strengths and weaknesses?</strong>\r\n\r\nIt is difficult for me to answer the final question because most to the scholarly material that I need are now available in digital form. As a digital humanist, rather than a literary scholar I have very little need to use original manuscripts or early printed books in my own work. What we know about the research practices of humanity scholars, however, suggests that this resource is extremely well designed for their needs. It does not assume that the digital will replace the need to use physical books and indeed it makes this easier by the inclusion of complex bibliographic data especially about Whitman\'s manuscripts and their whereabouts. It also follows good practice in digital resource creation in that it provides scanned page images of the books and manuscripts thus allowing users to compare the transcriptions provided in digital form to those images of the original analogue text.\r\n\r\nIt is notable that the website provides links to press material and interviews that scholars involved in it have given. This is especially welcome, since we have found that the strongest single correlation between the use of a digital resource and things that its creators do is effective disseminate of information about the project.[ref]Warwick et al., “The Master Builders.”[/ref] The presence of these transcribed interviews shows that its creators have been doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nAnother intriguing potential of the digital medium which the Whitman Archive makes use of is the ability to record the way that a resource has changed and grown. Books of course may have later editions, but few of us compare them in detail in printed form. This resource gives us clear information about its past as well as the way it is changing, since it not only archives two previous versions of the project, but provides a detailed change log, which tells users in detail what has been altered and when. For those of us interested in digital resources, this is an unusual insight into their evolution; for regular users of the material it gives instant information about what has changed since their last visit. Both are very much to be welcomed.','Claire Warwick, Question #3','It is difficult for me to answer the final question because most to the scholarly material that I need are now available in digital form. As a digital humanist, rather than a literary scholar I have very little need to use original manuscripts or early printed books in my own work. What we know about the research practices of humanity scholars, however...','inherit','open','open','','125-revision-6','','','2011-03-05 01:19:58','2011-03-05 01:19:58','',125,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/03/125-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(300,2,'2011-02-11 21:37:56','2011-02-11 21:37:56','In this issue, five contributors critique and analyze <em><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/\" target=\"_blank\">The Walt Whitman Archive</a></em> by answering four questions about this digital archive.   We invite you to read through the roundtable by question or by author.','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-20','','','2011-02-11 21:37:56','2011-02-11 21:37:56','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/02/16-revision-20/',0,'revision','',0),(301,2,'2011-03-12 21:25:40','2011-03-12 21:25:40','<h1>In this issue, five contributors critique and analyze <em><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/\" target=\"_blank\">The Walt Whitman Archive</a></em> by answering four questions about this digital archive.   We invite you to read through the roundtable by question or by author.</h1>','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-21','','','2011-03-12 21:25:40','2011-03-12 21:25:40','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/03/16-revision-21/',0,'revision','',0),(1860,19,'2012-03-01 08:01:38','2012-03-01 08:01:38','<div id=\"map3d_tkacs\"></div>\r\n<div class=\"small light\">Installed Plugin Version: <span id=\"installed-plugin-version\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Loading...</span></div>','Walters - Romances Casket Tkacs','','inherit','open','open','','1205-revision-15','','','2012-03-01 08:01:38','2012-03-01 08:01:38','',1205,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/1205-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(1859,19,'2012-03-01 08:00:47','2012-03-01 08:00:47','<div id=\"map3d_dowdle\"></div>\r\n<div class=\"small light\">Installed Plugin Version: <span id=\"installed-plugin-version\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Loading...</span></div>','Walters - Amazon Dowdle','','inherit','open','open','','1209-revision-13','','','2012-03-01 08:00:47','2012-03-01 08:00:47','',1209,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/1209-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(107,7,'2011-01-21 16:58:56','2011-01-21 16:58:56','At this time, the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> is the single most extensive resource for the study of Whitman, and it<em> </em>has progressed steadily toward its primary goal: “to make Whitman\'s vast work, for the first time, easily and conveniently accessible to scholars, students, and general readers.” We take an expansive view of what is relevant “Whitman” material in a digital thematic research collection,[ref]Carole L. Palmer, \"Thematic Research Collections,\" In <em>A Companion to Digital Humanities</em> (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 348-65.[/ref] so we include both Whitman-authored pieces and incoming correspondence, reviews of his writings, selected recent criticism, and other materials not usually included in \"collected works.\" We aspire to produce the richest possible resource for the study of his writings, life, and reception. Our annotated bibliography, the logical starting point for scholarly work on the poet, includes all known critical writings about Whitman from 1839 to the present day—it comprises over 14,000 entries and continues to grow. The site receives a great deal of traffic: in a typical recent month (February 2010) we had nearly 39,000 visits to our site, more than 30,000 of which were by unique visitors.\r\n\r\nAs a project co-director, I coordinate the ongoing work necessary to build it. (Ed Folsom and I work closely with Elizabeth Lorang, the current project manager, in this capacity.) The site is less <em>used</em> in my work than it regularly <em>constitutes</em> a major part of my work as a scholar. At times, though, I employ the site in much the same manner as other literary scholars, albeit with greater knowledge of the site’s strengths and limitations and with awareness of material now in the pipeline that isn’t currently available to the public. As a literary critic, I appreciate what the <em>Whitman Archive</em> makes newly possible. For example, those of us writing about Whitman can now trace the development of his poetry across multiple versions—in isolated manuscript drafts; in notebooks; in periodical printings; and in various book publications—in a way that was all but unimaginable before the advent of the Web. His manuscripts are dispersed at nearly one hundred repositories around the world. In some cases, what was once a single manuscript has become separated into parts, with different sections of the manuscript held in repositories separated by great distance. Such manuscripts can now be virtually reunited.\r\n\r\nThe <em>Whitman Archive</em> has become fundamental to criticism, but citation of the <em>Archive</em> lags behind its actual use. A recent study by Lisa Spiro and Jane Segal indicates that many people use major American literature web sites, including the <em>Whitman Archive</em>, only to then cite print sources.[ref]“The Impact of Digital Resources on Humanities Research” available at\r\nhttp://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/about/projects/the-impact-of-digital-resources-on-humanities-research\r\n[/ref] This ill-conceived practice needs to change in order for digital humanities to get its due. To enable people to reference individual parts of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> more easily, all <em>Archive </em>pages will soon include additional metadata for use with Zotero and other reference management software<em>.</em> In my own scholarly practice, I have cited the <em>Whitman Archive</em> many times, and when Susan Belasco, Ed Folsom, and I compiled the collection <em>Leaves of Grass: The Sesquicentennial Essays</em> (University of Nebraska Press, 2007), we advised all contributors to cite the <em>Whitman Archive</em> when referring to Whitman texts.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Price 1','At this time, the Walt Whitman Archive is the single most extensive resource for the study of Whitman, and it has progressed steadily toward its primary goal: “to make Whitman\'s vast work, for the first time, easily and conveniently accessible to scholars, students, and general readers.” We take an expansive view of what is relevant “Whitman” material in a digital thematic research collection...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-price-1','','','2012-10-29 19:28:26','2012-10-29 19:28:26','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=107',99,'post','',4),(446,13,'2011-04-21 09:28:51','2011-04-21 09:28:51','Ed Folsom has written that one of the goals of the Whitman Archive is to “grow the database so that the surprises of searching and juxtaposing will become richer and more frequent.\" Folsom’s vision is that the Whitman Archive will become not only a centralized repository for all of Whitman’s texts, but also a discovery tool for exploring what he calls “the wild and unpredictable intersections of the data that the interface allows us to generate.”[ref]Ed Folsom, “Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives,” <em>PMLA</em> 112.5 (2007): 1609-10.[/ref] The prospect of having the Archive uncover meaningful relationships between texts is, indeed, an exciting one. As Jonathan Freedman notes, the “ability to link heterogeneous subjects and find once-occulted connections and interconnections makes scholarship invigoratingly fun.”[ref]Jonathan Freedman, “Whitman, Database, Information Culture,” <em>PMLA</em> 112.5 (2007): 1597.[/ref] As a frequent user of the Whitman Archive, I’ve experienced this “invigorating fun” first-hand, and I look forward to the Archive including more texts by and about Whitman, and incorporating more discovery tools like Brian Pytlik Zillig’s <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/resources/tools/index.html\">TokenX</a>.\r\n\r\nAs someone working on digital humanities projects of my own, however, I’m as interested in understanding what it takes to create such tools for discovery as I am the end-user experience of having digital tools make “unpredictable” and “invigorating” discoveries on my behalf. For the remainder of this essay, I’m going to share some thoughts on what has to happen on the back end of a digital project in order to make an otherwise rigorously structured digital artifact feel “wild and unpredictable” to its users. I’ll start with Kenneth M. Price’s description of the necessary labor that goes into structuring data such that it will yield surprising results for end users: \"A database is not an undifferentiated sea of information out of which structure emerges,” Price writes. “Argument is always there from the beginning in how those constructing a database choose to categorize information.\"[ref]Price, “Edition.”[/ref] To an end user who searches a database and finds an interesting juxtaposition between a handful of the hundreds (or thousands) of total documents on that database, it can seem as if those documents have emerged out of “an undifferentiated sea of information.” The reality, however, is far different.\r\n\r\nWhen Price alludes to the process that the creators of a database go through as they decide how to “categorize information,” he makes it clear that whenever a user generates a surprising set of juxtapositions between documents it is because someone, somewhere, at some point, has meticulously categorized those documents in such a way that a search engine (or other text analysis tool) will be able to process those documents in a meaningful way. Jerome McGann, who has also commented on the rigorous process of structuring data that is required to create a digital archive, writes that “databases and all digital instruments require the most severe kinds of categorical forms. The power of database—of digital instruments in general—rests in its ability to draw sharp, disambiguated distinctions.”[ref]Jerome McGann, “Database, Interface, and Archival Fever,” <em>PMLA</em> 112.5 (2007): 1590.[/ref] As both Price and McGann indicate, what can feel like a surprising juxtaposition for the end user has, to a certain extent, already been determined in advance through a time- and labor-intensive process of marking-up, encoding, or otherwise categorizing data.\r\n\r\nThis is not to say that those who structure the data for a digital archive have already anticipated every possible search string that users could ever imagine. On the contrary, what interests me as both the user and the creator of digital archives is the effect by which this “sharp, disambiguated” structuring of data can, indeed, produce juxtapositions that archivists could never have predicted. The fundamental preconditions for cultivating such serendipitous discoveries, it seems to me, are a large enough data set and a sufficiently intelligent schema for categorizing that data (not to mention the time, money, software, hardware, human resources, and expertise required to process and categorize the data in the first place).\r\n\r\nAllow me to cite an example from outside the realm of digital archiving to illustrate what’s involved in structuring data that yields serendipitous juxtapositions. Pandora Radio is an Internet music service whose goal is to create customized, online radio stations for its users. This customization is based on the work of the Music Genome Project, which has categorized the musical attributes of thousands of different songs. Taking into consideration “everything from melody, harmony and rhythm, to instrumentation, orchestration, arrangement, lyrics, and . . . singing and vocal harmony,” the Music Genome Project assigns anywhere between 150 and 400 different descriptors to a single song. These descriptors are based on both objective criteria such as the types of instruments used in the song or whether the song is in a major or a minor key, as well as more subjective criteria such as whether or not a song features “Acoustic Sonority,” “Prevalent Use of Groove,” or a “Wet Recording Sound.\"[ref]“The Music Genome Project,” Pandora Radio, accessed December 2, 2010 <a href=\"http://www.pandora.com/mgp.shtml\">http://www.pandora.com/mgp.shtml</a>.[/ref] (These descriptors are referred to as musical “genes,” but they could just as easily be called metadata or tags.) Visitors to Pandora Radio type in the name of a song that they like, and then based on the attributes that have been pre-assigned to that song, Pandora will play other songs with similar attributes. The promise of Pandora is that once a database of songs is categorized according to a controlled vocabulary capable of being processed by a computer, listeners will be pleasantly surprised to discover songs that they never knew they already liked. (These songs are, of course, available for purchase so that no serendipitous discovery goes un-capitalized.)\r\n\r\nI cite this example within the context of the Whitman Archive not necessarily because Pandora Radio provides a model for digital scholarship of nineteenth-century literature, but because the process of categorizing songs for the Music Genome Project is remarkably similar to the archivist’s effort of structuring data in such a way that it can produce surprising results for the end user. For both Pandora and the Whitman Archive, then, the goal is to reach the tipping point where methodical structuring becomes unexpected discovery, where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing and structured data takes on forms that the structure-ers never quite imagined. I like to think that this tipping point where structure yields serendipity is similar to the moment in a fractal pattern where geometry becomes art, the moment where a rigorous, mathematically defined structure takes on an aesthetic quality that was never explicitly intended by the mathematical code that undergirds it, but that is nevertheless absolutely dependent upon that code for its very existence.\r\n\r\nMy hope as both the user and creator of digital archives is that we can come to a better understanding of the processes of classification and naming that are involved in these efforts structure data in meaningful ways. Scholars of literature are already comfortable thinking about the power of language to represent—and even create—the world around us. We already have at our disposal a variety of theoretical apparatuses for thinking about the power of language to name and define the world, from the formalism of the New Critics to the semiotics of the Post-Structuralists and even the focus on the materiality of language in Book History scholarship. What we need to add to this list of theories and methodologies is a more sophisticated understanding of taxonomy and categorization. This will not only require an interdisciplinary rendezvous with librarians and scholars of information architecture, but it will also demand that we do the cultural history of such seemingly mundane phenomena as filing cabinets and accounting ledgers. Compared to the work being done by digital humanities scholars in the areas of data visualization, text mining, social networking, and geo-spatial analysis, studying the history of cataloging, sorting, and organizing seems to be the intellectual equivalent of a trip to Target to buy hard-plastic storage bins when you’d rather be at the Apple Store picking up an iPad. Nevertheless, everything that we want digital technology to do to help us better understand literary texts depends upon our ability to properly name, sort, and categorize the information that we put into a computer. We do ourselves a disservice to ignore or even minimize this crucial stage of the process.\r\n\r\nOne of the most frequently quoted statements about the future of digital scholarship in the humanities comes from Jerome McGann, who wrote that “the digital technology used by humanities scholars has focused almost exclusively on methods of sorting, accessing, and disseminating large bodies of materials. In this respect the work has not engaged the central questions and concerns of the [humanities, which is] . . . . the exploration and explanation of aesthetic works.”[ref]Jerome McGann, <em>Radiant Textuality: Literature after the World Wide Web</em> (New York: Palgrave, 2001), xi-xii.[/ref] I don’t want to make a straw-man out of McGann’s powerful insight, but I can’t help but take issue with his claim that the “sorting” of texts will not aid us in our goal of using digital technology to explore and explain aesthetic works. Before a digital tool of any kind can work with a text in any way, the elements of that text must be sorted, classified, and categorized according to a schema that the computer will understand. This is not to say that scholars in the digital humanities should put aside their text visualization projects and their geo-spatial analyses in order to do the Dewey Decimal system one better, but rather that the foundational tasks of organizing and classifying should more completely theorized and more intimately woven into the fabric of digital scholarship.\r\n\r\nBy attending to the tedium of taxonomy we may begin to feel like nineteenth-century scriveners rather than twenty-first century techies. Like those scriveners of old, we may prefer not to spend our time with such mundane things. Nevertheless, if we wish to generate the kinds of “wild and unpredictable intersections of . . . data” that “makes scholarship invigoratingly fun” we should embrace what actually promises to be a fascinating conversation about the history of taxonomy, structure, classification, and form. This conversation will take us through the Library of Alexandria, the Great Chain of Being, medieval bestiaries, Wunderkammer, the Mundaneum, the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, cryptography, tarot cards, and Vannevar Bush’s Memex. Every time we tag, code, or classify a text for a digital archive, we are participating in the long history of human classification systems. The better able we are to understand that history and to situate ourselves within it, the better understanding we will have of our digital archives and what they can do.','Edward Whitley, Question #4','Ed Folsom has written that one of the goals of the Whitman Archive is to “grow the database so that the surprises of searching and juxtaposing will become richer and more frequent.\" Folsom’s vision is that the Whitman Archive will become not only a centralized repository for all of Whitman’s texts, but also a discovery to...','inherit','open','open','','144-revision-12','','','2011-04-21 09:28:51','2011-04-21 09:28:51','',144,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/04/144-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(67,1,'2010-12-09 21:00:09','2010-12-09 21:00:09','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-7','','','2010-12-09 21:00:09','2010-12-09 21:00:09','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2010/12/16-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(68,1,'2011-01-05 03:47:10','2011-01-05 03:47:10','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-8','','','2011-01-05 03:47:10','2011-01-05 03:47:10','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/16-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(69,1,'2011-01-05 03:48:39','2011-01-05 03:48:39','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-9','','','2011-01-05 03:48:39','2011-01-05 03:48:39','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/16-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(70,1,'2011-01-05 03:49:10','2011-01-05 03:49:10','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-10','','','2011-01-05 03:49:10','2011-01-05 03:49:10','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/16-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(71,1,'2011-01-05 03:49:29','2011-01-05 03:49:29','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-11','','','2011-01-05 03:49:29','2011-01-05 03:49:29','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/16-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(72,1,'2011-01-05 04:01:34','2011-01-05 04:01:34','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-12','','','2011-01-05 04:01:34','2011-01-05 04:01:34','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/16-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(73,1,'2011-01-05 04:01:49','2011-01-05 04:01:49','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-13','','','2011-01-05 04:01:49','2011-01-05 04:01:49','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/16-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(74,1,'2011-01-05 04:03:57','2011-01-05 04:03:57','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-14','','','2011-01-05 04:03:57','2011-01-05 04:03:57','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/16-revision-14/',0,'revision','',0),(83,4,'2011-01-05 12:03:32','2011-01-05 12:03:32','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets. The more obvious include: a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\r\n\r\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do. For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\r\n\r\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited. Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Greene 1','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-greene-1','','','2012-10-29 19:29:54','2012-10-29 19:29:54','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/?p=83',103,'post','',1),(338,13,'2011-04-11 01:32:34','2011-04-11 01:32:34','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\r\n\r\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do.  For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\r\n\r\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited.  Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.','Mark A. Greene, Question #1','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion...','inherit','open','open','','83-revision-12','','','2011-04-11 01:32:34','2011-04-11 01:32:34','',83,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/04/83-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(84,1,'2011-01-05 09:40:51','2011-01-05 09:40:51','','Mark A. Greene Director, American Heritage Center -- University of Wyoming Past President -- Society of American Archivists ','','inherit','open','open','','83-revision','','','2011-01-05 09:40:51','2011-01-05 09:40:51','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(85,1,'2011-01-05 09:41:51','2011-01-05 09:41:51','<ol>\n	<li><strong>1. </strong><strong>What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</strong></li>\n</ol>\nThere are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\n\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do.  For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”<a href=\"#_edn1\"><sup>[i]</sup></a>\n\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited.  Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,<a href=\"#_edn2\">[ii]</a> more traditional scholarship,<a href=\"#_edn3\">[iii]</a> and what I think of as philosophical musings.<a href=\"#_edn4\">[iv]</a> The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.<a href=\"#_edn5\">[v]</a> This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.\n\n<hr size=\"1\" /><a href=\"#_ednref\">[i]</a> From <em>The Walt Whitman</em> <em>Archive</em> website (hereafter <em>TWWA</em>), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” <em>American Archivist </em>65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[ii]</a> For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iii]</a> For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iv]</a> For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[v]</a> Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).','Mark A. Greene Director, American Heritage Center -- University of Wyoming Past President -- Society of American Archivists ','','inherit','open','open','','83-revision-2','','','2011-01-05 09:41:51','2011-01-05 09:41:51','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(87,1,'2011-01-05 09:52:11','2011-01-05 09:52:11','<span class=\"question\">Question#1: What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</span>\r\n\r\nThere are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\r\n\r\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do.  For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\r\n\r\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited.  Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.','Mark A. Greene Director, American Heritage Center -- University of Wyoming Past President -- Society of American Archivists ','','inherit','open','open','','83-revision-4','','','2011-01-05 09:52:11','2011-01-05 09:52:11','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(86,1,'2011-01-05 09:51:32','2011-01-05 09:51:32','<span class=\"question\">Question#1: What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</span>\r\n\r\nThere are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\r\n\r\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do.  For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\r\n\r\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited.  Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.\r\n\r\n<hr size=\"1\" /><a href=\"#_ednref\">[i]</a> From <em>The Walt Whitman</em> <em>Archive</em> website (hereafter <em>TWWA</em>), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” <em>American Archivist </em>65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[ii]</a> For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).\r\n\r\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iii]</a> For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).\r\n\r\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iv]</a> For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).\r\n\r\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[v]</a> Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).','Mark A. Greene Director, American Heritage Center -- University of Wyoming Past President -- Society of American Archivists ','','inherit','open','open','','83-revision-3','','','2011-01-05 09:51:32','2011-01-05 09:51:32','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(88,4,'2011-01-05 12:02:08','2011-01-05 12:02:08','The weaknesses I have noticed in the <em>Archive</em> are not unique to this site. One problem is the site’s misunderstanding—and thus its improper assertion—of copyrights.[ref]I am a founding member of the Society of American Archivists’ Intellectual Property Working Group.[/ref] Specifically the site asserts the existence of copyright in the transcripts and facsimiles and more broadly in Whitman’s writings—because transcripts and facsimiles are “slavish copies” neither is entitled to copyright protection;[ref]The term is from the U.S. Second District Court of New York’s decision in <em>Bridgeman Art Library Ltd v. Corel Corporation</em>, 1998.[/ref]published or unpublished anything written by Whitman is in the public domain.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/conditions.html\">Conditions of Use</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>. Unpublished works are public domain for authors deceased prior to 1940; published works for everything published prior to 1923. For an authoritative source, see Peter Hirtle, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States: 1 January 2010,” online at <a href=\"http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm\">http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm</a>.[/ref] Only original contributions of editors are copyrightable at this late date.[ref]Such mistakes are not unique to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, certainly. Copyright statements for the <em>In the Valley of the Shadow</em> Civil War project (<a href=\"http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html\">http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html</a>) and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition</em> site (<a href=\"http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl\">http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl</a>) are much more egregious.[/ref] What distresses me about the inaccuracies is they suggest that there are limits to use of the main site content by researchers—notwithstanding frequent assertions that the purpose of the archive is “to make Whitman\'s vast work electronically accessible” to all.[ref]Katherine L. Walter and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00001.html\">\"An Online Guide to Walt Whitman\'s Dispersed Manuscripts,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] Making the archive accessible but incorrectly claiming limitations on actual use is paradoxical at best.\r\n\r\nThere are other issues causing me unease, for example the inadequacy of site use data. The site does not regularly report use statistics, and what statistics it does provide—average daily hits in 2007[ref]Ed Folsom, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html\">\"Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2007).[/ref]--are of dubious value even when current.[ref]Google Analytics: “the number of hits a website receives is not a valid popularity gauge, but rather is an indication of server use and loading” (<a href=\"http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026\">http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026</a>). Better measures are unique visitors or page views, coupled with visits’ duration.[/ref] In addition there is little similar data at similar websites to compare to (though to their credit one of the site editors did gather some parallel data in 2008).[ref]The data, from the <em>Willa Cather Archive</em> and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,</em> is<em> </em>presented in Kenneth M. Price,<strong> </strong><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00267.html\">\"Electronic Scholarly Editions,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2008).[/ref] Thus this is an endemic weakness of major “archive” sites, a weakness related to a broader disinterest in the economics and sustainability of such sites.[ref]And of bricks and mortar archival operations, though this is beginning to change, as suggested by the questions—“Does the level of onsite use of special collections justify the resources being expended? What are the most appropriate measures by which to evaluate use?”—in Jackie M. Dooley and Katherine Luce, <em>Taking Our Pulse: The OCLC Research Survey of Special Collections and Archives</em> (OCLC, 2010), 34-36, online at <a href=\"http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf\">http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf</a>.[/ref] The greater viability of websites such as <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> is ultimately the $64,000 question and the focus of my essay for Part II of this roundtable.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Greene 2','The weaknesses I have noticed in the Archive are not unique to this site.  One problem is the site’s misunderstanding—and thus its improper assertion—of copyrights. Specifically the site asserts the existence of copyright in the transcripts and facsimiles and more broadly in Whitman’s writings—because transcripts and facsimiles are “slavish copies” neither is entitled to copyright protection...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-greene-2','','','2012-10-29 19:29:41','2012-10-29 19:29:41','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/?p=88',104,'post','',9),(340,13,'2011-03-05 01:20:52','2011-03-05 01:20:52','I give a great credit to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his.\r\n<blockquote>[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum. … When users visit a deep scholarly archive on the web they are experiencing the (mostly real) benefit of displaced costs. Instead of money being spent by the user at the point of contact, money is spent elsewhere along the line: by universities in the form of faculty time, equipment, graduate student assistance, and internal grants; by external funding agencies; and, in our case, curiously, by more than one publisher. …  We might ask: Is what the Whitman archive has done a sustainable model for the production of other full-scale scholarly editions on the web? We have been fortunate with grants, publishers, libraries, and generous universities. But if it requires such a constellation of good fortune to produce an electronic scholarly edition, do we have a sound economic model in place? As the questions imply, I don\'t think we do.[ref]Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00004.html\">\"Dollars and Sense in Collaborative Digital Scholarship: The Example of the <em>Walt Whitman Hypertext Archive</em>,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref]</blockquote>\r\nYet for all his candor, and the importance of that candor, he does not take the next (and even more difficult) step of analyzing the project’s benefits as well as its costs.  Saying such an online archival endeavor is not sustainable is, in part, to say it does not (cannot, I will suggest) provide sufficient benefits to sustain continuing such costs.  For me this is part of a larger question about how and why we allocate archival resources.  I have no particular bone to pick with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>; I have raised similar concerns about the disproportionate staff and monetary resources devoted by bricks and mortar repositories to literary collections as a genre, congressional papers as a genre,[ref]Mark A. Greene, \"Appraisal of Congressional Papers at the Minnesota Historical Society:  A Case Study,\" <em>Archival Issues</em> 19:1 (1994), 31-44.<em> </em>Republished in <em>An American Political Archives Reader,</em> Karen Dawley Paul , Glenn R Gray , and L. Rebecca Johnson Melvin eds. (Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009), 181-96.[/ref] university records as a genre, state/county/local court records as a genre, and general store records as a genre[ref]Mark A. Greene, “From Village Smithy to Superior Vacuum Technology:  Modern Small Business Records and the Collecting Repository,” <em>Archival Issues</em> 23:1 (1998), 41-58.[/ref]—all categories of records I believe are represented disproportionately in repositories and given disproportionate attention by archivists.\r\n\r\nAn argument that resource expenditure is disproportionate requires some comparison.  As my then colleague at the Minnesota Historical Society wrote in 1998,\r\n<blockquote>while politics is an important component of Minnesota history, it is at least arguable that its importance is not so great as the resources that the Society has devoted to documenting it.  Neither the stack space nor the staff time is sufficient to swallow Congressional collections whole and still be able appropriately to document business, recreation, family life, etc. for Minnesota.  We had to ask:  ‘Do we really need 116 feet of material to document Congressman Tom Hagedorn’s eight years in office when we keep 110 feet for nearly seventy years of the St. Paul Area United Way?’[ref]Todd J. Daniels-Howell, “Reappraisal of Congressional Records at the Minnesota Historical Society,” <em>Archival Issues </em>23:1 (1998), 36.[/ref]</blockquote>\r\nThis was hardly a precise comparison, to be sure, but it was an early attempt to ask archivists to consider the theretofore reflexive resource allocation required to document congressional service to the nth degree compared to both the opportunity costs and the relative benefit (to a repository’s users) of shifting resources to other acquisition, processing, and preservation goals.  It is not that Hagedorn’s congressional tenure was value-<em>less</em> nor that the United Way’s records were objectively more valuable, only that we had never before considered the relative costs and benefits.\r\n\r\nSuch comparison is no easy matter, granted.  It might be abstractly valid to ask whether it is a good allocation of resources to develop an exhaustive online archives for Walt Whitman when there are not such efforts underway for, say, Theodore Roosevelt,[ref]At least so far as I can discover, though I did not perform a truly exhaustive search.[/ref] but the fact is we have no mechanism to determine, in any way that is even vaguely acceptable on a wide scale, whether one historical figure is more “deserving” of such a site than another.  And even if we did, we don’t have a mechanism for ensuring that the more deserving figure would automatically generate the structure necessary to solicit and manage the resources that might then be available.  And if we succeeded in identifying such mechanisms there would still loom the matter of judging relative quantity and quality of use of the sites—use being, I believe, the “end of all archival effort.”[ref]Theodore R. Schellenberg, <em>The Management of Archives</em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 108. I have pursued the idea of the centrality of use to archival work most extensively in “’The Surest Proof’:  The Use of Business Records and Implications for Appraisal,” <em>Archivaria</em> 45 (Spring 1998), 127-69 and later in Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process.”[/ref]\r\n\r\nSo is this a purely rhetorical exercise?  I don’t think so.  As difficult as these questions are to answer with precision, they remain necessary questions and there are pieces of answers available once we start asking.  My plea is that we do start asking, that we do start expecting to define quantitative and qualitative measure of the costs and benefits of such projects and, by extension, of our bricks and mortar archival endeavors as well.  Not only do I think we owe it to our constituents and funders, I also believe it will increasingly be demanded by our administrators.','Mark A. Greene, Question #4','I give a great credit to The Walt Whitman Archive co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his. \"[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum.\"','inherit','open','open','','104-revision-7','','','2011-03-05 01:20:52','2011-03-05 01:20:52','',104,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/03/104-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(89,1,'2011-01-05 10:13:30','2011-01-05 10:13:30','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\n\nThe weaknesses I have noticed in the <em>Archive</em> are not unique to this site.  One problem is the site’s misunderstanding—and thus its improper assertion—of copyrights.[ref]I am a founding member of the Society of American Archivists’ Intellectual Property Working Group.[/ref] Specifically the site asserts the existence of copyright in the transcripts and facsimiles and more broadly in Whitman’s writings—because transcripts and facsimiles are “slavish copies” neither is entitled to copyright protection;[ref]The term is from the U.S. Second District Court of New York’s decision in <em>Bridgeman Art Library Ltd v. Corel Corporation</em>, 1998.[/ref]published or unpublished anything written by Whitman is in the public domain.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/conditions.html\">Conditions of Use</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.  Unpublished works are public domain for authors deceased prior to 1940; published works for everything published prior to 1923.  For an authoritative source, see Peter Hirtle, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States: 1 January 2010,” online at <a href=\"http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm\">http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm</a>.[/ref] Only original contributions of editors are copyrightable at this late date.[ref]Such mistakes are not unique to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, certainly.  Copyright statements for the <em>In the Valley of the Shadow</em> Civil War project (<a href=\"http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html\">http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html</a>) and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition</em> site (<a href=\"http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl\">http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl</a>) are much more egregious.[/ref] What distresses me about the inaccuracies is they suggest that there are limits to use of the main site content by researchers—notwithstanding frequent assertions that the purpose of the archive is “to make Whitman\'s vast work electronically accessible” to all.[ref]Katherine L. Walter and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00001.html\">\"An Online Guide to Walt Whitman\'s Dispersed Manuscripts,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] Making the archive accessible but incorrectly claiming limitations on actual use is paradoxical at best.\n\nThere are other issues causing me unease, for example the inadequacy of site use data.  The site does not regularly report use statistics, and what statistics it does provide—average daily hits in 2007[ref]Ed Folsom, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html\">\"Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2007).[/ref]--are of dubious value even when current.[ref]Google Analytics: “the number of hits a website receives is not a valid popularity gauge, but rather is an indication of server use and loading” (<a href=\"http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026\">http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026</a>). Better measures are unique visitors or page views, coupled with visits’ duration.[/ref] In addition there is little similar data at similar websites to compare to (though to their credit one of the site editors did gather some parallel data in 2008).[ref]The data, from the <em>Willa Cather Archive</em> and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,</em> is<em> </em>presented in Kenneth M. Price,<strong> </strong><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00267.html\">\"Electronic Scholarly Editions,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2008).[/ref] Thus this is an endemic weakness of major “archive” sites, a weakness related to a broader disinterest in the economics and sustainability of such sites.<a href=\"#_edn9\">[ix]</a> The greater viability of websites such as <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> is ultimately the $64,000 question and the focus of my essay for Part II of this roundtable.','Mark A. Green, Question #2 Response','','inherit','open','open','','88-revision','','','2011-01-05 10:13:30','2011-01-05 10:13:30','',88,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/88-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(90,4,'2011-01-05 12:01:12','2011-01-05 12:01:12','The digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals. The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles,[ref]Scanning requirements are in “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/technical_summary.html\">Technical Summary</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref] making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying. For example, project transcribers can apparently discern\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>ink blots, smudges, and stray pen marks;</li>\r\n	<li>pin holes;</li>\r\n	<li>embossing;</li>\r\n	<li>variations in ink, pencil, or paper;</li>\r\n	<li>distinctions between single and multiple overstrikes[ref]From “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/mediawiki/index.php/Whitman_Encoding_Guidelines#What_Not_to_Encode\">5.9.1 What Not to Encode</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nWhile these are “what not to encode,” they denote the expectation that facsimiles supplied to the transcribers are capable of producing such details. As an extra measure of quality, “project staff <em>examine each digital image</em> [when creating JPEGs from original TIFF files] <em>cleaned and cropped</em> for web delivery.”[ref]“Technical Summary,” emphases added.[/ref] The intricate encoding guidelines themselves are also part of making high quality facsimiles accessible.\r\n\r\nThe opportunity cost of demanding extremely high standards encompasses both a slow pace of making facsimiles accessible to users and the ability to create a complete archive of Whitman material—this latter price due to the inevitable (though not supportable) decision by some repositories to decline participation if it requires public accessibility to such high quality scans.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/history.html\">History of the Project</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>, for brief discussion of some libraries’ requirement to limit user access to 72 dpi facsimiles.[/ref] There is nothing inherently logical about sacrificing a complete collection for highest-quality facsimiles. Nor is there innate reason for choosing quality over quantity, particularly since one can structure a project whereby “inferior” facsimiles are placed online relatively quickly while higher-quality facsimiles are posted, gradually, later. The question of whether (and which) users are best served by large quantity rather than high quality is one accurately answered only by asking users themselves. Surveys or focus groups for gathering user input have not been employed by <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> it appears—but neither have they been used by the vast majority of projects and repositories creating online collections.\r\n\r\nFor a decade now I have been actively involved in projects to increase the quantity of archival material accessible to users at the expense of traditional notions of quality. What began as an effort to speed processing of large modern manuscript (hidden) collections has evolved into jeremiads on trading speed for precision in most other aspects of archives administration as well—including the creation, description, and mounting of digital facsimiles online.[ref]See, particularly, Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” <em>American Archivist</em>, 68:2 (Fall/Winter 2005), 208-263 and Mark A. Greene, “MPLP: It’s Not Just for Processing Anymore,” <em>American Archivist</em> 73:1 (Spring/Summer 2010), 175-203.[/ref] In some cases, including processing and digitization, there is direct evidence that some users prefer “more” over “better” at a ratio of about two-to-one. Far more research is required, certainly, and we should never assume that what holds true for one project/repository and its audience holds equally true for all. But we should certainly be more anxious to determine the answers than we have been heretofore.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Greene 3','The digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals.  The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles, making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-greene-3','','','2012-10-29 19:29:29','2012-10-29 19:29:29','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/?p=90',105,'post','',5),(344,13,'2011-04-11 04:01:28','2011-04-11 04:01:28','I give a great credit to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his.\r\n<blockquote>[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum. … When users visit a deep scholarly archive on the web they are experiencing the (mostly real) benefit of displaced costs. Instead of money being spent by the user at the point of contact, money is spent elsewhere along the line: by universities in the form of faculty time, equipment, graduate student assistance, and internal grants; by external funding agencies; and, in our case, curiously, by more than one publisher. …  We might ask: Is what the Whitman archive has done a sustainable model for the production of other full-scale scholarly editions on the web? We have been fortunate with grants, publishers, libraries, and generous universities. But if it requires such a constellation of good fortune to produce an electronic scholarly edition, do we have a sound economic model in place? As the questions imply, I don\'t think we do.[ref]Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00004.html\">\"Dollars and Sense in Collaborative Digital Scholarship: The Example of the <em>Walt Whitman Hypertext Archive</em>,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref]</blockquote>\r\nYet for all his candor, and the importance of that candor, he does not take the next (and even more difficult) step of analyzing the project’s benefits as well as its costs.  Saying such an online archival endeavor is not sustainable is, in part, to say it does not (cannot, I will suggest) provide sufficient benefits to sustain continuing such costs.  For me this is part of a larger question about how and why we allocate archival resources.  I have no particular bone to pick with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>; I have raised similar concerns about the disproportionate staff and monetary resources devoted by bricks and mortar repositories to literary collections as a genre, congressional papers as a genre,[ref]Mark A. Greene, \"Appraisal of Congressional Papers at the Minnesota Historical Society:  A Case Study,\" <em>Archival Issues</em> 19:1 (1994), 31-44.<em> </em>Republished in <em>An American Political Archives Reader,</em> Karen Dawley Paul , Glenn R Gray , and L. Rebecca Johnson Melvin eds. (Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009), 181-96.[/ref] university records as a genre, state/county/local court records as a genre, and general store records as a genre[ref]Mark A. Greene, “From Village Smithy to Superior Vacuum Technology:  Modern Small Business Records and the Collecting Repository,” <em>Archival Issues</em> 23:1 (1998), 41-58.[/ref]—all categories of records I believe are represented disproportionately in repositories and given disproportionate attention by archivists.\r\n\r\nAn argument that resource expenditure is disproportionate requires some comparison.  As my then colleague at the Minnesota Historical Society wrote in 1998,\r\n<blockquote>while politics is an important component of Minnesota history, it is at least arguable that its importance is not so great as the resources that the Society has devoted to documenting it.  Neither the stack space nor the staff time is sufficient to swallow Congressional collections whole and still be able appropriately to document business, recreation, family life, etc. for Minnesota.  We had to ask:  ‘Do we really need 116 feet of material to document Congressman Tom Hagedorn’s eight years in office when we keep 110 feet for nearly seventy years of the St. Paul Area United Way?’[ref]Todd J. Daniels-Howell, “Reappraisal of Congressional Records at the Minnesota Historical Society,” <em>Archival Issues </em>23:1 (1998), 36.[/ref]</blockquote>\r\nThis was hardly a precise comparison, to be sure, but it was an early attempt to ask archivists to consider the theretofore reflexive resource allocation required to document congressional service to the nth degree compared to both the opportunity costs and the relative benefit (to a repository’s users) of shifting resources to other acquisition, processing, and preservation goals.  It is not that Hagedorn’s congressional tenure was value-<em>less</em> nor that the United Way’s records were objectively more valuable, only that we had never before considered the relative costs and benefits.\r\n\r\nSuch comparison is no easy matter, granted.  It might be abstractly valid to ask whether it is a good allocation of resources to develop an exhaustive online archives for Walt Whitman when there are not such efforts underway for, say, Theodore Roosevelt,[ref]At least so far as I can discover, though I did not perform a truly exhaustive search.[/ref] but the fact is we have no mechanism to determine, in any way that is even vaguely acceptable on a wide scale, whether one historical figure is more “deserving” of such a site than another.  And even if we did, we don’t have a mechanism for ensuring that the more deserving figure would automatically generate the structure necessary to solicit and manage the resources that might then be available.  And if we succeeded in identifying such mechanisms there would still loom the matter of judging relative quantity and quality of use of the sites—use being, I believe, the “end of all archival effort.”[ref]Theodore R. Schellenberg, <em>The Management of Archives</em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 108. I have pursued the idea of the centrality of use to archival work most extensively in “’The Surest Proof’:  The Use of Business Records and Implications for Appraisal,” <em>Archivaria</em> 45 (Spring 1998), 127-69 and later in Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process.”[/ref]\r\n\r\nSo is this a purely rhetorical exercise?  I don’t think so.  As difficult as these questions are to answer with precision, they remain necessary questions and there are pieces of answers available once we start asking.  My plea is that we do start asking, that we do start expecting to define quantitative and qualitative measure of the costs and benefits of such projects and, by extension, of our bricks and mortar archival endeavors as well.  Not only do I think we owe it to our constituents and funders, I also believe it will increasingly be demanded by our administrators.','Mark A. Greene, Question #4','I give a great credit to The Walt Whitman Archive co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his. \"[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum.\"','inherit','open','open','','104-revision-9','','','2011-04-11 04:01:28','2011-04-11 04:01:28','',104,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/04/104-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(91,1,'2011-01-05 10:14:56','2011-01-05 10:14:56','','Mark A. Green','','inherit','open','open','','90-revision','','','2011-01-05 10:14:56','2011-01-05 10:14:56','',90,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/90-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(92,1,'2011-01-05 10:14:08','2011-01-05 10:14:08','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\r\n\r\nThe weaknesses I have noticed in the <em>Archive</em> are not unique to this site.  One problem is the site’s misunderstanding—and thus its improper assertion—of copyrights.[ref]I am a founding member of the Society of American Archivists’ Intellectual Property Working Group.[/ref] Specifically the site asserts the existence of copyright in the transcripts and facsimiles and more broadly in Whitman’s writings—because transcripts and facsimiles are “slavish copies” neither is entitled to copyright protection;[ref]The term is from the U.S. Second District Court of New York’s decision in <em>Bridgeman Art Library Ltd v. Corel Corporation</em>, 1998.[/ref]published or unpublished anything written by Whitman is in the public domain.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/conditions.html\">Conditions of Use</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.  Unpublished works are public domain for authors deceased prior to 1940; published works for everything published prior to 1923.  For an authoritative source, see Peter Hirtle, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States: 1 January 2010,” online at <a href=\"http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm\">http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm</a>.[/ref] Only original contributions of editors are copyrightable at this late date.[ref]Such mistakes are not unique to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, certainly.  Copyright statements for the <em>In the Valley of the Shadow</em> Civil War project (<a href=\"http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html\">http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html</a>) and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition</em> site (<a href=\"http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl\">http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl</a>) are much more egregious.[/ref] What distresses me about the inaccuracies is they suggest that there are limits to use of the main site content by researchers—notwithstanding frequent assertions that the purpose of the archive is “to make Whitman\'s vast work electronically accessible” to all.[ref]Katherine L. Walter and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00001.html\">\"An Online Guide to Walt Whitman\'s Dispersed Manuscripts,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] Making the archive accessible but incorrectly claiming limitations on actual use is paradoxical at best.\r\n\r\nThere are other issues causing me unease, for example the inadequacy of site use data.  The site does not regularly report use statistics, and what statistics it does provide—average daily hits in 2007[ref]Ed Folsom, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html\">\"Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2007).[/ref]--are of dubious value even when current.[ref]Google Analytics: “the number of hits a website receives is not a valid popularity gauge, but rather is an indication of server use and loading” (<a href=\"http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026\">http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026</a>). Better measures are unique visitors or page views, coupled with visits’ duration.[/ref] In addition there is little similar data at similar websites to compare to (though to their credit one of the site editors did gather some parallel data in 2008).[ref]The data, from the <em>Willa Cather Archive</em> and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,</em> is<em> </em>presented in Kenneth M. Price,<strong> </strong><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00267.html\">\"Electronic Scholarly Editions,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2008).[/ref] Thus this is an endemic weakness of major “archive” sites, a weakness related to a broader disinterest in the economics and sustainability of such sites.[ref]And of bricks and mortar archival operations, though this is beginning to change, as suggested by the questions—“Does the level of onsite use of special collections justify the resources being expended? What are the most appropriate measures by which to evaluate use?”—in Jackie M. Dooley and Katherine Luce, <em>Taking Our Pulse: The OCLC Research Survey of Special Collections and Archives</em> (OCLC, 2010), 34-36, online at <a href=\"http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf\">http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf</a>.[/ref] The greater viability of websites such as <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> is ultimately the $64,000 question and the focus of my essay for Part II of this roundtable.','Mark A. Green, Question #2 Response','','inherit','open','open','','88-revision-2','','','2011-01-05 10:14:08','2011-01-05 10:14:08','',88,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/88-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(93,19,'2012-09-25 05:47:10','2012-09-25 05:47:10','The digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals. The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles,[ref]Scanning requirements are in “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/technical_summary.html\">Technical Summary</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref] making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying. For example, project transcribers can apparently discern\n<ul>\n	<li>ink blots, smudges, and stray pen marks;</li>\n	<li>pin holes;</li>\n	<li>embossing;</li>\n	<li>variations in ink, pencil, or paper;</li>\n	<li>distinctions between single and multiple overstrikes[ref]From “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/mediawiki/index.php/Whitman_Encoding_Guidelines#What_Not_to_Encode\">5.9.1 What Not to Encode</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]</li>\n</ul>\nWhile these are “what not to encode,” they denote the expectation that facsimiles supplied to the transcribers are capable of producing such details. As an extra measure of quality, “project staff <em>examine each digital image</em> [when creating JPEGs from original TIFF files] <em>cleaned and cropped</em> for web delivery.”[ref]“Technical Summary,” emphases added.[/ref] The intricate encoding guidelines themselves are also part of making high quality facsimiles accessible.\n\nThe opportunity cost of demanding extremely high standards encompasses both a slow pace of making facsimiles accessible to users and the ability to create a complete archive of Whitman material—this latter price due to the inevitable (though not supportable) decision by some repositories to decline participation if it requires public accessibility to such high quality scans.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/history.html\">History of the Project</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>, for brief discussion of some libraries’ requirement to limit user access to 72 dpi facsimiles.[/ref] There is nothing inherently logical about sacrificing a complete collection for highest-quality facsimiles. Nor is there innate reason for choosing quality over quantity, particularly since one can structure a project whereby “inferior” facsimiles are placed online relatively quickly while higher-quality facsimiles are posted, gradually, later. The question of whether (and which) users are best served by large quantity rather than high quality is one accurately answered only by asking users themselves. Surveys or focus groups for gathering user input have not been employed by <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> it appears—but neither have they been used by the vast majority of projects and repositories creating online collections.\n\nFor a decade now I have been actively involved in projects to increase the quantity of archival material accessible to users at the expense of traditional notions of quality. What began as an effort to speed processing of large modern manuscript (hidden) collections has evolved into jeremiads on trading speed for precision in most other aspects of archives administration as well—including the creation, description, and mounting of digital facsimiles online.[ref]See, particularly, Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” <em>American Archivist</em>, 68:2 (Fall/Winter 2005), 208-263 and Mark A. Greene, “MPLP: It’s Not Just for Processing Anymore,” <em>American Archivist</em> 73:1 (Spring/Summer 2010), 175-203.[/ref] In some cases, including processing and digitization, there is direct evidence that some users prefer “more” over “better” at a ratio of about two-to-one. Far more research is required, certainly, and we should never assume that what holds true for one project/repository and its audience holds equally true for all. But we should certainly be more anxious to determine the answers than we have been heretofore.','360°: The Walt Whitman Archive – Greene 3','The digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals.  The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles, making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying...','inherit','open','open','','90-autosave','','','2012-09-25 05:47:10','2012-09-25 05:47:10','',90,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/90-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(2124,19,'2011-05-02 20:45:25','2011-05-02 20:45:25','In the Digital Humanist’s tool belt, the database is the trusty stand-by. Robust and indispensable, it has become a basic tool of modern academic research. One of the primary endeavors of the Digital Humanities, however, is to re-focus the perspective on the tools we use, and perhaps to redefine the term “tool” in the process. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a thing … with which some operation is performed; a means of effecting something.”[ref]<em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., s.v. “Tool.”[/ref] This definition points plainly toward outcome, the tool’s utility at accomplishing “some operation,” as if it were an extension of the user’s will as a wrench is an extension of his or her hand. But by emphasizing results only, the dictionary neglects a tool’s significant influence over process.\r\n\r\nTools define process as much as they do outcome. When one searches a database, its individual design mediates the experience, filters it, frames it. A sleek database makes the act of use nearly imperceptible—it stays out of the way, as it were, by anticipating the needs and intuitions of the general user in its design. However, the specific user will always be limited by these presuppositions. It is tempting to imagine a database as a neutral container, a kind of Tupperware 2.0, while in fact the tool guides the searches that one can make, the items that they will return, and which will appear prominent. Facets of the design guide what sorts of orderings of information, or narratives, the researcher will construct out of the raw data, such that the database itself can form a subtle argument or narrative claim.\r\n\r\nAcknowledging the skewed nature of any tool that presents information, <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> co-editor Ed Folsom describes his approach to structuring the database: “Initially, [co-editor Kenneth] Price and I had ideas of how we would control the material in the database, and we knew the narratives we wanted to tell, the frames we wanted to construct. But the details of the database quickly exceeded any narrative we might try to frame the data with. Little roots shot out everywhere and attached to particulars we could not have imagined. Only if we insulated the narrative from the database could the narrative persist.”[ref]Ed Folsom, “Database as Genre: the Epic Transformation of Archives,”<em> The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, accessed November 2010,<em> </em><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html</a>.[/ref] To me, the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> is rife with narrative paths for the user. Some of these are micro-narratives, unavoidably emerging from details of the interface. Because the left-hand navigation menu is more visually prominent than the search bar, the user is more strongly guided into a browsing mode of exploration, which encourages him or her to consider Whitman through a compartmentalized view of his life and works. By featuring a simple search bar without advanced specifications or filtration[ref]A notice on the site informs the user that this feature is soon slated to undergo an enhancement, which will include the development of faceted search capabilities.[/ref], the database allows the user to cast a virtual fishing line for an assortment of items but makes it more difficult to conduct a narrowly directed search—thus, one is likely to encounter information that seems scattered rather than tight and contextual.\r\n\r\nApart from these micro-narratives, the database also cradles a deep narrative claim pertaining to Whitman’s corpus: throughout the database there is an open discussion examining the suggestive congruity between Whitman’s work and the digital medium in which it is takes form. The documentation of this resonance begins with observations about Whitman’s language and works, which seem to share characteristics of digital structure. For example, Ed Folsom to the organic networks present in Whitman’s language, an intertextual and burgeoning web of words. He compares this quality to the dense entanglement of leaves and roots that adorn the lettering on the first edition of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, recalling the rhizome[ref]Defined as “an elongated, usually horizontal, subterranean stem which sends out roots and leafy shoots at intervals along its length.” <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, 3rd ed., s.v. \"Rhizome.\"[/ref]—“that subterranean stem that grows every which way and represents the nomadic multiplicity of identity—no central root but an intertwined web of roots.”[ref]Folsom, “Database as Genre.<em>”</em>[/ref] Databases, too, are rhizomorphous, he argues—and this accordance between Whitman’s work and its digital format allows the two to reflect through and off of one another, revealing new permutations of form and language.\r\n\r\nIn a proleptic twist, Whitman’s work predates its own ideal medium. A common observation in the various articles about the database is the fact that the work is perhaps better displayed in digital form that it ever was in print: the digital medium is better equipped to represent the shapes and forms of the Whitman corpus, and flexible enough to accommodate the complex relationship between the many iterations of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>. The database does not privilege one edition over any other, and treats them as autonomous but entwined works rather than pieces of a distinct whole or drafts leading up to a definitive version. The sheer multiplicity of his writing is betrayed by the rigidity of print mediums. “Whitman’s work was always being revised, was always in flux, and fixed forms of print do not adequately capture his incessant revisions,” argues Price.[ref]Kenneth M. Price, “About the <em>Archive</em>: History,” <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, accessed November 2010, http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/history.html.[/ref] Whitman himself advocated methods of reading and taking meaning from his texts that today seem almost designed for digital tools. A line from <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, first appearing in the 1881-82 edition, reads “the words of my book nothing, the drift of it every thing.”[ref]Walt Whitman, <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, (Washington, D.C, 1881-82), http://whitmanarchive.org/published/LG/1871/whole.html.[/ref] Taking long-view of literature, Whitman’s remark resonates with the current practice of distant reading, in which vast quantities of text can be analyzed as an entity using statistical information and visualizations. Predating this practice, Whitman draws the reader away from the individual minutiae of his poetry and towards impressionistic views. If any text was written for a database, this one was.\r\n\r\nThus, the <em>Archive</em> attempts not only to exhibit its contents, but to carry out a vision that Whitman may have offered in the original work. This narrative is present throughout the site primarily via the apparent compatibility between the content and form. The claim is so elegant, so fluid and simple, that the argument almost makes itself.\r\n\r\nThe <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> is able to transcend its (considerable) utility as a research tool, performing simultaneously as a critical analysis, a new edition of Whitman, and independent artistic work. I imagine four theoretical levels at which a format can manage a text, with increasing involvement: presentation, description, criticism, and artistic response. The sophistication of this particular database is in how it blurs the lines between those acts, seeming to realize all at once and none predominantly, and, further, how it reveals the fact that this multiplicity of function must be true of all databases, however subtly, however unintentionally.\r\n\r\nThis remarkable plurality within a single tool (if tool is still an adequate term) is both fitting, in the context of Whitman, and disruptive to the user’s relationship with the technology. It remains to be addressed how, or whether, the user should adjust his or her approach to such a complex mechanism. At the recent undergraduate digital humanities symposium Re: Humanities, keynote speaker Amanda French advocated for the “rehumaniz[ation of] the inhuman mass of data.”[ref]Amanda French, “Humanities Research Methods from 1860 to 2060” (presentation at Re:Humanities, Haverford, PA, November 11-12, 2010).[/ref] She suggests that scholars who favor distant reading may be losing track of a meaningful element of the text. Rather than conducting interpretive based on massive aggregates of information, why not reacquaint ourselves with an affection for individual pieces of data, find “datum love” among the mass of details? The two methods appear to be mutually exclusive. However, by reconceiving the practice of data mining, it is arguably possible to find personal touches in the thrill of broad claims as well as the nuance of the particular.\r\n\r\nIf each database frames its contents in an array of narrative claims, then each one is specific, disputable, and limited. Rather than markers of failure, however, we might use these idiosyncracies to reawaken us to the particular experience that that tool offers. We could use the fact that a database mediates actively to inject an element of personal interaction into the task of digital research. In the course of achieving proficiency with any tool, one gains an understanding of its particular advantages and limitations through repeated contact and experimentation, returning to the interactive original meaning of “interface.”[ref]Defined as “a means or place of interaction between two systems, organizations, etc.; a meeting-point or common ground between two parties, systems, or disciplines; also, interaction, liaison, dialogue.” <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, 2nd ed., s.v. \"Interface.\"[/ref] Here is an opportunity to find a better alternative to the impersonal database experience, an escape from hard vocabulary statistics untempered by readerly love.\r\n\r\nThe management of scale is a challenge that each database must address by determining how the user will navigate between detail and distance. Due to Whitman’s distinctive engagement with matters of scale, especially the fluidity between the individual and the masses, the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> may be uniquely able to offer a distant reading that is paradoxically intimate in its connection to the philosophy of the poet. How can a distant reading cheat the humanist if it scrutinizes the work of the man who wrote, exhilarated, “Here is not merely a nation but a teeming nation of nations. Here is action untied from strings necessarily blind to particulars and details magnificently moving in vast masses?”[ref]Walt Whitman, <em>Leaves of Grass: 150<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Edition</em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), iii.[/ref] Ed Folsom describes Whitman’s “poetic project” as an endeavor “to move from a particular person, period, or place toward an absorptive embrace of all people, periods, and places,”[ref]Folsom, “Database as Genre.”[/ref]emphasizing the blurred distinctions between love of the particular and love of the vast. TokenX, a textual analysis tool that is available through the database, numerically charts the uses of particular words throughout the six editions of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, giving a visual representation to the exponential growth and organic proliferation of certain words as the poetry burgeoned in its various iterations. Statistical tools such as these, when applied to the work of this particular author, are not reductive but in fact profoundly resonant with the tone and principles of the poetry they describe. Perhaps this is the database to wed tender devotion to individual data and multiplicity.\r\n\r\nFeatured prominently on the home page of the <em>Archive</em> is a striking engraving of Whitman’s face.[ref]William J. Linton, (1870-72), engraving, (http://whitmanarchive.org/multimedia/image044.html?sort=year&amp;order=ascending&amp;page=5).[/ref] The poet appears as if caught in motion, whipping past the viewer with his eddies of hair scattered about his face like sprouts. The beard connotes a general outward drift as it spreads from his face in swells and waves. And then, from somewhere in the profusion of hair and wrinkles emerges an arresting pair of dark eyes: Whitman’s eyes simultaneously confront and confide in the viewer, imparting a personal moment amidst a storm of minutiae.','360°: The Walt Whitman Archive – Question 4','In the Digital Humanist’s tool belt, the database is the trusty stand-by. Robust and indispensable, it has become a basic tool of modern academic research. One of the primary endeavors of the Digital Humanities, however, is to re-focus the perspective on the tools we use, and perhaps to redefine the term “tool” in the process. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a thing … with which some operation is performed; a means of effecting something.\"','inherit','open','open','','136-revision-17','','','2011-05-02 20:45:25','2011-05-02 20:45:25','',136,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/136-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0),(94,1,'2011-01-05 10:15:12','2011-01-05 10:15:12','','Mark A. Greene, Question #3 Response','','inherit','open','open','','90-revision-2','','','2011-01-05 10:15:12','2011-01-05 10:15:12','',90,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/90-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(95,1,'2011-01-05 10:19:18','2011-01-05 10:19:18','<strong>What about the digital form – as opposed to working with the materials in analog form, for example – works well for you, and what does not? How does this site\'s digital form contribute to the archive’s strengths and weaknesses? </strong>\r\n\r\nThe digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals.  The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles,[ref]Scanning requirements are in “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/technical_summary.html\">Technical Summary</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying.  For example, project transcribers can apparently discern\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>ink blots, smudges, and stray pen marks;</li>\r\n	<li>pin holes;</li>\r\n	<li>embossing;</li>\r\n	<li>variations in ink, pencil, or paper;</li>\r\n	<li>distinctions between single and multiple overstrikes[ref]From “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/mediawiki/index.php/Whitman_Encoding_Guidelines#What_Not_to_Encode\">5.9.1 What Not to Encode</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nWhile these are “what not to encode,” they denote the expectation that facsimiles supplied to the transcribers are capable of producing such details.  As an extra measure of quality, “project staff <em>examine each digital image</em> [when creating JPEGs from original TIFF files] <em>cleaned and cropped</em> for web delivery.”[ref]“Technical Summary,” emphases added.[/ref] The intricate encoding guidelines themselves are also part of making high quality facsimiles accessible.\r\n\r\nThe opportunity cost of demanding extremely high standards encompasses both a slow pace of making facsimiles accessible to users and the ability to create a complete archive of Whitman material—this latter price due to the inevitable (though not supportable) decision by some repositories to decline participation if it requires public accessibility to such high quality scans.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/history.html\">History of the Project</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>, for brief discussion of some libraries’ requirement to limit user access to 72 dpi facsimiles.[/ref] There is nothing inherently logical about sacrificing a complete collection for highest-quality facsimiles.  Nor is there innate reason for choosing quality over quantity, particularly since one can structure a project whereby “inferior” facsimiles are placed online relatively quickly while higher-quality facsimiles are posted, gradually, later.  The question of whether (and which) users are best served by large quantity rather than high quality is one accurately answered only by asking users themselves.  Surveys or focus groups for gathering user input have not been employed by <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> it appears—but neither have they been used by the vast majority of projects and repositories creating online collections.\r\n\r\nFor a decade now I have been actively involved in projects to increase the quantity of archival material accessible to users at the expense of traditional notions of quality.  What began as an effort to speed processing of large modern manuscript (hidden) collections has evolved into jeremiads on trading speed for precision in most other aspects of archives administration as well—including the creation, description, and mounting of digital facsimiles online.[ref]See, particularly, Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process:  Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” <em>American Archivist</em>, 68:2 (Fall/Winter 2005), 208-263 and Mark A. Greene, “MPLP:  It’s Not Just for Processing Anymore,” <em>American Archivist</em> 73:1 (Spring/Summer 2010), 175-203.[/ref] In some cases, including processing and digitization, there is direct evidence that some users prefer “more” over “better” at a ratio of about two-to-one.  Far more research is required, certainly, and we should never assume that what holds true for one project/repository and its audience holds equally true for all.  But we should certainly be more anxious to determine the answers than we have been heretofore.','Mark A. Greene, Question #3 Response','','inherit','open','open','','90-revision-3','','','2011-01-05 10:19:18','2011-01-05 10:19:18','',90,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/90-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(103,1,'2011-01-05 11:12:02','2011-01-05 11:12:02','<strong>What about the digital form – as opposed to working with the materials in analog form, for example – works well for you, and what does not? How does this site\'s digital form contribute to the archive’s strengths and weaknesses? </strong>\r\n\r\nThe digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals.  The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles,[ref]Scanning requirements are in “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/technical_summary.html\">Technical Summary</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying.  For example, project transcribers can apparently discern\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>ink blots, smudges, and stray pen marks;</li>\r\n	<li>pin holes;</li>\r\n	<li>embossing;</li>\r\n	<li>variations in ink, pencil, or paper;</li>\r\n	<li>distinctions between single and multiple overstrikes[ref]From “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/mediawiki/index.php/Whitman_Encoding_Guidelines#What_Not_to_Encode\">5.9.1 What Not to Encode</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nWhile these are “what not to encode,” they denote the expectation that facsimiles supplied to the transcribers are capable of producing such details.  As an extra measure of quality, “project staff <em>examine each digital image</em> [when creating JPEGs from original TIFF files] <em>cleaned and cropped</em> for web delivery.”[ref]“Technical Summary,” emphases added.[/ref] The intricate encoding guidelines themselves are also part of making high quality facsimiles accessible.\r\n\r\nThe opportunity cost of demanding extremely high standards encompasses both a slow pace of making facsimiles accessible to users and the ability to create a complete archive of Whitman material—this latter price due to the inevitable (though not supportable) decision by some repositories to decline participation if it requires public accessibility to such high quality scans.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/history.html\">History of the Project</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>, for brief discussion of some libraries’ requirement to limit user access to 72 dpi facsimiles.[/ref] There is nothing inherently logical about sacrificing a complete collection for highest-quality facsimiles.  Nor is there innate reason for choosing quality over quantity, particularly since one can structure a project whereby “inferior” facsimiles are placed online relatively quickly while higher-quality facsimiles are posted, gradually, later.  The question of whether (and which) users are best served by large quantity rather than high quality is one accurately answered only by asking users themselves.  Surveys or focus groups for gathering user input have not been employed by <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> it appears—but neither have they been used by the vast majority of projects and repositories creating online collections.\r\n\r\nFor a decade now I have been actively involved in projects to increase the quantity of archival material accessible to users at the expense of traditional notions of quality.  What began as an effort to speed processing of large modern manuscript (hidden) collections has evolved into jeremiads on trading speed for precision in most other aspects of archives administration as well—including the creation, description, and mounting of digital facsimiles online.[ref]See, particularly, Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process:  Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” <em>American Archivist</em>, 68:2 (Fall/Winter 2005), 208-263 and Mark A. Greene, “MPLP:  It’s Not Just for Processing Anymore,” <em>American Archivist</em> 73:1 (Spring/Summer 2010), 175-203.[/ref] In some cases, including processing and digitization, there is direct evidence that some users prefer “more” over “better” at a ratio of about two-to-one.  Far more research is required, certainly, and we should never assume that what holds true for one project/repository and its audience holds equally true for all.  But we should certainly be more anxious to determine the answers than we have been heretofore.','Mark A. Greene, Question #3 Response','The digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals.  The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles,making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying...','inherit','open','open','','90-revision-5','','','2011-01-05 11:12:02','2011-01-05 11:12:02','',90,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/90-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(96,1,'2011-01-05 10:15:28','2011-01-05 10:15:28','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\r\n\r\nThe weaknesses I have noticed in the <em>Archive</em> are not unique to this site.  One problem is the site’s misunderstanding—and thus its improper assertion—of copyrights.[ref]I am a founding member of the Society of American Archivists’ Intellectual Property Working Group.[/ref] Specifically the site asserts the existence of copyright in the transcripts and facsimiles and more broadly in Whitman’s writings—because transcripts and facsimiles are “slavish copies” neither is entitled to copyright protection;[ref]The term is from the U.S. Second District Court of New York’s decision in <em>Bridgeman Art Library Ltd v. Corel Corporation</em>, 1998.[/ref]published or unpublished anything written by Whitman is in the public domain.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/conditions.html\">Conditions of Use</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.  Unpublished works are public domain for authors deceased prior to 1940; published works for everything published prior to 1923.  For an authoritative source, see Peter Hirtle, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States: 1 January 2010,” online at <a href=\"http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm\">http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm</a>.[/ref] Only original contributions of editors are copyrightable at this late date.[ref]Such mistakes are not unique to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, certainly.  Copyright statements for the <em>In the Valley of the Shadow</em> Civil War project (<a href=\"http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html\">http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html</a>) and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition</em> site (<a href=\"http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl\">http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl</a>) are much more egregious.[/ref] What distresses me about the inaccuracies is they suggest that there are limits to use of the main site content by researchers—notwithstanding frequent assertions that the purpose of the archive is “to make Whitman\'s vast work electronically accessible” to all.[ref]Katherine L. Walter and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00001.html\">\"An Online Guide to Walt Whitman\'s Dispersed Manuscripts,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] Making the archive accessible but incorrectly claiming limitations on actual use is paradoxical at best.\r\n\r\nThere are other issues causing me unease, for example the inadequacy of site use data.  The site does not regularly report use statistics, and what statistics it does provide—average daily hits in 2007[ref]Ed Folsom, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html\">\"Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2007).[/ref]--are of dubious value even when current.[ref]Google Analytics: “the number of hits a website receives is not a valid popularity gauge, but rather is an indication of server use and loading” (<a href=\"http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026\">http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026</a>). Better measures are unique visitors or page views, coupled with visits’ duration.[/ref] In addition there is little similar data at similar websites to compare to (though to their credit one of the site editors did gather some parallel data in 2008).[ref]The data, from the <em>Willa Cather Archive</em> and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,</em> is<em> </em>presented in Kenneth M. Price,<strong> </strong><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00267.html\">\"Electronic Scholarly Editions,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2008).[/ref] Thus this is an endemic weakness of major “archive” sites, a weakness related to a broader disinterest in the economics and sustainability of such sites.[ref]And of bricks and mortar archival operations, though this is beginning to change, as suggested by the questions—“Does the level of onsite use of special collections justify the resources being expended? What are the most appropriate measures by which to evaluate use?”—in Jackie M. Dooley and Katherine Luce, <em>Taking Our Pulse: The OCLC Research Survey of Special Collections and Archives</em> (OCLC, 2010), 34-36, online at <a href=\"http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf\">http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf</a>.[/ref] The greater viability of websites such as <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> is ultimately the $64,000 question and the focus of my essay for Part II of this roundtable.','Mark A. Greene, Question #2 Response','','inherit','open','open','','88-revision-3','','','2011-01-05 10:15:28','2011-01-05 10:15:28','',88,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/88-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(97,19,'2012-10-29 17:04:51','2012-10-29 17:04:51','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets. The more obvious include: a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\n\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do. For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\n\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited. Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Greene 1','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion...','inherit','open','open','','83-autosave','','','2012-10-29 17:04:51','2012-10-29 17:04:51','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(2883,19,'2012-10-15 20:51:05','2012-10-15 20:51:05','A comparison of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> to its print predecessor, <em>The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. For example, the poetry manuscripts and periodical printings of Whitman\'s poetry were never collected, and the long-promised journalism, projected to appear in six volumes, never appeared in the NYUP edition. Peter Lang eventually published two volumes of the journalism in 1998 and 2003, though these volumes cover only the period from 1834–1848, leaving Whitman\'s innumerable contributions to periodicals in the final forty-four years of his life still to be edited. The Peter Lang volumes are produced so as to replicate the appearance of the New York University Press edition, though the editors of that series (all now deceased) did not oversee their production. Arguably, the Peter Lang volumes constitute volumes 23 and 24 of the Collected Writings of Walt Whitman, and a 25th volume, treating recently discovered correspondence, edited by Ted Genoways, was published by University of Iowa Press in 2004.[/ref] helps to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of digital and analog forms. Despite the many achievements of the print volumes in the <em>Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>, this editorial project ultimately became quite chaotic. Whitman\'s outgoing correspondence, for example, has been the subject of editorial treatment since the 1960s, when Edwin Haviland Miller edited five volumes of Whitman’s correspondence. Miller arranged the volumes chronologically, and with the fifth volume, he published an addendum of sixty-five letters that he uncovered even as the first four volumes appeared. Although this addendum meant that some letters would always be out of order, the complications of working with this single addition or revision were not insurmountable. Nine years later, however, a sixth volume appeared, and it included one hundred additional letters, complicating the organization further. Then, in 1991, Miller published fifty new letters in the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>,<em> </em>and Ted Genoways published third and fourth supplements of nearly one hundred letters in the journal<em> </em>in 2000 and 2002. In 2004, the University of Iowa Press issued a seventh volume of Whitman\'s correspondence, which included all of Whitman\'s letters found since Miller\'s sixth volume. In the end, there were nearly as many supplements as the number of Miller\'s original volumes, and over the last six years, even more letters have surfaced. This one aspect of the <em>Collected Writings</em> illustrates how print editions can devolve into disorder, even when the initial aim is to bring order to the literary record. I am confident that after the <em>Whitman Archive</em> “finishes” work on the correspondence previously unknown or lost letters will surface somewhere. It is a great strength of the digital medium that when this happens, new material can be integrated seamlessly into the collection.\r\n\r\nIn a related way, our “Integrated Guide to Walt Whitman’s Poetry Manuscripts” aggregates facsimile images of all surviving drafts of Whitman’s poems regardless of their geographical dispersion. The digital images and integrated guide bring order to the manuscripts and, for most purposes, erase the need to travel in order to study the manuscripts. (Individual repositories may have labeled an item by its first line or its working title, but we have created an overarching virtual order for all repositories, and we have labeled each individual poetry manuscript with what we call a “work” identifier based on the title of the last published version of the manuscript.) The high quality color facsimiles available on the <em>Archive</em> offer significant advantages for the study of the manuscripts; the images can be manipulated in photo-editing software to help us decipher otherwise illegible handwriting or zoom in on features of the ink, paper, and other characteristics such as pinholes, in order to offer new readings about the manuscripts and their relationships to one another.\r\n\r\nDespite the integrated guide’s utility, however, it remains an under-utilized resource. Indeed, one of our challenges has been how to make sure people find the content and tools most useful for their research questions. Perhaps a downside of bringing together so much material in one place is that doing so can inadvertently re-bury material (in some places, the organizational hierarchy of the <em>Archive</em> is fairly flat or one-dimensional, and in others, it is quite structured). It is hard to get a sense of the magnitude of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> at a glance. The more we enrich the site, the more challenging it becomes to keep the interface simple, straightforward, intuitive, and sufficiently informative.\r\n\r\nBooks are sometimes more convenient in various ways. The failure of a server does not make individual volumes of the <em>Collected Writings</em> temporarily disappear. For most practical purposes, the <em>Collected Writings</em> as a resource stays stable (and carries all the advantages and disadvantages of that condition). Print can rely on nicely developed interface and design that evolved over centuries, but digital conventions are still relatively young and therefore sometimes neither clear nor aesthetically pleasing.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Price 3','A comparison of the Whitman Archive to its print predecessor, The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. ','inherit','open','open','','111-revision-21','','','2012-10-15 20:51:05','2012-10-15 20:51:05','',111,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/111-revision-21/',0,'revision','',0),(98,1,'2011-01-05 09:53:10','2011-01-05 09:53:10','<span class=\"question\">Question#1: What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</span>\r\n\r\nThere are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\r\n\r\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do.  For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\r\n\r\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited.  Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.','Mark A. Greene Director, American Heritage Center -- University of Wyoming Past President -- Society of American Archivists ','','inherit','open','open','','83-revision-5','','','2011-01-05 09:53:10','2011-01-05 09:53:10','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(101,1,'2011-01-05 10:39:46','2011-01-05 10:39:46','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\r\n\r\nThe weaknesses I have noticed in the <em>Archive</em> are not unique to this site.  One problem is the site’s misunderstanding—and thus its improper assertion—of copyrights.[ref]I am a founding member of the Society of American Archivists’ Intellectual Property Working Group.[/ref] Specifically the site asserts the existence of copyright in the transcripts and facsimiles and more broadly in Whitman’s writings—because transcripts and facsimiles are “slavish copies” neither is entitled to copyright protection;[ref]The term is from the U.S. Second District Court of New York’s decision in <em>Bridgeman Art Library Ltd v. Corel Corporation</em>, 1998.[/ref]published or unpublished anything written by Whitman is in the public domain.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/conditions.html\">Conditions of Use</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.  Unpublished works are public domain for authors deceased prior to 1940; published works for everything published prior to 1923.  For an authoritative source, see Peter Hirtle, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States: 1 January 2010,” online at <a href=\"http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm\">http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm</a>.[/ref] Only original contributions of editors are copyrightable at this late date.[ref]Such mistakes are not unique to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, certainly.  Copyright statements for the <em>In the Valley of the Shadow</em> Civil War project (<a href=\"http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html\">http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/usingvalley/copyright.html</a>) and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition</em> site (<a href=\"http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl\">http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.privacy.xml&amp;_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl</a>) are much more egregious.[/ref] What distresses me about the inaccuracies is they suggest that there are limits to use of the main site content by researchers—notwithstanding frequent assertions that the purpose of the archive is “to make Whitman\'s vast work electronically accessible” to all.[ref]Katherine L. Walter and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00001.html\">\"An Online Guide to Walt Whitman\'s Dispersed Manuscripts,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] Making the archive accessible but incorrectly claiming limitations on actual use is paradoxical at best.\r\n\r\nThere are other issues causing me unease, for example the inadequacy of site use data.  The site does not regularly report use statistics, and what statistics it does provide—average daily hits in 2007[ref]Ed Folsom, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html\">\"Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2007).[/ref]--are of dubious value even when current.[ref]Google Analytics: “the number of hits a website receives is not a valid popularity gauge, but rather is an indication of server use and loading” (<a href=\"http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026\">http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=33026</a>). Better measures are unique visitors or page views, coupled with visits’ duration.[/ref] In addition there is little similar data at similar websites to compare to (though to their credit one of the site editors did gather some parallel data in 2008).[ref]The data, from the <em>Willa Cather Archive</em> and the <em>Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,</em> is<em> </em>presented in Kenneth M. Price,<strong> </strong><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00267.html\">\"Electronic Scholarly Editions,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2008).[/ref] Thus this is an endemic weakness of major “archive” sites, a weakness related to a broader disinterest in the economics and sustainability of such sites.[ref]And of bricks and mortar archival operations, though this is beginning to change, as suggested by the questions—“Does the level of onsite use of special collections justify the resources being expended? What are the most appropriate measures by which to evaluate use?”—in Jackie M. Dooley and Katherine Luce, <em>Taking Our Pulse: The OCLC Research Survey of Special Collections and Archives</em> (OCLC, 2010), 34-36, online at <a href=\"http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf\">http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf</a>.[/ref] The greater viability of websites such as <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> is ultimately the $64,000 question and the focus of my essay for Part II of this roundtable.','Mark A. Greene, Question #2 Response','The weaknesses I have noticed in the Archive are not unique to this site.  One problem is the site’s misunderstanding—and thus its improper assertion—of copyrights. Specifically the site asserts the existence of copyright in the transcripts and facsimiles and more broadly in Whitman’s writings—because transcripts and facsimiles are “slavish copies” neither is entitled to copyright protection;','inherit','open','open','','88-revision-4','','','2011-01-05 10:39:46','2011-01-05 10:39:46','',88,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/88-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(99,1,'2011-01-05 10:41:02','2011-01-05 10:41:02','<span class=\"question\">Question#1: What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</span>\r\n\r\nThere are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\r\n\r\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do.  For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\r\n\r\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited.  Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.','Mark A. Greene, Question #1 Response','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain...','inherit','open','open','','83-revision-6','','','2011-01-05 10:41:02','2011-01-05 10:41:02','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(100,1,'2011-01-05 10:41:30','2011-01-05 10:41:30','<strong>What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain; c) producing an edited “publication” of Whitman’s papers in such a manner that researchers gain access to gradually increasing content rather than having to wait until the entirety of a printed volume is produced; d) “free” access from anywhere, rather than the purchase or travel expense to use a print edition or to visit various repositories.\r\n\r\nSome of the less obvious strong points can be uncovered only by reading the “About the Archive” sections exhaustively, something I suspect relatively few site visitors do.  For example, in Matt Cohen’s “Transgenic Deformation: Literary Translation and the Digital Archive” (2006),<strong> </strong>the author identifies a subtle but important parallel between the increasing understanding within the archival profession that archivists’ work can no longer pretend to be objective, neutral, and invisible and the necessity from an editorial standpoint of “articulating stylesheets and XML markup [to users]…. In turn, translation seems to demand that archives explain their interface designs along with their markup strategies.”[ref]From The Walt Whitman Archive website (hereafter TWWA), <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00165.html</a>. For those not familiar with the parallel archival concerns, particularly as they relate to arrangement, description, and cataloging, please see Michelle Light and Tom Hyry: “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid,” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 216-230.[/ref]\r\n\r\nCohen’s article also represents a broader strong point of the archive, which is the extensive “about” section, including more effort at self-analysis, elucidation of goals and values, lessons learned and challenges faced than the vast majority of other sites I’ve visited.  Moreover, in the “Articles and Interviews” subsection the pieces contain an admirable blend of technical discussions,[ref]For example, Brett Barney and Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00006.html\">\"\'What I Assume You Shall Assume\': The <em>Whitman Archive</em> and the Challenge of Integrating Different Open Standards,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2004).[/ref] more traditional scholarship, [ref]For example, Geoffrey Saunders Schramm, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00007.html\">\"Whitman\'s Lifelong Endeavor: <em>Leaves of Grass</em> at 150,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2005).[/ref] and what I think of as philosophical musings.[ref]For example, Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00346.html\">\"Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What\'s in a Name?</a>” <em>TWWA</em> (2009).[/ref]The simple fact that there are 12 years worth of articles and interviews relating to the archive gives a glimpse into the evolution of technology, priorities, and philosophies.[ref]Compare, for example, the Cohen article already cited to an earlier analysis of textual markup in the <em>Archive</em>, Brett Barney, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00002.html\">\"\'Each Part and Tag of Me is a Miracle\': Reflections after Tagging the 1867 <em>Leaves of Grass,</em>\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref] This relatively rich context to the project and the archive is increasingly necessary, I believe, not only because of the increasing imperative for archivists, particularly, to make their work transparent to their users, but also to spread the value of such projects as far beyond the particular scholarly community being served as possible.','Mark A. Greene, Question #1 Response','There are some fascinating strengths of this archive behind or beyond its more obvious assets.  The more obvious include:  a) bringing together in one “place” historical sources whose originals are widely scattered geographically; b) providing scans of sufficient density and size to permit scholars to examine at least some aspects of the original paper and photographic emulsion, a degree of quality that most digital archives do not have sufficient wherewithal to capture and maintain...','inherit','open','open','','83-revision-7','','','2011-01-05 10:41:30','2011-01-05 10:41:30','',83,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/83-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(102,1,'2011-01-05 10:39:05','2011-01-05 10:39:05','<strong>What about the digital form – as opposed to working with the materials in analog form, for example – works well for you, and what does not? How does this site\'s digital form contribute to the archive’s strengths and weaknesses? </strong>\r\n\r\nThe digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals.  The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles,[ref]Scanning requirements are in “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/technical_summary.html\">Technical Summary</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying.  For example, project transcribers can apparently discern\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>ink blots, smudges, and stray pen marks;</li>\r\n	<li>pin holes;</li>\r\n	<li>embossing;</li>\r\n	<li>variations in ink, pencil, or paper;</li>\r\n	<li>distinctions between single and multiple overstrikes[ref]From “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/mediawiki/index.php/Whitman_Encoding_Guidelines#What_Not_to_Encode\">5.9.1 What Not to Encode</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>.[/ref]</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nWhile these are “what not to encode,” they denote the expectation that facsimiles supplied to the transcribers are capable of producing such details.  As an extra measure of quality, “project staff <em>examine each digital image</em> [when creating JPEGs from original TIFF files] <em>cleaned and cropped</em> for web delivery.”[ref]“Technical Summary,” emphases added.[/ref] The intricate encoding guidelines themselves are also part of making high quality facsimiles accessible.\r\n\r\nThe opportunity cost of demanding extremely high standards encompasses both a slow pace of making facsimiles accessible to users and the ability to create a complete archive of Whitman material—this latter price due to the inevitable (though not supportable) decision by some repositories to decline participation if it requires public accessibility to such high quality scans.[ref]See “<a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/history.html\">History of the Project</a>,” <em>TWWA</em>, for brief discussion of some libraries’ requirement to limit user access to 72 dpi facsimiles.[/ref] There is nothing inherently logical about sacrificing a complete collection for highest-quality facsimiles.  Nor is there innate reason for choosing quality over quantity, particularly since one can structure a project whereby “inferior” facsimiles are placed online relatively quickly while higher-quality facsimiles are posted, gradually, later.  The question of whether (and which) users are best served by large quantity rather than high quality is one accurately answered only by asking users themselves.  Surveys or focus groups for gathering user input have not been employed by <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> it appears—but neither have they been used by the vast majority of projects and repositories creating online collections.\r\n\r\nFor a decade now I have been actively involved in projects to increase the quantity of archival material accessible to users at the expense of traditional notions of quality.  What began as an effort to speed processing of large modern manuscript (hidden) collections has evolved into jeremiads on trading speed for precision in most other aspects of archives administration as well—including the creation, description, and mounting of digital facsimiles online.[ref]See, particularly, Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process:  Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” <em>American Archivist</em>, 68:2 (Fall/Winter 2005), 208-263 and Mark A. Greene, “MPLP:  It’s Not Just for Processing Anymore,” <em>American Archivist</em> 73:1 (Spring/Summer 2010), 175-203.[/ref] In some cases, including processing and digitization, there is direct evidence that some users prefer “more” over “better” at a ratio of about two-to-one.  Far more research is required, certainly, and we should never assume that what holds true for one project/repository and its audience holds equally true for all.  But we should certainly be more anxious to determine the answers than we have been heretofore.','Mark A. Greene, Question #3 Response','The digital form highlights a question faced by every project or repository working to build online digital collections from analog originals.  The digital form permits creation of extremely high density and equally high quality facsimiles,making it possible to determine physical characteristics of the original impossible to consider during the era of microfilm or photocopying.  For example, project transcribers can apparently discern...','inherit','open','open','','90-revision-4','','','2011-01-05 10:39:05','2011-01-05 10:39:05','',90,'http://archivejournal.net/journal/2011/01/90-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(104,4,'2011-01-05 12:00:19','2011-01-05 12:00:19','I give a great credit to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his.\r\n<blockquote>[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum. … When users visit a deep scholarly archive on the web they are experiencing the (mostly real) benefit of displaced costs. Instead of money being spent by the user at the point of contact, money is spent elsewhere along the line: by universities in the form of faculty time, equipment, graduate student assistance, and internal grants; by external funding agencies; and, in our case, curiously, by more than one publisher. … We might ask: Is what the Whitman archive has done a sustainable model for the production of other full-scale scholarly editions on the web? We have been fortunate with grants, publishers, libraries, and generous universities. But if it requires such a constellation of good fortune to produce an electronic scholarly edition, do we have a sound economic model in place? As the questions imply, I don\'t think we do.[ref]Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00004.html\">\"Dollars and Sense in Collaborative Digital Scholarship: The Example of the <em>Walt Whitman Hypertext Archive</em>,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref]</blockquote>\r\nYet for all his candor, and the importance of that candor, he does not take the next (and even more difficult) step of analyzing the project’s benefits as well as its costs. Saying such an online archival endeavor is not sustainable is, in part, to say it does not (cannot, I will suggest) provide sufficient benefits to sustain continuing such costs. For me this is part of a larger question about how and why we allocate archival resources. I have no particular bone to pick with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>; I have raised similar concerns about the disproportionate staff and monetary resources devoted by bricks and mortar repositories to literary collections as a genre, congressional papers as a genre,[ref]Mark A. Greene, \"Appraisal of Congressional Papers at the Minnesota Historical Society: A Case Study,\" <em>Archival Issues</em> 19:1 (1994), 31-44.<em> </em>Republished in <em>An American Political Archives Reader,</em> Karen Dawley Paul , Glenn R Gray , and L. Rebecca Johnson Melvin eds. (Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009), 181-96.[/ref] university records as a genre, state/county/local court records as a genre, and general store records as a genre[ref]Mark A. Greene, “From Village Smithy to Superior Vacuum Technology: Modern Small Business Records and the Collecting Repository,” <em>Archival Issues</em> 23:1 (1998), 41-58.[/ref]—all categories of records I believe are represented disproportionately in repositories and given disproportionate attention by archivists.\r\n\r\nAn argument that resource expenditure is disproportionate requires some comparison. As my then colleague at the Minnesota Historical Society wrote in 1998,\r\n<blockquote>while politics is an important component of Minnesota history, it is at least arguable that its importance is not so great as the resources that the Society has devoted to documenting it. Neither the stack space nor the staff time is sufficient to swallow Congressional collections whole and still be able appropriately to document business, recreation, family life, etc. for Minnesota. We had to ask: ‘Do we really need 116 feet of material to document Congressman Tom Hagedorn’s eight years in office when we keep 110 feet for nearly seventy years of the St. Paul Area United Way?’[ref]Todd J. Daniels-Howell, “Reappraisal of Congressional Records at the Minnesota Historical Society,” <em>Archival Issues </em>23:1 (1998), 36.[/ref]</blockquote>\r\nThis was hardly a precise comparison, to be sure, but it was an early attempt to ask archivists to consider the theretofore reflexive resource allocation required to document congressional service to the nth degree compared to both the opportunity costs and the relative benefit (to a repository’s users) of shifting resources to other acquisition, processing, and preservation goals. It is not that Hagedorn’s congressional tenure was value-<em>less</em> nor that the United Way’s records were objectively more valuable, only that we had never before considered the relative costs and benefits.\r\n\r\nSuch comparison is no easy matter, granted. It might be abstractly valid to ask whether it is a good allocation of resources to develop an exhaustive online archives for Walt Whitman when there are not such efforts underway for, say, Theodore Roosevelt,[ref]At least so far as I can discover, though I did not perform a truly exhaustive search.[/ref] but the fact is we have no mechanism to determine, in any way that is even vaguely acceptable on a wide scale, whether one historical figure is more “deserving” of such a site than another. And even if we did, we don’t have a mechanism for ensuring that the more deserving figure would automatically generate the structure necessary to solicit and manage the resources that might then be available. And if we succeeded in identifying such mechanisms there would still loom the matter of judging relative quantity and quality of use of the sites—use being, I believe, the “end of all archival effort.”[ref]Theodore R. Schellenberg, <em>The Management of Archives</em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 108. I have pursued the idea of the centrality of use to archival work most extensively in “’The Surest Proof’: The Use of Business Records and Implications for Appraisal,” <em>Archivaria</em> 45 (Spring 1998), 127-69 and later in Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process.”[/ref]\r\n\r\nSo is this a purely rhetorical exercise? I don’t think so. As difficult as these questions are to answer with precision, they remain necessary questions and there are pieces of answers available once we start asking. My plea is that we do start asking, that we do start expecting to define quantitative and qualitative measure of the costs and benefits of such projects and, by extension, of our bricks and mortar archival endeavors as well. Not only do I think we owe it to our constituents and funders, I also believe it will increasingly be demanded by our administrators.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Greene 4','I give a great credit to The Walt Whitman Archive co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his. \"[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum.\"','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-greene-4','','','2012-10-29 19:29:20','2012-10-29 19:29:20','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=104',106,'post','',3),(105,1,'2011-01-05 12:12:09','2011-01-05 12:12:09','I give a great credit to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his.\n<blockquote>[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum. … When users visit a deep scholarly archive on the web they are experiencing the (mostly real) benefit of displaced costs. Instead of money being spent by the user at the point of contact, money is spent elsewhere along the line: by universities in the form of faculty time, equipment, graduate student assistance, and internal grants; by external funding agencies; and, in our case, curiously, by more than one publisher. …  We might ask: Is what the Whitman archive has done a sustainable model for the production of other full-scale scholarly editions on the web? We have been fortunate with grants, publishers, libraries, and generous universities. But if it requires such a constellation of good fortune to produce an electronic scholarly edition, do we have a sound economic model in place? As the questions imply, I don\'t think we do.[ref]Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00004.html\">\"Dollars and Sense in Collaborative Digital Scholarship: The Example of the <em>Walt Whitman Hypertext Archive</em>,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref]</blockquote>\nYet for all his candor, and the importance of that candor, he does not take the next (and even more difficult) step of analyzing the project’s benefits as well as its costs.  Saying such an online archival endeavor is not sustainable is, in part, to say it does not (cannot, I will suggest) provide sufficient benefits to sustain continuing such costs.  For me this is part of a larger question about how and why we allocate archival resources.  I have no particular bone to pick with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>; I have raised similar concerns about the disproportionate staff and monetary resources devoted by bricks and mortar repositories to literary collections as a genre, congressional papers as a genre,[ref]Mark A. Greene, \"Appraisal of Congressional Papers at the Minnesota Historical Society:  A Case Study,\" <em>Archival Issues</em> 19:1 (1994), 31-44.<em> </em>Republished in <em>An American Political Archives Reader,</em> Karen Dawley Paul , Glenn R Gray , and L. Rebecca Johnson Melvin eds. (Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009), 181-96.[/ref] university records as a genre, state/county/local court records as a genre, and general store records as a genre[ref]Mark A. Greene, “From Village Smithy to Superior Vacuum Technology:  Modern Small Business Records and the Collecting Repository,” <em>Archival Issues</em> 23:1 (1998), 41-58.[/ref]—all categories of records I believe are represented disproportionately in repositories and given disproportionate attention by archivists.\n\nAn argument that resource expenditure is disproportionate requires some comparison.  As my then colleague at the Minnesota Historical Society wrote in 1998,\n<blockquote>while politics is an important component of Minnesota history, it is at least arguable that its importance is not so great as the resources that the Society has devoted to documenting it.  Neither the stack space nor the staff time is sufficient to swallow Congressional collections whole and still be able appropriately to document business, recreation, family life, etc. for Minnesota.  We had to ask:  ‘Do we really need 116 feet of material to document Congressman Tom Hagedorn’s eight years in office when we keep 110 feet for nearly seventy years of the St. Paul Area United Way?’[ref]Todd J. Daniels-Howell, “Reappraisal of Congressional Records at the Minnesota Historical Society,” <em>Archival Issues </em>23:1 (1998), 36.[/ref]</blockquote>\nThis was hardly a precise comparison, to be sure, but it was an early attempt to ask archivists to consider the theretofore reflexive resource allocation required to document congressional service to the nth degree compared to both the opportunity costs and the relative benefit (to a repository’s users) of shifting resources to other acquisition, processing, and preservation goals.  It is not that Hagedorn’s congressional tenure was value-<em>less</em> nor that the United Way’s records were objectively more valuable, only that we had never before considered the relative costs and benefits.\n\nSuch comparison is no easy matter, granted.  It might be abstractly valid to ask whether it is a good allocation of resources to develop an exhaustive online archives for Walt Whitman when there are not such efforts underway for, say, Theodore Roosevelt,[ref]At least so far as I can discover, though I did not perform a truly exhaustive search.[/ref] but the fact is we have no mechanism to determine, in any way that is even vaguely acceptable on a wide scale, whether one historical figure is more “deserving” of such a site than another.  And even if we did, we don’t have a mechanism for ensuring that the more deserving figure would automatically generate the structure necessary to solicit and manage the resources that might then be available.  And if we succeeded in identifying such mechanisms there would still loom the matter of judging relative quantity and quality of use of the sites—use being, I believe, the “end of all archival effort.”[ref]Theodore R. Schellenberg, <em>The Management of Archives</em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 108. I have pursued the idea of the centrality of use to archival work most extensively in “’The Surest Proof’:  The Use of Business Records and Implications for Appraisal,” <em>Archivaria</em> 45 (Spring 1998), 127-69 and later in Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process.”[/ref]\n\nSo is this a purely rhetorical exercise?  I don’t think so.  As difficult as these questions are to answer with precision, they remain necessary questions and there are pieces of answers available once we start asking.  My plea is that we do start asking, that we do start expecting to define quantitative and qualitative measure of the costs and benefits of such projects and, by extension, of our bricks and mortar archival endeavors as well.  Not only do I think we owe it to our constituents and funders, I also believe it will increasingly be demanded by our administrators.','Mark A. Greene, Part II: Essay','','inherit','open','open','','104-revision','','','2011-01-05 12:12:09','2011-01-05 12:12:09','',104,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/104-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(106,1,'2011-02-11 21:53:02','2011-02-11 21:53:02','I give a great credit to <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em> co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his.\n<blockquote>[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum. … When users visit a deep scholarly archive on the web they are experiencing the (mostly real) benefit of displaced costs. Instead of money being spent by the user at the point of contact, money is spent elsewhere along the line: by universities in the form of faculty time, equipment, graduate student assistance, and internal grants; by external funding agencies; and, in our case, curiously, by more than one publisher. …  We might ask: Is what the Whitman archive has done a sustainable model for the production of other full-scale scholarly editions on the web? We have been fortunate with grants, publishers, libraries, and generous universities. But if it requires such a constellation of good fortune to produce an electronic scholarly edition, do we have a sound economic model in place? As the questions imply, I don\'t think we do.[ref]Kenneth M. Price, <a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00004.html\">\"Dollars and Sense in Collaborative Digital Scholarship: The Example of the <em>Walt Whitman Hypertext Archive</em>,\"</a> <em>TWWA</em> (2001).[/ref]</blockquote>\nYet for all his candor, and the importance of that candor, he does not take the next (and even more difficult) step of analyzing the project’s benefits as well as its costs.  Saying such an online archival endeavor is not sustainable is, in part, to say it does not (cannot, I will suggest) provide sufficient benefits to sustain continuing such costs.  For me this is part of a larger question about how and why we allocate archival resources.  I have no particular bone to pick with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>; I have raised similar concerns about the disproportionate staff and monetary resources devoted by bricks and mortar repositories to literary collections as a genre, congressional papers as a genre,[ref]Mark A. Greene, \"Appraisal of Congressional Papers at the Minnesota Historical Society:  A Case Study,\" <em>Archival Issues</em> 19:1 (1994), 31-44.<em> </em>Republished in <em>An American Political Archives Reader,</em> Karen Dawley Paul , Glenn R Gray , and L. Rebecca Johnson Melvin eds. (Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009), 181-96.[/ref] university records as a genre, state/county/local court records as a genre, and general store records as a genre[ref]Mark A. Greene, “From Village Smithy to Superior Vacuum Technology:  Modern Small Business Records and the Collecting Repository,” <em>Archival Issues</em> 23:1 (1998), 41-58.[/ref]—all categories of records I believe are represented disproportionately in repositories and given disproportionate attention by archivists.\n\nAn argument that resource expenditure is disproportionate requires some comparison.  As my then colleague at the Minnesota Historical Society wrote in 1998,\n<blockquote>while politics is an important component of Minnesota history, it is at least arguable that its importance is not so great as the resources that the Society has devoted to documenting it.  Neither the stack space nor the staff time is sufficient to swallow Congressional collections whole and still be able appropriately to document business, recreation, family life, etc. for Minnesota.  We had to ask:  ‘Do we really need 116 feet of material to document Congressman Tom Hagedorn’s eight years in office when we keep 110 feet for nearly seventy years of the St. Paul Area United Way?’[ref]Todd J. Daniels-Howell, “Reappraisal of Congressional Records at the Minnesota Historical Society,” <em>Archival Issues </em>23:1 (1998), 36.[/ref]</blockquote>\nThis was hardly a precise comparison, to be sure, but it was an early attempt to ask archivists to consider the theretofore reflexive resource allocation required to document congressional service to the nth degree compared to both the opportunity costs and the relative benefit (to a repository’s users) of shifting resources to other acquisition, processing, and preservation goals.  It is not that Hagedorn’s congressional tenure was value-<em>less</em> nor that the United Way’s records were objectively more valuable, only that we had never before considered the relative costs and benefits.\n\nSuch comparison is no easy matter, granted.  It might be abstractly valid to ask whether it is a good allocation of resources to develop an exhaustive online archives for Walt Whitman when there are not such efforts underway for, say, Theodore Roosevelt,[ref]At least so far as I can discover, though I did not perform a truly exhaustive search.[/ref] but the fact is we have no mechanism to determine, in any way that is even vaguely acceptable on a wide scale, whether one historical figure is more “deserving” of such a site than another.  And even if we did, we don’t have a mechanism for ensuring that the more deserving figure would automatically generate the structure necessary to solicit and manage the resources that might then be available.  And if we succeeded in identifying such mechanisms there would still loom the matter of judging relative quantity and quality of use of the sites—use being, I believe, the “end of all archival effort.”[ref]Theodore R. Schellenberg, <em>The Management of Archives</em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 108. I have pursued the idea of the centrality of use to archival work most extensively in “’The Surest Proof’:  The Use of Business Records and Implications for Appraisal,” <em>Archivaria</em> 45 (Spring 1998), 127-69 and later in Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process.”[/ref]\n\nSo is this a purely rhetorical exercise?  I don’t think so.  As difficult as these questions are to answer with precision, they remain necessary questions and there are pieces of answers available once we start asking.  My plea is that we do start asking, that we do start expecting to define quantitative and qualitative measure of the costs and benefits of such projects and, by extension, of our bricks and mortar archival endeavors as well.  Not only do I think we owe it to our constituents and funders, I also believe it will increasingly be demanded by our administrators.','Mark A. Greene, Part II: Essay','I give a great credit to The Walt Whitman Archive co-director Kenneth Price for taking a critical look at the costs associated with an endeavor such as his. \"[M]any people, myself included, have described our site as free, yet a considerable amount of resources continue to go into its making. I want to explore that conundrum.\"','inherit','open','open','','104-autosave','','','2011-02-11 21:53:02','2011-02-11 21:53:02','',104,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/104-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(109,7,'2011-01-21 17:00:13','2011-01-21 17:00:13','Some weaknesses of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> are a function of its stage of development. We haven’t had time to accomplish all that we have envisaged. For example, we would like to provide a good introduction to the site, so that users at various levels of knowledge—and our users <em>are</em> quite varied—can get oriented quickly when they first encounter the site. In addition, given our scope, it is not surprising that many content areas are underdeveloped: we provide all known contemporary reviews of Whitman’s writings, but a person could legitimately ask why have we not, then, provided other essays about Whitman from the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, all out of copyright, which might shed even more light on Whitman than do these reviews. Only in the last few months have we made available any of Whitman’s prose, and we have done little thus far with Whitman’s journalism. We value his journalism and have made plans for editing it, but we have not had time yet to see significant results in this area.\r\n\r\nCurrently, the <em>Whitman Archive</em> also lacks sufficient integration of material across the site. For example, if Horace Traubel mentions a specific Whitman poem in <em>With Walt Whitman in Camden</em>, we should offer ready access to that particular version (and possibly also other versions of the poem). We could also link the poem to commentary, including contemporary reviews, books from the University of Iowa Press Whitman series, and articles from the full run of the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>. Individual essays from <em>WWQR</em> currently are linked from citations in the criticism bibliography, and we hope to integrate more fully this journal of record for Whitman studies with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>. This more complete integration of content, like most of the changes I would suggest for the <em>Archive</em>, will be undertaken as time allows.\r\n\r\nWe are also currently investigating the application of Web 2.0 features and functionality for the <em>Archive</em>, in hopes of enabling collaboration and interaction with users of the <em>Archive</em>.<em> </em>Ideally, we would like to harness the enthusiasm and knowledge of our users. As a first step in this direction, <em>Archive </em>staff at the University of Texas at Austin are exploring user accounts for the <em>Archive</em>, accounts which would allow users both to contribute to the <em>Archive</em> as well as to create their own collections of materials. Early work is also under way on a database designed to track the what, when, and how of Whitman’s reading—that is, what did Whitman read, when did he read it, and how do we know that he read a particular text? We believe that our user community could help us populate the database. Similar resources could be integrated into the <em>Whitman Archive</em> and include user-generated information: accounts of Whitman appearances in films, television shows, advertisements, and novels, for example. Users might also participate in attribution studies. Whitman is known to have contributed to the <em>Armory Square Hospital Gazette </em>during the Civil War<em>. </em>No complete run of the newspaper exists, however, and no pieces bear Whitman’s signature. User-collaborators could help us track down scattered issues of this rare paper as well as generate a lively and informative debate about the authorship of unattributed essays in the paper. As a scholarly site, we must strike the right balance between openness and scholarly rigor, and a fundamental question for us is how to encourage participation while insuring that quality control checks remain in place. We also hope to allow users with accounts to work with the texts and data of the <em>Whitman Archive </em>in order to explore their own interpretations. Sophisticated users might access our XML and XSLT files in a work area where they could alter the encoding and stylesheets in order to pursue particular interpretive goals.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Price 2','Some weaknesses of the Whitman Archive are a function of its stage of development.  We haven’t had time to accomplish all that we have envisaged.  For example, we would like to provide a good introduction to the site, so that users at various levels of knowledge—and our users are quite varied—can get oriented quickly when they first encounter the site. In addition, given our scope, it is not surprising that many content areas...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-price-2','','','2012-10-29 19:26:56','2012-10-29 19:26:56','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=109',100,'post','',3),(444,13,'2011-03-05 01:20:42','2011-03-05 01:20:42','<strong>What are the strengths of this archive? How would you use or refer to this site in your own work? </strong>\r\n\r\nAt this time, the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> is the single most extensive resource for the study of Whitman, and it<em> </em>has progressed steadily toward its primary goal: “to make Whitman\'s vast work, for the first time, easily and conveniently accessible to scholars, students, and general readers.” We take an expansive view of what is relevant “Whitman” material in a digital thematic research collection,[ref]Carole L. Palmer, \"Thematic Research Collections,\" In <em>A Companion to Digital Humanities</em> (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 348-65.[/ref] so we include both Whitman-authored pieces and incoming correspondence, reviews of his writings, selected recent criticism, and other materials not usually included in \"collected works.\" We aspire to produce the richest possible resource for the study of his writings, life, and reception. Our annotated bibliography, the logical starting point for scholarly work on the poet, includes all known critical writings about Whitman from 1839 to the present day—it comprises over 14,000 entries and continues to grow.  The site receives a great deal of traffic: in a typical recent month (February 2010) we had nearly 39,000 visits to our site, more than 30,000 of which were by unique visitors.\r\n\r\nAs a project co-director, I coordinate the ongoing work necessary to build it. (Ed Folsom and I work closely with Elizabeth Lorang, the current project manager, in this capacity.) The site is less <em>used</em> in my work than it regularly <em>constitutes</em> a major part of my work as a scholar. At times, though, I employ the site in much the same manner as other literary scholars, albeit with greater knowledge of the site’s strengths and limitations and with awareness of material now in the pipeline that isn’t currently available to the public. As a literary critic, I appreciate what the <em>Whitman Archive</em> makes newly possible. For example, those of us writing about Whitman can now trace the development of his poetry across multiple versions—in isolated manuscript drafts; in notebooks; in periodical printings; and in various book publications—in a way that was all but unimaginable before the advent of the Web.  His manuscripts are dispersed at nearly one hundred repositories around the world.  In some cases, what was once a single manuscript has become separated into parts, with different sections of the manuscript held in repositories separated by great distance.  Such manuscripts can now be virtually reunited.\r\n\r\nThe <em>Whitman Archive</em> has become fundamental to criticism, but citation of the <em>Archive</em> lags behind its actual use. A recent study by Lisa Spiro and Jane Segal indicates that many people use major American literature web sites, including the <em>Whitman Archive</em>, only to then cite print sources.[ref]“The Impact of Digital Resources on Humanities Research” available at\r\nhttp://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/about/projects/the-impact-of-digital-resources-on-humanities-research\r\n[/ref] This ill-conceived practice needs to change in order for digital humanities to get its due. To enable people to reference individual parts of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> more easily, all <em>Archive </em>pages will soon include additional metadata for use with Zotero and other reference management software<em>.</em> In my own scholarly practice, I have cited the <em>Whitman Archive</em> many times, and when Susan Belasco, Ed Folsom, and I compiled the collection <em>Leaves of Grass: The Sesquicentennial Essays</em> (University of Nebraska Press, 2007), we advised all contributors to cite the <em>Whitman Archive</em> when referring to Whitman texts.','Kenneth M. Price, Question #1','At this time, the Walt Whitman Archive is the single most extensive resource for the study of Whitman, and it has progressed steadily toward its primary goal: “to make Whitman\'s vast work, for the first time, easily and conveniently accessible to scholars, students, and general readers.” We take an expansive view of what is relevant “Whitman” material in a digital thematic research collection...','inherit','open','open','','107-revision-6','','','2011-03-05 01:20:42','2011-03-05 01:20:42','',107,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/03/107-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(108,1,'2011-01-21 16:58:01','2011-01-21 16:58:01','<strong>What are the strengths of this archive? How would you use or refer to this site in your own work? </strong>\n\nAt this time, the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> is the single most extensive resource for the study of Whitman, and it<em> </em>has progressed steadily toward its primary goal: “to make Whitman\'s vast work, for the first time, easily and conveniently accessible to scholars, students, and general readers.” We take an expansive view of what is relevant “Whitman” material in a digital thematic research collection,[ref]Carole L. Palmer, \"Thematic Research Collections,\" In <em>A Companion to Digital Humanities</em> (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 348-65.[/ref] so we include both Whitman-authored pieces and incoming correspondence, reviews of his writings, selected recent criticism, and other materials not usually included in \"collected works.\" We aspire to produce the richest possible resource for the study of his writings, life, and reception. Our annotated bibliography, the logical starting point for scholarly work on the poet, includes all known critical writings about Whitman from 1839 to the present day—it comprises over 14,000 entries and continues to grow.  The site receives a great deal of traffic: in a typical recent month (February 2010) we had nearly 39,000 visits to our site, more than 30,000 of which were by unique visitors.\n\nAs a project co-director, I coordinate the ongoing work necessary to build it. (Ed Folsom and I work closely with Elizabeth Lorang, the current project manager, in this capacity.) The site is less <em>used</em> in my work than it regularly <em>constitutes</em> a major part of my work as a scholar. At times, though, I employ the site in much the same manner as other literary scholars, albeit with greater knowledge of the site’s strengths and limitations and with awareness of material now in the pipeline that isn’t currently available to the public. As a literary critic, I appreciate what the <em>Whitman Archive</em> makes newly possible. For example, those of us writing about Whitman can now trace the development of his poetry across multiple versions—in isolated manuscript drafts; in notebooks; in periodical printings; and in various book publications—in a way that was all but unimaginable before the advent of the Web.  His manuscripts are dispersed at nearly one hundred repositories around the world.  In some cases, what was once a single manuscript has become separated into parts, with different sections of the manuscript held in repositories separated by great distance.  Such manuscripts can now be virtually reunited.\n\nThe <em>Whitman Archive</em> has become fundamental to criticism, but citation of the <em>Archive</em> lags behind its actual use. A recent study by Lisa Spiro and Jane Segal indicates that many people use major American literature web sites, including the <em>Whitman Archive</em>, only to then cite print sources.[ref][/ref] This ill-conceived practice needs to change in order for digital humanities to get its due. To enable people to reference individual parts of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> more easily, all <em>Archive </em>pages will soon include additional metadata for use with Zotero and other reference management software<em>.</em> In my own scholarly practice, I have cited the <em>Whitman Archive</em> many times, and when Susan Belasco, Ed Folsom, and I compiled the collection <em>Leaves of Grass: The Sesquicentennial Essays</em> (University of Nebraska Press, 2007), we advised all contributors to cite the <em>Whitman Archive</em> when referring to Whitman texts.\n\n<hr size=\"1\" /><a href=\"#_ednref\">[i]</a> Carole L. Palmer, \"Thematic Research Collections,\" In <em>A Companion to Digital Humanities</em> (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 348-65.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[ii]</a> “The Impact of Digital Resources on Humanities Research” available at\n\nhttp://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/about/projects/the-impact-of-digital-resources-on-humanities-research','Kenneth M. Price, Question #1 Response','','inherit','open','open','','107-revision','','','2011-01-21 16:58:01','2011-01-21 16:58:01','',107,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/107-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(110,1,'2011-01-21 17:00:07','2011-01-21 17:00:07','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\n\nSome weaknesses of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> are a function of its stage of development.  We haven’t had time to accomplish all that we have envisaged.  For example, we would like to provide a good introduction to the site, so that users at various levels of knowledge—and our users <em>are</em> quite varied—can get oriented quickly when they first encounter the site.  In addition, given our scope, it is not surprising that many content areas are underdeveloped: we provide all known contemporary reviews of Whitman’s writings, but a person could legitimately ask why have we not, then, provided other essays about Whitman from the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, all out of copyright, which might shed even more light on Whitman than do these reviews. Only in the last few months have we made available any of Whitman’s prose, and we have done little thus far with Whitman’s journalism.  We value his journalism and have made plans for editing it, but we have not had time yet to see significant results in this area.\n\nCurrently, the <em>Whitman Archive</em> also lacks sufficient integration of material across the site. For example, if Horace Traubel mentions a specific Whitman poem in <em>With Walt Whitman in Camden</em>, we should offer ready access to that particular version (and possibly also other versions of the poem). We could also link the poem to commentary, including contemporary reviews, books from the University of Iowa Press Whitman series, and articles from the full run of the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>. Individual essays from <em>WWQR</em> currently are linked from citations in the criticism bibliography, and we hope to integrate more fully this journal of record for Whitman studies with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>. This more complete integration of content, like most of the changes I would suggest for the <em>Archive</em>, will be undertaken as time allows.\n\nWe are also currently investigating the application of Web 2.0 features and functionality for the <em>Archive</em>, in hopes of enabling collaboration and interaction with users of the <em>Archive</em>.<em> </em>Ideally, we would like to harness the enthusiasm and knowledge of our users. As a first step in this direction, <em>Archive </em>staff at the University of Texas at Austin are exploring user accounts for the <em>Archive</em>, accounts which would allow users both to contribute to the <em>Archive</em> as well as to create their own collections of materials. Early work is also under way on a database designed to track the what, when, and how of Whitman’s reading—that is, what did Whitman read, when did he read it, and how do we know that he read a particular text? We believe that our user community could help us populate the database. Similar resources could be integrated into the <em>Whitman Archive</em> and include user-generated information: accounts of Whitman appearances in films, television shows, advertisements, and novels, for example. Users might also participate in attribution studies. Whitman is known to have contributed to the <em>Armory Square Hospital Gazette </em>during the Civil War<em>. </em>No complete run of the newspaper exists, however, and no pieces bear Whitman’s signature. User-collaborators could help us track down scattered issues of this rare paper as well as generate a lively and informative debate about the authorship of unattributed essays in the paper. As a scholarly site, we must strike the right balance between openness and scholarly rigor, and a fundamental question for us is how to encourage participation while insuring that quality control checks remain in place. We also hope to allow users with accounts to work with the texts and data of the <em>Whitman Archive </em>in order to explore their own interpretations. Sophisticated users might access our XML and XSLT files in a work area where they could alter the encoding and stylesheets in order to pursue particular interpretive goals.','Kenneth M. Price, Question #2 Response','','inherit','open','open','','109-revision','','','2011-01-21 17:00:07','2011-01-21 17:00:07','',109,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/109-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(111,7,'2011-01-21 17:01:47','2011-01-21 17:01:47','A comparison of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> to its print predecessor, <em>The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. For example, the poetry manuscripts and periodical printings of Whitman\'s poetry were never collected, and the long-promised journalism, projected to appear in six volumes, never appeared in the NYUP edition. Peter Lang eventually published two volumes of the journalism in 1998 and 2003, though these volumes cover only the period from 1834–1848, leaving Whitman\'s innumerable contributions to periodicals in the final forty-four years of his life still to be edited. The Peter Lang volumes are produced so as to replicate the appearance of the New York University Press edition, though the editors of that series (all now deceased) did not oversee their production. Arguably, the Peter Lang volumes constitute volumes 23 and 24 of the Collected Writings of Walt Whitman, and a 25th volume, treating recently discovered correspondence, edited by Ted Genoways, was published by University of Iowa Press in 2004.[/ref] helps to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of digital and analog forms. Despite the many achievements of the print volumes in the <em>Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>, this editorial project ultimately became quite chaotic. Whitman\'s outgoing correspondence, for example, has been the subject of editorial treatment since the 1960s, when Edwin Haviland Miller edited five volumes of Whitman’s correspondence. Miller arranged the volumes chronologically, and with the fifth volume, he published an addendum of sixty-five letters that he uncovered even as the first four volumes appeared. Although this addendum meant that some letters would always be out of order, the complications of working with this single addition or revision were not insurmountable. Nine years later, however, a sixth volume appeared, and it included one hundred additional letters, complicating the organization further. Then, in 1991, Miller published fifty new letters in the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>,<em> </em>and Ted Genoways published third and fourth supplements of nearly one hundred letters in the journal<em> </em>in 2000 and 2002. In 2004, the University of Iowa Press issued a seventh volume of Whitman\'s correspondence, which included all of Whitman\'s letters found since Miller\'s sixth volume. In the end, there were nearly as many supplements as the number of Miller\'s original volumes, and over the last six years, even more letters have surfaced. This one aspect of the <em>Collected Writings</em> illustrates how print editions can devolve into disorder, even when the initial aim is to bring order to the literary record. I am confident that after the <em>Whitman Archive</em> “finishes” work on the correspondence previously unknown or lost letters will surface somewhere. It is a great strength of the digital medium that when this happens, new material can be integrated seamlessly into the collection.\r\n\r\nIn a related way, our “Integrated Guide to Walt Whitman’s Poetry Manuscripts” aggregates facsimile images of all surviving drafts of Whitman’s poems regardless of their geographical dispersion. The digital images and integrated guide bring order to the manuscripts and, for most purposes, erase the need to travel in order to study the manuscripts. (Individual repositories may have labeled an item by its first line or its working title, but we have created an overarching virtual order for all repositories, and we have labeled each individual poetry manuscript with what we call a “work” identifier based on the title of the last published version of the manuscript.) The high quality color facsimiles available on the <em>Archive</em> offer significant advantages for the study of the manuscripts; the images can be manipulated in photo-editing software to help us decipher otherwise illegible handwriting or zoom in on features of the ink, paper, and other characteristics such as pinholes, in order to offer new readings about the manuscripts and their relationships to one another.\r\n\r\nDespite the integrated guide’s utility, however, it remains an under-utilized resource. Indeed, one of our challenges has been how to make sure people find the content and tools most useful for their research questions. Perhaps a downside of bringing together so much material in one place is that doing so can inadvertently re-bury material (in some places, the organizational hierarchy of the <em>Archive</em> is fairly flat or one-dimensional, and in others, it is quite structured). It is hard to get a sense of the magnitude of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> at a glance. The more we enrich the site, the more challenging it becomes to keep the interface simple, straightforward, intuitive, and sufficiently informative.\r\n\r\nBooks are sometimes more convenient in various ways. The failure of a server does not make individual volumes of the <em>Collected Writings</em> temporarily disappear. For most practical purposes, the <em>Collected Writings</em> as a resource stays stable (and carries all the advantages and disadvantages of that condition). Print can rely on nicely developed interface and design that evolved over centuries, but digital conventions are still relatively young and therefore sometimes neither clear nor aesthetically pleasing.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Price 3','A comparison of the Whitman Archive to its print predecessor, The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. ','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-price-3','','','2012-10-29 19:26:47','2012-10-29 19:26:47','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=111',101,'post','',4),(443,13,'2011-03-05 01:20:34','2011-03-05 01:20:34','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\r\n\r\nSome weaknesses of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> are a function of its stage of development.  We haven’t had time to accomplish all that we have envisaged.  For example, we would like to provide a good introduction to the site, so that users at various levels of knowledge—and our users <em>are</em> quite varied—can get oriented quickly when they first encounter the site.  In addition, given our scope, it is not surprising that many content areas are underdeveloped: we provide all known contemporary reviews of Whitman’s writings, but a person could legitimately ask why have we not, then, provided other essays about Whitman from the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, all out of copyright, which might shed even more light on Whitman than do these reviews. Only in the last few months have we made available any of Whitman’s prose, and we have done little thus far with Whitman’s journalism.  We value his journalism and have made plans for editing it, but we have not had time yet to see significant results in this area.\r\n\r\nCurrently, the <em>Whitman Archive</em> also lacks sufficient integration of material across the site. For example, if Horace Traubel mentions a specific Whitman poem in <em>With Walt Whitman in Camden</em>, we should offer ready access to that particular version (and possibly also other versions of the poem). We could also link the poem to commentary, including contemporary reviews, books from the University of Iowa Press Whitman series, and articles from the full run of the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>. Individual essays from <em>WWQR</em> currently are linked from citations in the criticism bibliography, and we hope to integrate more fully this journal of record for Whitman studies with the <em>Whitman Archive</em>. This more complete integration of content, like most of the changes I would suggest for the <em>Archive</em>, will be undertaken as time allows.\r\n\r\nWe are also currently investigating the application of Web 2.0 features and functionality for the <em>Archive</em>, in hopes of enabling collaboration and interaction with users of the <em>Archive</em>.<em> </em>Ideally, we would like to harness the enthusiasm and knowledge of our users. As a first step in this direction, <em>Archive </em>staff at the University of Texas at Austin are exploring user accounts for the <em>Archive</em>, accounts which would allow users both to contribute to the <em>Archive</em> as well as to create their own collections of materials. Early work is also under way on a database designed to track the what, when, and how of Whitman’s reading—that is, what did Whitman read, when did he read it, and how do we know that he read a particular text? We believe that our user community could help us populate the database. Similar resources could be integrated into the <em>Whitman Archive</em> and include user-generated information: accounts of Whitman appearances in films, television shows, advertisements, and novels, for example. Users might also participate in attribution studies. Whitman is known to have contributed to the <em>Armory Square Hospital Gazette </em>during the Civil War<em>. </em>No complete run of the newspaper exists, however, and no pieces bear Whitman’s signature. User-collaborators could help us track down scattered issues of this rare paper as well as generate a lively and informative debate about the authorship of unattributed essays in the paper. As a scholarly site, we must strike the right balance between openness and scholarly rigor, and a fundamental question for us is how to encourage participation while insuring that quality control checks remain in place. We also hope to allow users with accounts to work with the texts and data of the <em>Whitman Archive </em>in order to explore their own interpretations. Sophisticated users might access our XML and XSLT files in a work area where they could alter the encoding and stylesheets in order to pursue particular interpretive goals.','Kenneth M. Price, Question #2','Some weaknesses of the Whitman Archive are a function of its stage of development.  We haven’t had time to accomplish all that we have envisaged.  For example, we would like to provide a good introduction to the site, so that users at various levels of knowledge—and our users are quite varied—can get oriented quickly when they first encounter the site. In addition, given our scope, it is not surprising that many content areas...','inherit','open','open','','109-revision-6','','','2011-03-05 01:20:34','2011-03-05 01:20:34','',109,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/03/109-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(112,1,'2011-01-21 17:01:24','2011-01-21 17:01:24','<strong>What about the digital form – as opposed to working with the materials in analog form, for example  – works well for you, and what does not? How does this site\'s digital form contribute to the archive’s strengths and weaknesses?</strong>\n\nA comparison of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> to its print predecessor, <em>The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>,<a href=\"#_edn1\">[i]</a> helps to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of digital and analog forms. Despite the many achievements of the print volumes in the <em>Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>, this editorial project ultimately became quite chaotic. Whitman\'s outgoing correspondence, for example, has been the subject of editorial treatment since the 1960s, when Edwin Haviland Miller edited five volumes of Whitman’s correspondence. Miller arranged the volumes chronologically, and with the fifth volume, he published an addendum of sixty-five letters that he uncovered even as the first four volumes appeared. Although this addendum meant that some letters would always be out of order, the complications of working with this single addition or revision were not insurmountable. Nine years later, however, a sixth volume appeared, and it included one hundred additional letters, complicating the organization further. Then, in 1991, Miller published fifty new letters in the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>,<em> </em>and Ted Genoways published third and fourth supplements of nearly one hundred letters in the journal<em> </em>in 2000 and 2002. In 2004, the University of Iowa Press issued a seventh volume of Whitman\'s correspondence, which included all of Whitman\'s letters found since Miller\'s sixth volume. In the end, there were nearly as many supplements as the number of Miller\'s original volumes, and over the last six years, even more letters have surfaced. This one aspect of the <em>Collected Writings</em> illustrates how  print editions can devolve into disorder, even when the initial aim is to bring order to the literary record. I am confident that after the <em>Whitman Archive</em> “finishes” work on the correspondence previously unknown or lost letters will surface somewhere. It is a great strength of the digital medium that when this happens, new material can be integrated seamlessly into the collection.\n\nIn a related way, our “Integrated Guide to Walt Whitman’s Poetry Manuscripts” aggregates facsimile images of all surviving drafts of Whitman’s poems regardless of their geographical dispersion. The digital images and integrated guide bring order to the manuscripts and, for most purposes, erase the need to travel in order to study the manuscripts. (Individual repositories may have labeled an item by its first line or its working title, but we have created an overarching virtual order for all repositories, and we have labeled each individual poetry manuscript with what we call a “work” identifier based on the title of the last published version of the manuscript.) The high quality color facsimiles available on the <em>Archive</em> offer significant advantages for the study of the manuscripts; the images can be manipulated in photo-editing software to help us decipher otherwise illegible handwriting or zoom in on features of the ink, paper, and other characteristics such as pinholes, in order to offer new readings about the manuscripts and their relationships to one another.\n\nDespite the integrated guide’s utility, however, it remains an under-utilized resource. Indeed, one of our challenges has been how to make sure people find the content and tools most useful for their research questions. Perhaps a downside of bringing together so much material in one place is that doing so can inadvertently re-bury material (in some places, the organizational hierarchy of the <em>Archive</em> is fairly flat or one-dimensional, and in others, it is quite structured). It is hard to get a sense of the magnitude of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> at a glance. The more we enrich the site, the more challenging it becomes to keep the interface simple, straightforward, intuitive, and sufficiently informative.\n\nBooks are sometimes more convenient in various ways.  The failure of a server does not make individual volumes of the <em>Collected Writings</em> temporarily disappear. For most practical purposes, the <em>Collected Writings</em> as a resource stays stable (and carries all the advantages and disadvantages of that condition). Print can rely on nicely developed interface and design that evolved over centuries, but digital conventions are still relatively young and therefore sometimes neither clear nor aesthetically pleasing.\n\n<hr size=\"1\" /><a href=\"#_ednref\">[i]</a> When The New York University Press ceased publishing the <em>Collected Writings</em> in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. For example, the poetry manuscripts and periodical printings of Whitman\'s poetry were never collected, and the long-promised journalism, projected to appear in six volumes, never appeared in the NYUP edition. Peter Lang eventually published two volumes of the journalism in 1998 and 2003, though these volumes cover only the period from 1834–1848, leaving Whitman\'s innumerable contributions to periodicals in the final forty-four years of his life still to be edited. The Peter Lang volumes are produced so as to replicate the appearance of the New York University Press edition, though the editors of that series (all now deceased) did not oversee their production. Arguably, the Peter Lang volumes constitute volumes 23 and 24 of the <em>Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>, and a 25th volume, treating recently discovered correspondence, edited by Ted Genoways, was published by University of Iowa Press in 2004.','Kenneth M. Price, Question #3 Response','','inherit','open','open','','111-revision','','','2011-01-21 17:01:24','2011-01-21 17:01:24','',111,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/111-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(113,19,'2012-10-29 19:26:20','2012-10-29 19:26:20','A comparison of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> to its print predecessor, <em>The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. For example, the poetry manuscripts and periodical printings of Whitman\'s poetry were never collected, and the long-promised journalism, projected to appear in six volumes, never appeared in the NYUP edition. Peter Lang eventually published two volumes of the journalism in 1998 and 2003, though these volumes cover only the period from 1834–1848, leaving Whitman\'s innumerable contributions to periodicals in the final forty-four years of his life still to be edited. The Peter Lang volumes are produced so as to replicate the appearance of the New York University Press edition, though the editors of that series (all now deceased) did not oversee their production. Arguably, the Peter Lang volumes constitute volumes 23 and 24 of the Collected Writings of Walt Whitman, and a 25th volume, treating recently discovered correspondence, edited by Ted Genoways, was published by University of Iowa Press in 2004.[/ref] helps to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of digital and analog forms. Despite the many achievements of the print volumes in the <em>Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>, this editorial project ultimately became quite chaotic. Whitman\'s outgoing correspondence, for example, has been the subject of editorial treatment since the 1960s, when Edwin Haviland Miller edited five volumes of Whitman’s correspondence. Miller arranged the volumes chronologically, and with the fifth volume, he published an addendum of sixty-five letters that he uncovered even as the first four volumes appeared. Although this addendum meant that some letters would always be out of order, the complications of working with this single addition or revision were not insurmountable. Nine years later, however, a sixth volume appeared, and it included one hundred additional letters, complicating the organization further. Then, in 1991, Miller published fifty new letters in the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>,<em> </em>and Ted Genoways published third and fourth supplements of nearly one hundred letters in the journal<em> </em>in 2000 and 2002. In 2004, the University of Iowa Press issued a seventh volume of Whitman\'s correspondence, which included all of Whitman\'s letters found since Miller\'s sixth volume. In the end, there were nearly as many supplements as the number of Miller\'s original volumes, and over the last six years, even more letters have surfaced. This one aspect of the <em>Collected Writings</em> illustrates how print editions can devolve into disorder, even when the initial aim is to bring order to the literary record. I am confident that after the <em>Whitman Archive</em> “finishes” work on the correspondence previously unknown or lost letters will surface somewhere. It is a great strength of the digital medium that when this happens, new material can be integrated seamlessly into the collection.\n\nIn a related way, our “Integrated Guide to Walt Whitman’s Poetry Manuscripts” aggregates facsimile images of all surviving drafts of Whitman’s poems regardless of their geographical dispersion. The digital images and integrated guide bring order to the manuscripts and, for most purposes, erase the need to travel in order to study the manuscripts. (Individual repositories may have labeled an item by its first line or its working title, but we have created an overarching virtual order for all repositories, and we have labeled each individual poetry manuscript with what we call a “work” identifier based on the title of the last published version of the manuscript.) The high quality color facsimiles available on the <em>Archive</em> offer significant advantages for the study of the manuscripts; the images can be manipulated in photo-editing software to help us decipher otherwise illegible handwriting or zoom in on features of the ink, paper, and other characteristics such as pinholes, in order to offer new readings about the manuscripts and their relationships to one another.\n\nDespite the integrated guide’s utility, however, it remains an under-utilized resource. Indeed, one of our challenges has been how to make sure people find the content and tools most useful for their research questions. Perhaps a downside of bringing together so much material in one place is that doing so can inadvertently re-bury material (in some places, the organizational hierarchy of the <em>Archive</em> is fairly flat or one-dimensional, and in others, it is quite structured). It is hard to get a sense of the magnitude of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> at a glance. The more we enrich the site, the more challenging it becomes to keep the interface simple, straightforward, intuitive, and sufficiently informative.\n\nBooks are sometimes more convenient in various ways. The failure of a server does not make individual volumes of the <em>Collected Writings</em> temporarily disappear. For most practical purposes, the <em>Collected Writings</em> as a resource stays stable (and carries all the advantages and disadvantages of that condition). Print can rely on nicely developed interface and design that evolved over centuries, but digital conventions are still relatively young and therefore sometimes neither clear nor aesthetically pleasing.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Price 3','A comparison of the Whitman Archive to its print predecessor, The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. ','inherit','open','open','','111-autosave','','','2012-10-29 19:26:20','2012-10-29 19:26:20','',111,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/111-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(114,7,'2011-01-21 17:10:01','2011-01-21 17:10:01','At the <em>Whitman Archive</em> we recently have focused on two aspects of Whitman\'s work: 1) what we call his scribal documents—the letters Whitman copied or drafted for others and the notes and summaries he drafted as a clerk in federal government offices; 2) Whitman\'s crossing of international boundaries as seen in translations and in the remaking of “Whitman” as his work is absorbed into other cultural, literary, and political traditions. In what follows I discuss these new developments to illustrate how the <em>Whitman Archive </em>continues to unfold to reveal new layers for development. After more than fifteen years, the <em>Whitman Archive </em>still intrigues me daily—whether it is Whitman’s writings, the people and processes which bring these texts to the public, the way we make them available, or what we (and others) may be able to do with them in the future. I conclude with a consideration of the long-term viability of our project and the crucial matters of funding and open access.\r\n\r\nFor the past two years I have been studying Whitman’s scribal documents and his time in Washington, DC (1863-1873) during and following the Civil War. Whitman worked for the Army Paymaster’s office, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (part of the Department of the Interior), and for the Attorney General’s office. When I first went to Washington to look for documents in Whitman’s handwriting that might have been preserved in the records of these offices, I hoped to find perhaps a half dozen items in the National Archives; seven trips later, I have found close to 3,000.[ref]This research was prompted in part by the Whitman Archive’s recent grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Historical Publications and Records Commissions to edit Whitman’s literary works and correspondence from the Civil War and Reconstruction era. These documents are now being transcribed and should be fully available within the next two years.[/ref] Thus far, all of the items are from the Attorney General’s Office. These scribal documents are crucial for understanding Whitman’s Washington years, his position in this particular office, and the influence of this work upon his literary development.\r\n\r\nOne document in Whitman’s handwriting, on an envelope of the Attorney General’s Office, says in its entirety:\r\n<blockquote><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Memoranda</span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">pardon</span> applicants Sept 8-9 -1865\r\n\r\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">also</span> the negro-suffrage\r\n\r\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">also position</span> of the President</blockquote>\r\nThe stationery might suggest that these are notes Whitman made to himself about work in the Attorney General’s office. But are they, and how can we know? Perhaps they are notes about issues Whitman wanted to consider as he was composing “Democratic Vistas.” After all, anyone who has worked with Whitman manuscripts knows that many of his letters and literary manuscripts were written on this type of office stationery and other repurposed pieces of paper. I draw attention to this document not because it is the most powerful of the scribal documents (if it is one[ref]It may be significant that this document was not found where most of the scribal documents have been discovered, in the National Archives, but instead in the Charles E. Feinberg collection at the Library of Congress.[/ref]). I highlight it, in fact, because of its liminal status: we can not determine whether this is a literary or a scribal document, a document written for Whitman\'s own purposes or for the purposes of others. As such, it challenges in a useful way the boundaries between literary and scribal documents.\r\n\r\nImagining a firm wall dividing these areas of life for Whitman is misleading. At times, Whitman used his office address as his literary postal address, and he worked in the office at night (the heat and lighting were important benefits). Moreover he first gained his clerkship with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who recommended him on literary and patriotic grounds.[ref]See the letter from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Salmon P. Chase, 10 January 1863 available at http://whitmanarchive.org/biography/correspondence/cw/tei/nar.00002.html[/ref] And it was because Whitman’s Blue Book (his personal and very heavily revised copy of the third edition of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>)<em> </em>was found at his government desk that he lost his job at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. James Harlan, Secretary of the Interior, judged the book to be immoral, though Whitman’s allies staunchly defended it and helped him to secure a new post in the Attorney General’s office. During his Washington years, Whitman\'s literary and clerical lives regularly occurred in the same physical locations and no doubt out of related emotional and psychological circumstances.\r\n\r\nOne of the challenges in studying the scribal documents is to figure out what impact Whitman’s work in a series of low-level government positions had on his creative life. To date, critics have almost entirely ignored his ten years of labor in Washington offices. How should we understand and treat the scribal documents? In most cases Whitman acted not as author but as a conduit for the words and thoughts of others. Thus, it could be argued that these documents should not be featured in an archive centrally concerned with Whitman’s writings. If his intellectual contributions to scribal documents are unclear and likely minimal, perhaps these documents should be excluded altogether from the <em>Whitman Archive</em>, or at least not prioritized.[ref]It is not clear yet—we need more time to study this trove of documents—how exactly the Attorney General’s office functioned. Did Whitman merely transcribe a clean copy from a draft written by someone else? Did he sometimes generate the letter based on an outline of points provided by another, or based on comments made in conversation to him? Certainly some of those who supervised him recognized his intellectual capacities. James Speed, for example, sought Whitman’s aid when he prepared an oration dedicating a bust of Abraham Lincoln.[/ref] It could be further argued that we should concentrate our finite time on making available additional known Whitman-authored documents (e.g., his journalism or short stories or novel, <em>Franklin Evans</em>). On the other hand, the scribal documents are potentially more revealing to scholars than such Whitman-authored documents, both because of the quantity of information and because the scribal documents were previously altogether unknown. Scholars may lack perfect access to Whitman’s journalism, short stories, and novel, but they do have reasonably good access for the time being. The same is not true for the scribal documents, and, if the <em>Whitman Archive </em>does not work on these materials, they are likely to remain buried, unavailable to enrich future biographical and critical studies.\r\n\r\nWhitman\'s experiences in Washington offices have rich implications. In Washington, Whitman was an actor near the epicenter of government efforts to reshape the nation in the aftermath of war. [ref]Rosemary Graham mistakenly argues that “for the most part . . . Whitman spent these postwar years as an observer.” See “Attorney General’s Office, United States,” in <em>Walt Whitman: An Encyclopedia</em>, ed. J.R. LeMaster and Donald D. Kummings (New York: Garland, 1998).[/ref] In his day job as an anonymous clerk, he and others in the office of the Attorney General dealt with postwar experiments with civil rights, war crimes, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, battles over land claims in the west, and an assortment of other matters. He treated closely related matters while revising <em>Leaves of Grass</em> and drafting his probing cultural analysis “Democratic Vistas.” His network of friendships in Washington offices also shaped his ability to get government jobs and to advance his literary career. For example, Whitman sent a copy of his “Proud Music of the Sea-Storm,” published in the <em>Atlantic Monthly</em> in February 1869, to an acquaintance named Julius Bing,[ref]Julius Bing (dates unknown) served as the clerk of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment in 1867 and 1868 and ghostwrote the 1868 report “Civil Service of the United States” before being appointed diplomatic agent for Crete later that year. A major advocate for reform of the Civil Service, Bing wrote a series of articles on the civil service for the <em>North American Review </em>and <em>Putnam’s Magazine</em> in 1867-1868. For more on Bing, about whom little is known, see Art Hoogenboom, <em>Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement 1865-1883</em> (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968), especially 40-49.\r\n\r\nAlthough Whitman must have sent at least one letter to Bing, since Bing thanked Whitman for sending a copy of the <em>Atlantic Monthly</em> that included Whitman’s “Proud Music of the Sea-Storm” (the poem was published in the February 1869 issue of the magazine), no additional correspondence between Bing and Whitman has been identified to date.[/ref] a clerk of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment in 1867 and 1868. In response, Bing wrote a lengthy letter urging Whitman to write a poem about the Child Crusades. The poem was attempted by Whitman but never realized as such (Whitman’s notes on the topic and trial lines can be found in the Thomas B. Harned Collection of the Library of Congress). To the best of my knowledge, this aborted poem has not received any critical commentary, but I think it is well worth study because it is a rare instance of Whitman, in effect, collaborating on a poem, and it also shows him addressing an international issue of the remote past, but one with continuing resonance in his time and in our own.\r\n\r\nThe scribal documents also help shed light on Whitman’s increasing interest in international issues in his later writings—his work in the Attorney General’s office meant that he, quite literally, had his hand in international incidents involving Canada, Mexico, Ireland, France, Britain, Spain, China, and many other countries. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> recently has focused increasingly on international issues in more direct ways, too. Since most people in the world first encounter Whitman in a language other than English we are attempting to better serve that audience. We currently provide translations of Whitman\'s work into German, Spanish, and Russian; translations into Ukrainian, Portuguese, and Yiddish are far along in development. In addition, we are in conversation with scholars about expanding our work into Chinese, Polish, Italian and other languages soon. It is fascinating to see what happens to Whitman when he crosses linguistic and cultural borders and becomes absorbed in another milieu. This interaction often illuminates both the hosting cultural tradition as it comes to terms with Whitman as well as the ways that American audiences have interpreted Whitman\'s works.\r\n\r\nOne of the strengths of the <em>Archive</em>, related to the digital nature of our work, is the ever-evolving team that has built and continues to build the project. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> has become a training ground and laboratory for the next generation of literary scholars and digital humanists. The staff of the <em>Whitman Archive</em>—largely made up of graduate students—get hands-on experience and serve as apprentices of sorts. These graduate students serve as assistant editors and often attain positions of considerable responsibility within the project. I have been delighted by the diverse career paths our “alumni” have taken: one has gained a faculty position in a library; another works at the vice-chancellor level at a major university in an information technology role; some have gained tenure track positions at research-oriented institutions; others are employed at digital centers in various roles. Collectively they have demonstrated a range of ways to succeed professionally; their lives offer hope in a time of difficult job prospects in the humanities.\r\n\r\nAlthough the creation of the <em>Whitman Archive</em>—a vast and still rapidly growing resource—has cost a great deal of money, we are able to make it freely available. One of the strengths of the <em>Archive</em>, then, stems from success in garnering local support from several key institutions, a steady stream of grant support from four different federal agencies, and donations from various individuals and private foundations. These fundraising efforts culminated in the creation of a permanent endowment to support ongoing editorial work. We realize that this ongoing work could potentially reach far into the future, and we strive to make our work reusable for later scholars (so they can improve upon it) by documenting our practices and decisions. Having an endowment obliges us to think in longer terms than is common for scholars: we have the burden and advantage of a project that should continue well beyond the lives of anyone now working on the <em>Whitman Archive</em>.\r\n\r\nFor end users a key advantage of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is that it makes freely available what would otherwise be difficult, costly, or impossible to access. The nature and extent of our audience are changed profoundly because the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is freely available, changes that are all to the good in my view. Instead of working with a small audience of specialist scholars in mind, we now also consider our large, varied, international audience as well. The importance of open access can hardly be overestimated. For us, open access means more than making content freely available for reading and analysis; it means making content freely available for reuse and repurposing. We willingly share files and have people work with them and reuse them in projects as long as those projects also are open, and they cite the <em>Archive</em>.\r\n\r\nDespite what the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> has accomplished thus far, we recognize that some features are lacking and that other features should be improved. The current search capability of the <em>Archive </em>is fairly limited and fails to take full advantage of our encoding, a key contribution to Whitman scholarship. Upcoming developments make me optimistic about leveraging the <em>Archive</em>’s rich encoding in more sophisticated ways, however, and experiments in indexing and searching the <em>Archive</em> are ongoing. The text base we’ve developed and continue to develop will lend itself to experimentation—by us and others, and we have rightly spent fifteen years developing the corpus so that it can be read, researched, and used by a variety of audiences employing a range of technologies and methodologies. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> also provides for the study of a new scholarly form, thanks to our documentation including encoding guidelines, history, and essays about the <em>Archive</em>. What seems clear is that the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is one of a group of projects that are demonstrating how the print-based monumental scholarly edition can be reimagined and advanced in the form of an electronic archive.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Price 4','At the Whitman Archive we recently have focused on two aspects of Whitman\'s work: 1) what we call his scribal documents—the letters Whitman copied or drafted for others and the notes and summaries he drafted as a clerk in federal government offices; 2) Whitman\'s crossing of international boundaries as seen in translations and in the remaking of “Whitman” as his work is absorbed into other cultural, literary, and political traditions.','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-price-4','','','2012-10-29 19:26:34','2012-10-29 19:26:34','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=114',102,'post','',3),(116,19,'2012-10-29 19:26:21','2012-10-29 19:26:21','At the <em>Whitman Archive</em> we recently have focused on two aspects of Whitman\'s work: 1) what we call his scribal documents—the letters Whitman copied or drafted for others and the notes and summaries he drafted as a clerk in federal government offices; 2) Whitman\'s crossing of international boundaries as seen in translations and in the remaking of “Whitman” as his work is absorbed into other cultural, literary, and political traditions. In what follows I discuss these new developments to illustrate how the <em>Whitman Archive </em>continues to unfold to reveal new layers for development. After more than fifteen years, the <em>Whitman Archive </em>still intrigues me daily—whether it is Whitman’s writings, the people and processes which bring these texts to the public, the way we make them available, or what we (and others) may be able to do with them in the future. I conclude with a consideration of the long-term viability of our project and the crucial matters of funding and open access.\n\nFor the past two years I have been studying Whitman’s scribal documents and his time in Washington, DC (1863-1873) during and following the Civil War. Whitman worked for the Army Paymaster’s office, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (part of the Department of the Interior), and for the Attorney General’s office. When I first went to Washington to look for documents in Whitman’s handwriting that might have been preserved in the records of these offices, I hoped to find perhaps a half dozen items in the National Archives; seven trips later, I have found close to 3,000.[ref]This research was prompted in part by the Whitman Archive’s recent grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Historical Publications and Records Commissions to edit Whitman’s literary works and correspondence from the Civil War and Reconstruction era. These documents are now being transcribed and should be fully available within the next two years.[/ref] Thus far, all of the items are from the Attorney General’s Office. These scribal documents are crucial for understanding Whitman’s Washington years, his position in this particular office, and the influence of this work upon his literary development.\n\nOne document in Whitman’s handwriting, on an envelope of the Attorney General’s Office, says in its entirety:\n<blockquote><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Memoranda</span>\n\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">pardon</span> applicants Sept 8-9 -1865\n\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">also</span> the negro-suffrage\n\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">also position</span> of the President</blockquote>\nThe stationery might suggest that these are notes Whitman made to himself about work in the Attorney General’s office. But are they, and how can we know? Perhaps they are notes about issues Whitman wanted to consider as he was composing “Democratic Vistas.” After all, anyone who has worked with Whitman manuscripts knows that many of his letters and literary manuscripts were written on this type of office stationery and other repurposed pieces of paper. I draw attention to this document not because it is the most powerful of the scribal documents (if it is one[ref]It may be significant that this document was not found where most of the scribal documents have been discovered, in the National Archives, but instead in the Charles E. Feinberg collection at the Library of Congress.[/ref]). I highlight it, in fact, because of its liminal status: we can not determine whether this is a literary or a scribal document, a document written for Whitman\'s own purposes or for the purposes of others. As such, it challenges in a useful way the boundaries between literary and scribal documents.\n\nImagining a firm wall dividing these areas of life for Whitman is misleading. At times, Whitman used his office address as his literary postal address, and he worked in the office at night (the heat and lighting were important benefits). Moreover he first gained his clerkship with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who recommended him on literary and patriotic grounds.[ref]See the letter from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Salmon P. Chase, 10 January 1863 available at http://whitmanarchive.org/biography/correspondence/cw/tei/nar.00002.html[/ref] And it was because Whitman’s Blue Book (his personal and very heavily revised copy of the third edition of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>)<em> </em>was found at his government desk that he lost his job at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. James Harlan, Secretary of the Interior, judged the book to be immoral, though Whitman’s allies staunchly defended it and helped him to secure a new post in the Attorney General’s office. During his Washington years, Whitman\'s literary and clerical lives regularly occurred in the same physical locations and no doubt out of related emotional and psychological circumstances.\n\nOne of the challenges in studying the scribal documents is to figure out what impact Whitman’s work in a series of low-level government positions had on his creative life. To date, critics have almost entirely ignored his ten years of labor in Washington offices. How should we understand and treat the scribal documents? In most cases Whitman acted not as author but as a conduit for the words and thoughts of others. Thus, it could be argued that these documents should not be featured in an archive centrally concerned with Whitman’s writings. If his intellectual contributions to scribal documents are unclear and likely minimal, perhaps these documents should be excluded altogether from the <em>Whitman Archive</em>, or at least not prioritized.[ref]It is not clear yet—we need more time to study this trove of documents—how exactly the Attorney General’s office functioned. Did Whitman merely transcribe a clean copy from a draft written by someone else? Did he sometimes generate the letter based on an outline of points provided by another, or based on comments made in conversation to him? Certainly some of those who supervised him recognized his intellectual capacities. James Speed, for example, sought Whitman’s aid when he prepared an oration dedicating a bust of Abraham Lincoln.[/ref] It could be further argued that we should concentrate our finite time on making available additional known Whitman-authored documents (e.g., his journalism or short stories or novel, <em>Franklin Evans</em>). On the other hand, the scribal documents are potentially more revealing to scholars than such Whitman-authored documents, both because of the quantity of information and because the scribal documents were previously altogether unknown. Scholars may lack perfect access to Whitman’s journalism, short stories, and novel, but they do have reasonably good access for the time being. The same is not true for the scribal documents, and, if the <em>Whitman Archive </em>does not work on these materials, they are likely to remain buried, unavailable to enrich future biographical and critical studies.\n\nWhitman\'s experiences in Washington offices have rich implications. In Washington, Whitman was an actor near the epicenter of government efforts to reshape the nation in the aftermath of war. [ref]Rosemary Graham mistakenly argues that “for the most part . . . Whitman spent these postwar years as an observer.” See “Attorney General’s Office, United States,” in <em>Walt Whitman: An Encyclopedia</em>, ed. J.R. LeMaster and Donald D. Kummings (New York: Garland, 1998).[/ref] In his day job as an anonymous clerk, he and others in the office of the Attorney General dealt with postwar experiments with civil rights, war crimes, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, battles over land claims in the west, and an assortment of other matters. He treated closely related matters while revising <em>Leaves of Grass</em> and drafting his probing cultural analysis “Democratic Vistas.” His network of friendships in Washington offices also shaped his ability to get government jobs and to advance his literary career. For example, Whitman sent a copy of his “Proud Music of the Sea-Storm,” published in the <em>Atlantic Monthly</em> in February 1869, to an acquaintance named Julius Bing,[ref]Julius Bing (dates unknown) served as the clerk of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment in 1867 and 1868 and ghostwrote the 1868 report “Civil Service of the United States” before being appointed diplomatic agent for Crete later that year. A major advocate for reform of the Civil Service, Bing wrote a series of articles on the civil service for the <em>North American Review </em>and <em>Putnam’s Magazine</em> in 1867-1868. For more on Bing, about whom little is known, see Art Hoogenboom, <em>Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement 1865-1883</em> (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968), especially 40-49.\n\nAlthough Whitman must have sent at least one letter to Bing, since Bing thanked Whitman for sending a copy of the <em>Atlantic Monthly</em> that included Whitman’s “Proud Music of the Sea-Storm” (the poem was published in the February 1869 issue of the magazine), no additional correspondence between Bing and Whitman has been identified to date.[/ref] a clerk of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment in 1867 and 1868. In response, Bing wrote a lengthy letter urging Whitman to write a poem about the Child Crusades. The poem was attempted by Whitman but never realized as such (Whitman’s notes on the topic and trial lines can be found in the Thomas B. Harned Collection of the Library of Congress). To the best of my knowledge, this aborted poem has not received any critical commentary, but I think it is well worth study because it is a rare instance of Whitman, in effect, collaborating on a poem, and it also shows him addressing an international issue of the remote past, but one with continuing resonance in his time and in our own.\n\nThe scribal documents also help shed light on Whitman’s increasing interest in international issues in his later writings—his work in the Attorney General’s office meant that he, quite literally, had his hand in international incidents involving Canada, Mexico, Ireland, France, Britain, Spain, China, and many other countries. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> recently has focused increasingly on international issues in more direct ways, too. Since most people in the world first encounter Whitman in a language other than English we are attempting to better serve that audience. We currently provide translations of Whitman\'s work into German, Spanish, and Russian; translations into Ukrainian, Portuguese, and Yiddish are far along in development. In addition, we are in conversation with scholars about expanding our work into Chinese, Polish, Italian and other languages soon. It is fascinating to see what happens to Whitman when he crosses linguistic and cultural borders and becomes absorbed in another milieu. This interaction often illuminates both the hosting cultural tradition as it comes to terms with Whitman as well as the ways that American audiences have interpreted Whitman\'s works.\n\nOne of the strengths of the <em>Archive</em>, related to the digital nature of our work, is the ever-evolving team that has built and continues to build the project. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> has become a training ground and laboratory for the next generation of literary scholars and digital humanists. The staff of the <em>Whitman Archive</em>—largely made up of graduate students—get hands-on experience and serve as apprentices of sorts. These graduate students serve as assistant editors and often attain positions of considerable responsibility within the project. I have been delighted by the diverse career paths our “alumni” have taken: one has gained a faculty position in a library; another works at the vice-chancellor level at a major university in an information technology role; some have gained tenure track positions at research-oriented institutions; others are employed at digital centers in various roles. Collectively they have demonstrated a range of ways to succeed professionally; their lives offer hope in a time of difficult job prospects in the humanities.\n\nAlthough the creation of the <em>Whitman Archive</em>—a vast and still rapidly growing resource—has cost a great deal of money, we are able to make it freely available. One of the strengths of the <em>Archive</em>, then, stems from success in garnering local support from several key institutions, a steady stream of grant support from four different federal agencies, and donations from various individuals and private foundations. These fundraising efforts culminated in the creation of a permanent endowment to support ongoing editorial work. We realize that this ongoing work could potentially reach far into the future, and we strive to make our work reusable for later scholars (so they can improve upon it) by documenting our practices and decisions. Having an endowment obliges us to think in longer terms than is common for scholars: we have the burden and advantage of a project that should continue well beyond the lives of anyone now working on the <em>Whitman Archive</em>.\n\nFor end users a key advantage of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is that it makes freely available what would otherwise be difficult, costly, or impossible to access. The nature and extent of our audience are changed profoundly because the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is freely available, changes that are all to the good in my view. Instead of working with a small audience of specialist scholars in mind, we now also consider our large, varied, international audience as well. The importance of open access can hardly be overestimated. For us, open access means more than making content freely available for reading and analysis; it means making content freely available for reuse and repurposing. We willingly share files and have people work with them and reuse them in projects as long as those projects also are open, and they cite the <em>Archive</em>.\n\nDespite what the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> has accomplished thus far, we recognize that some features are lacking and that other features should be improved. The current search capability of the <em>Archive </em>is fairly limited and fails to take full advantage of our encoding, a key contribution to Whitman scholarship. Upcoming developments make me optimistic about leveraging the <em>Archive</em>’s rich encoding in more sophisticated ways, however, and experiments in indexing and searching the <em>Archive</em> are ongoing. The text base we’ve developed and continue to develop will lend itself to experimentation—by us and others, and we have rightly spent fifteen years developing the corpus so that it can be read, researched, and used by a variety of audiences employing a range of technologies and methodologies. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> also provides for the study of a new scholarly form, thanks to our documentation including encoding guidelines, history, and essays about the <em>Archive</em>. What seems clear is that the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is one of a group of projects that are demonstrating how the print-based monumental scholarly edition can be reimagined and advanced in the form of an electronic archive.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Price 4','At the Whitman Archive we recently have focused on two aspects of Whitman\'s work: 1) what we call his scribal documents—the letters Whitman copied or drafted for others and the notes and summaries he drafted as a clerk in federal government offices; 2) Whitman\'s crossing of international boundaries as seen in translations and in the remaking of “Whitman” as his work is absorbed into other cultural, literary, and political traditions.','inherit','open','open','','114-autosave','','','2012-10-29 19:26:21','2012-10-29 19:26:21','',114,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/114-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(115,1,'2011-01-21 17:09:21','2011-01-21 17:09:21','At the <em>Whitman Archive</em> we recently have focused on two aspects of Whitman\'s work: 1) what we call his scribal documents—the letters Whitman copied or drafted for others and the notes and summaries he drafted as a clerk in federal government offices; 2) Whitman\'s crossing of international boundaries as seen in translations and in the remaking of “Whitman” as his work is absorbed into other cultural, literary, and political traditions. In what follows I discuss these new developments to illustrate how the <em>Whitman Archive </em>continues to unfold to reveal new layers for development. After more than fifteen years, the <em>Whitman Archive </em>still intrigues me daily—whether it is Whitman’s writings, the people and processes which bring these texts to the public, the way we make them available, or what we (and others) may be able to do with them in the future. I conclude with a consideration of the long-term viability of our project and the crucial matters of funding and open access.\n\nFor the past two years I have been studying Whitman’s scribal documents and his time in Washington, DC (1863-1873) during and following the Civil War. Whitman worked for the Army Paymaster’s office, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (part of the Department of the Interior), and for the Attorney General’s office. When I first went to Washington to look for documents in Whitman’s handwriting that might have been preserved in the records of these offices, I hoped to find perhaps a half dozen items in the National Archives; seven trips later, I have found close to 3,000.[ref]This research was prompted in part by the Whitman Archive’s recent grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Historical Publications and Records Commissions to edit Whitman’s literary works and correspondence from the Civil War and Reconstruction era.  These documents are now being transcribed and should be fully available within the next two years.[/ref] Thus far, all of the items are from the Attorney General’s Office. These scribal documents are crucial for understanding Whitman’s Washington years, his position in this particular office, and the influence of this work upon his literary development.\n\nOne document in Whitman’s handwriting, on an envelope of the Attorney General’s Office, says in its entirety:\n<blockquote><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Memoranda</span>\n\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">pardon</span> applicants Sept 8-9  -1865\n\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">also</span> the negro-suffrage\n\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">also position</span> of the President</blockquote>\nThe stationery might suggest that these are notes Whitman made to himself about work in the Attorney General’s office. But are they, and how can we know? Perhaps they are notes about issues Whitman wanted to consider as he was composing “Democratic Vistas.” After all, anyone who has worked with Whitman manuscripts knows that many of his letters and literary manuscripts were written on this type of office stationery and other repurposed pieces of paper.  I draw attention to this document not because it is the most powerful of the scribal documents (if it is one[ref]It may be significant that this document was not found where most of the scribal documents have been discovered, in the National Archives, but instead in the Charles E. Feinberg collection at the Library of Congress.[/ref]).  I highlight it, in fact, because of its liminal status: we can not determine whether this is a literary or a scribal document, a document written for Whitman\'s own purposes or for the purposes of others. As such, it challenges in a useful way the boundaries between literary and scribal documents.\n\nImagining a firm wall dividing these areas of life for Whitman is misleading.  At times, Whitman used his office address as his literary postal address, and he worked in the office at night (the heat and lighting were important benefits).  Moreover he first gained his clerkship with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who recommended him on literary and patriotic grounds.[ref]See the letter from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Salmon P. Chase, 10 January 1863 available at http://whitmanarchive.org/biography/correspondence/cw/tei/nar.00002.html[/ref] And it was because Whitman’s Blue Book (his personal and very heavily revised copy of the third edition of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>)<em> </em>was found at his government desk that he lost his job at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. James Harlan, Secretary of the Interior, judged the book to be immoral, though Whitman’s allies staunchly defended it and helped him to secure a new post in the Attorney General’s office. During his Washington years, Whitman\'s literary and clerical lives regularly occurred in the same physical locations and no doubt out of related emotional and psychological circumstances.\n\nOne of the challenges in studying the scribal documents is to figure out what impact Whitman’s work in a series of low-level government positions had on his creative life. To date, critics have almost entirely ignored his ten years of labor in Washington offices. How should we understand and treat the scribal documents? In most cases Whitman acted not as author but as a conduit for the words and thoughts of others. Thus, it could be argued that these documents should not be featured in an archive centrally concerned with Whitman’s writings.  If his intellectual contributions to scribal documents are unclear and likely minimal, perhaps these documents should be excluded altogether from the <em>Whitman Archive</em>, or at least not prioritized.[ref]It is not clear yet—we need more time to study this trove of documents—how exactly the Attorney General’s office functioned.  Did Whitman merely transcribe a clean copy from a draft written by someone else?  Did he sometimes generate the letter based on an outline of points provided by another, or based on comments made in conversation to him? Certainly some of those who supervised him recognized his intellectual capacities. James Speed, for example, sought Whitman’s aid when he prepared an oration dedicating a bust of Abraham Lincoln.[/ref] It could be further argued that we should concentrate our finite time on making available additional known Whitman-authored documents (e.g., his journalism or short stories or novel, <em>Franklin Evans</em>). On the other hand, the scribal documents are potentially more revealing to scholars than such Whitman-authored documents, both because of the quantity of information and because the scribal documents were previously altogether unknown. Scholars may lack perfect access to Whitman’s journalism, short stories, and novel, but they do have reasonably good access for the time being. The same is not true for the scribal documents, and, if the <em>Whitman Archive </em>does not work on these materials, they are likely to remain buried, unavailable to enrich future biographical and critical studies.\n\nWhitman\'s experiences in Washington offices have rich implications. In Washington, Whitman was an actor near the epicenter of government efforts to reshape the nation in the aftermath of war. [ref]Rosemary Graham mistakenly argues that “for the most part . . . Whitman spent these postwar years as an observer.” See “Attorney General’s Office, United States,” in <em>Walt Whitman: An Encyclopedia</em>, ed. J.R. LeMaster and Donald D. Kummings (New York: Garland, 1998).[/ref] In his day job as an anonymous clerk, he and others in the office of the Attorney General dealt with postwar experiments with civil rights, war crimes, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, battles over land claims in the west, and an assortment of other matters. He treated closely related matters while revising <em>Leaves of Grass</em> and drafting his probing cultural analysis “Democratic Vistas.” His network of friendships in Washington offices also shaped his ability to get government jobs and to advance his literary career.  For example, Whitman sent a copy of his “Proud Music of the Sea-Storm,” published in the <em>Atlantic Monthly</em> in February 1869, to an acquaintance named Julius Bing,[ref]Julius Bing (dates unknown) served as the clerk of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment in 1867 and 1868 and ghostwrote the 1868 report “Civil Service of the United States” before being appointed diplomatic agent for Crete later that year. A major advocate for reform of the Civil Service, Bing wrote a series of articles on the civil service for the <em>North American Review </em>and <em>Putnam’s Magazine</em> in 1867-1868. For more on Bing, about whom little is known, see  Art Hoogenboom, <em>Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement 1865-1883</em> (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968), especially 40-49.[/ref] a clerk of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment in 1867 and 1868.  In response, Bing wrote a lengthy letter urging Whitman to write a poem about the Child Crusades.  The poem was attempted by Whitman but never realized as such (Whitman’s notes on the topic and trial lines can be found in the Thomas B. Harned Collection of the Library of Congress). To the best of my knowledge, this aborted poem has not received any critical commentary, but I think it is well worth study because it is a rare instance of Whitman, in effect, collaborating on a poem, and it also shows him addressing an international issue of the remote past, but one with continuing resonance in his time and in our own.\n\nThe scribal documents also help shed light on Whitman’s increasing interest in international issues in his later writings—his work in the Attorney General’s office meant that he, quite literally, had his hand in international incidents involving Canada, Mexico, Ireland, France, Britain, Spain, China, and many other countries. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> recently has focused increasingly on international issues in more direct ways, too. Since most people in the world first encounter Whitman in a language other than English we are attempting to better serve that audience. We currently provide translations of Whitman\'s work into German, Spanish, and Russian; translations into Ukrainian, Portuguese, and Yiddish are far along in development. In addition, we are in conversation with scholars about expanding our work into Chinese, Polish, Italian and other languages soon. It is fascinating to see what happens to Whitman when he crosses linguistic and cultural borders and becomes absorbed in another milieu. This interaction often illuminates both the hosting cultural tradition as it comes to terms with Whitman as well as the ways that American audiences have interpreted Whitman\'s works.\n\nOne of the strengths of the <em>Archive</em>, related to the digital nature of our work, is the ever-evolving team that has built and continues to build the project. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> has become a training ground and laboratory for the next generation of literary scholars and digital humanists. The staff of the <em>Whitman Archive</em>—largely made up of graduate students—get hands-on experience and serve as apprentices of sorts.  These graduate students serve as assistant editors and often attain positions of considerable responsibility within the project. I have been delighted by the diverse career paths our “alumni” have taken: one has gained a faculty position in a library; another works at the vice-chancellor level at a major university in an information technology role; some have gained tenure track positions at research-oriented institutions; others are employed at digital centers in various roles.  Collectively they have demonstrated a range of ways to succeed professionally; their lives offer hope in a time of difficult job prospects in the humanities.\n\nAlthough the creation of the <em>Whitman Archive</em>—a vast and still rapidly growing resource—has cost a great deal of money, we are able to make it freely available.  One of the strengths of the <em>Archive</em>, then, stems from success in garnering local support from several key institutions, a steady stream of grant support from four different federal agencies, and donations from various individuals and private foundations. These fundraising efforts culminated in the creation of a permanent endowment to support ongoing editorial work. We realize that this ongoing work could potentially reach far into the future, and we strive to make our work reusable for later scholars (so they can improve upon it) by documenting our practices and decisions.  Having an endowment obliges us to think in longer terms than is common for scholars: we have the burden and advantage of a project that should continue well beyond the lives of anyone now working on the <em>Whitman Archive</em>.\n\nFor end users a key advantage of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is that it makes freely available what would otherwise be difficult, costly, or impossible to access. The nature and extent of our audience are changed profoundly because the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is freely available, changes that are all to the good in my view. Instead of working with a small audience of specialist scholars in mind, we now also consider our large, varied, international audience as well. The importance of open access can hardly be overestimated. For us, open access means more than making content freely available for reading and analysis; it means making content freely available for reuse and repurposing. We willingly share files and have people work with them and reuse them in projects as long as those projects also are open, and they cite the <em>Archive</em>.\n\nDespite what the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> has accomplished thus far, we recognize that some features are lacking and that other features should be improved. The current search capability of the <em>Archive </em>is fairly limited and fails to take full advantage of our encoding, a key contribution to Whitman scholarship. Upcoming developments make me optimistic about leveraging the <em>Archive</em>’s rich encoding in more sophisticated ways, however, and experiments in indexing and searching the <em>Archive</em> are ongoing.  The text base we’ve developed and continue to develop will lend itself to experimentation—by us and others, and we have rightly spent fifteen years developing the corpus so that it can be read, researched, and used by a variety of audiences employing a range of technologies and methodologies. The <em>Whitman Archive</em> also provides for the study of a new scholarly form, thanks to our documentation including encoding guidelines, history, and essays about the <em>Archive</em>. What seems clear is that the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is one of a group of projects that are demonstrating how the print-based monumental scholarly edition can be reimagined and advanced in the form of an electronic archive.\n\n<hr size=\"1\" /><a href=\"#_ednref\">[i]</a> This research was prompted in part by the <em>Whitman Archive</em>’s recent grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Historical Publications and Records Commissions to edit Whitman’s literary works and correspondence from the Civil War and Reconstruction era.  These documents are now being transcribed and should be fully available within the next two years.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[ii]</a> It may be significant that this document was not found where most of the scribal documents have been discovered, in the National Archives, but instead in the Charles E. Feinberg collection at the Library of Congress.\n<h3><a href=\"#_ednref\">[iii]</a> See the letter from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Salmon P. Chase, 10 January 1863 available at http://whitmanarchive.org/biography/correspondence/cw/tei/nar.00002.html</h3>\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iv]</a> It is not clear yet—we need more time to study this trove of documents—how exactly the Attorney General’s office functioned.  Did Whitman merely transcribe a clean copy from a draft written by someone else?  Did he sometimes generate the letter based on an outline of points provided by another, or based on comments made in conversation to him? Certainly some of those who supervised him recognized his intellectual capacities. James Speed, for example, sought Whitman’s aid when he prepared an oration dedicating a bust of Abraham Lincoln.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[v]</a> Rosemary Graham mistakenly argues that “for the most part . . . Whitman spent these postwar years as an observer.” See “Attorney General’s Office, United States,” in <em>Walt Whitman: An Encyclopedia</em>, ed. J.R. LeMaster and Donald D. Kummings (New York: Garland, 1998).\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[vi]</a> Julius Bing (dates unknown) served as the clerk of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment in 1867 and 1868 and ghostwrote the 1868 report “Civil Service of the United States” before being appointed diplomatic agent for Crete later that year. A major advocate for reform of the Civil Service, Bing wrote a series of articles on the civil service for the <em>North American Review </em>and <em>Putnam’s Magazine</em> in 1867-1868. For more on Bing, about whom little is known, see  Art Hoogenboom, <em>Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement 1865-1883</em> (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968), especially 40-49.\n\nAlthough Whitman must have sent at least one letter to Bing, since Bing thanked Whitman for sending a copy of the <em>Atlantic Monthly</em> that included Whitman’s “Proud Music of the Sea-Storm” (the poem was published in the February 1869 issue of the magazine), no additional correspondence between Bing and Whitman has been identified to date.','Kenneth M. Price, Part II: Essay','','inherit','open','open','','114-revision','','','2011-01-21 17:09:21','2011-01-21 17:09:21','',114,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/114-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(117,5,'2011-01-21 17:29:42','2011-01-21 17:29:42','The Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics tend not to pay enough attention to the basics of good design and usability, and can, as a result be confusing and frustrating for users. Since we make decisions about web pages in fractions of a second[ref]G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, F. Fernandes, and J. Brown, “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression,” <em>Behaviour &amp; Information Technology</em> 25 (2005): 115-126.[/ref] and humanities users, in particular, are easily deterred from using a resource that seems untrustworthy to them[ref]Claire Warwick, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “If You Build It Will They Come? The LAIRAH Study: Quantifying the Use of Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities through Statistical Analysis of User Log Data,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:1 (2008): 85-102.[/ref] it is vital that such simple considerations as the look and functionality of the site should instantly seem comprehensible and comfortable for users.[ref]Dana Wheeles, “Accessibility, Usability and the New Face of NINES” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 25:4 (2010). Forthcoming.[/ref]\r\n\r\nOne of the most impressive things about the Whitman archive is that it can be addressed in different ways depending on the level of expertise the user may have: this is by no means common in scholarly digital resources. As someone who was once worked on English, but not American, literature and who now regards herself as a full time Digital Humanist, I know relatively little about Walt Whitman\'s life and career. As a result of using the archive, however, I was able to find a considerable amount of information at an appropriate level. In other words, this was content of a level well beyond the introductory but which was not simply directed at other Whitman scholars and other expert users. This is a surprisingly difficult balance to achieve in any medium but seems especially challenging in the digital one. Many digital scholarly resources tend to assume that their users will be experts in the subject matter. This is not necessarily the case and as a result non-expert users may easily be confused or lose interest.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref] This seems particularly perverse, since digital resources are an excellent way for scholars to engage with those outside academia who share their interests and to encourage those with an interest to become to sufficiently intrigued that they become the experts of the future. If the non-expert user is deterred, how will they make progress to expertise? This is an opportunity that the Whitman archive has fully understood.\r\n\r\nThis does not mean that expert users are neglected, however. The archive has evidently been designed with the needs of its academic users in mind. For example, scholars interested in the language of poetry who may want to run linguistic analysis software on these texts will be particularly please that the full TEI marked up texts are available for downloading from the archive as well as being presented on line. The fact that such texts and detailed markup guidelines are available is an example of excellent practice and also rather unusual. Even some of the best TEI practitioners can seem somewhat nervous of making their markup decisions so public, and many digital humanities resources only make texts available as post-processed XHTML.\r\n\r\nThere is also a clear understanding on the part of the Archive’s creators of the way that scholars prefer to work in digital and physical environments. We know, for example, that however many resources are digitised scholars generally want to see the originals. It is now well known that the more digital resources are available the higher the demand that tends to be for original material. As a result, it is especially welcome that the archive has provided such detailed guidance as to how the original materials may be accessed with full bibliographic records. This means that scholars are able to consult manuscript images and transcriptions before they visit physical archives, which enhances, rather than disrupts their use of archival material. This is a particularly effective use of digital resources to complement physical ones.\r\n\r\nOne of the most impressive features of the Whitman Archive is that documentation about the project is so easy to access. As we recommended in the LAIRAH study[ref]Claire Warwick, I. Galina, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities Projects,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:3 (2008): 383-396.[/ref] there is a top level link from the title page to documentation about the project. Under this link are to be found a great variety of very useful documents telling readers and users just about anything they might want to know about the archive in terms of its scholarly principles, history, technical standards and encoding guidelines. It is also clear who its creators are their expertise and how this has been used to take decisions about the creation and direction of the archive. This excellent feature is surprisingly difficult to find in many digital archives, editions or resources. However, it is vital, since users require users require this type of contextual information about the processes used to select and interpret data. In the print medium we have evolved techniques and processes to indicate that a selection and evaluation process has taken place (the footnote, the imprimatur, the authorial biography, the bibliography) In the digital world such things are still developing and the digital still remains, for many academic users in particular, less trustworthy than print.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref]','The Walt Whitman Archive – Warwick 1','The Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-warwick-1','','','2012-10-29 19:24:13','2012-10-29 19:24:13','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=117',95,'post','',2),(440,13,'2011-03-05 01:19:14','2011-03-05 01:19:14','<h3>Database Research and Readerly Love</h3>\r\nIn the Digital Humanist’s tool belt, the database is the trusty stand-by. Robust and indispensable, it has become a basic tool of modern academic research. One of the primary endeavors of the Digital Humanities, however, is to re-focus the perspective on the tools we use, and perhaps to redefine the term “tool” in the process. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a thing … with which some operation is performed; a means of effecting something.”[ref]<em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., s.v. “Tool.”[/ref] This definition points plainly toward outcome, the tool’s utility at accomplishing “some operation,” as if it were an extension of the user’s will as a wrench is an extension of his or her hand. But by emphasizing results only, the dictionary neglects a tool’s significant influence over process.\r\n\r\nTools define process as much as they do outcome. When one searches a database, its individual design mediates the experience, filters it, frames it. A sleek database makes the act of use nearly imperceptible—it stays out of the way, as it were, by anticipating the needs and intuitions of the general user in its design. However, the specific user will always be limited by these presuppositions. It is tempting to imagine a database as a neutral container, a kind of Tupperware 2.0, while in fact the tool guides the searches that one can make, the items that they will return, and which will appear prominent. Facets of the design guide what sorts of orderings of information, or narratives, the researcher will construct out of the raw data, such that the database itself can form a subtle argument or narrative claim.\r\n\r\nAcknowledging the skewed nature of any tool that presents information, <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> co-editor Ed Folsom describes his approach to structuring the database: “Initially, [co-editor Kenneth] Price and I had ideas of how we would control the material in the database, and we knew the narratives we wanted to tell, the frames we wanted to construct. But the details of the database quickly exceeded any narrative we might try to frame the data with. Little roots shot out everywhere and attached to particulars we could not have imagined. Only if we insulated the narrative from the database could the narrative persist.”[ref]Ed Folsom, “Database as Genre: the Epic Transformation of Archives,”<em> The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, accessed November 2010,<em> </em><a href=\"http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html\">http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00142.html</a>.[/ref] To me, the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> is rife with narrative paths for the user. Some of these are micro-narratives, unavoidably emerging from details of the interface. Because the left-hand navigation menu is more visually prominent than the search bar, the user is more strongly guided into a browsing mode of exploration, which encourages him or her to consider Whitman through a compartmentalized view of his life and works. By featuring a simple search bar without advanced specifications or filtration[ref]A notice on the site informs the user that this feature is soon slated to undergo an enhancement, which will include the development of faceted search capabilities.[/ref], the database allows the user to cast a virtual fishing line for an assortment of items but makes it more difficult to conduct a narrowly directed search—thus, one is likely to encounter information that seems scattered rather than tight and contextual.\r\n\r\nApart from these micro-narratives, the database also cradles a deep narrative claim pertaining to Whitman’s corpus: throughout the database there is an open discussion examining the suggestive congruity between Whitman’s work and the digital medium in which it is takes form. The documentation of this resonance begins with observations about Whitman’s language and works, which seem to share characteristics of digital structure. For example, Ed Folsom to the organic networks present in Whitman’s language, an intertextual and burgeoning web of words. He compares this quality to the dense entanglement of leaves and roots that adorn the lettering on the first edition of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, recalling the rhizome[ref]Defined as “an elongated, usually horizontal, subterranean stem which sends out roots and leafy shoots at intervals along its length.” <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, 3rd ed., s.v. \"Rhizome.\"[/ref]—“that subterranean stem that grows every which way and represents the nomadic multiplicity of identity—no central root but an intertwined web of roots.”[ref]Folsom, “Database as Genre.<em>”</em>[/ref] Databases, too, are rhizomorphous, he argues—and this accordance between Whitman’s work and its digital format allows the two to reflect through and off of one another, revealing new permutations of form and language.\r\n\r\nIn a proleptic twist, Whitman’s work predates its own ideal medium. A common observation in the various articles about the database is the fact that the work is perhaps better displayed in digital form that it ever was in print: the digital medium is better equipped to represent the shapes and forms of the Whitman corpus, and flexible enough to accommodate the complex relationship between the many iterations of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>. The database does not privilege one edition over any other, and treats them as autonomous but entwined works rather than pieces of a distinct whole or drafts leading up to a definitive version. The sheer multiplicity of his writing is betrayed by the rigidity of print mediums. “Whitman’s work was always being revised, was always in flux, and fixed forms of print do not adequately capture his incessant revisions,” argues Price.[ref]Kenneth M. Price, “About the <em>Archive</em>: History,” <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>, accessed November 2010, http://www.whitmanarchive.org/about/history.html.[/ref] Whitman himself advocated methods of reading and taking meaning from his texts that today seem almost designed for digital tools. A line from <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, first appearing in the 1881-82 edition, reads “the words of my book nothing, the drift of it every thing.”[ref]Walt Whitman, <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, (Washington, D.C, 1881-82), http://whitmanarchive.org/published/LG/1871/whole.html.[/ref] Taking long-view of literature, Whitman’s remark resonates with the current practice of distant reading, in which vast quantities of text can be analyzed as an entity using statistical information and visualizations. Predating this practice, Whitman draws the reader away from the individual minutiae of his poetry and towards impressionistic views. If any text was written for a database, this one was.\r\n\r\nThus, the <em>Archive</em> attempts not only to exhibit its contents, but to carry out a vision that Whitman may have offered in the original work. This narrative is present throughout the site primarily via the apparent compatibility between the content and form. The claim is so elegant, so fluid and simple, that the argument almost makes itself.\r\n\r\nThe <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> is able to transcend its (considerable) utility as a research tool, performing simultaneously as a critical analysis, a new edition of Whitman, and independent artistic work. I imagine four theoretical levels at which a format can manage a text, with increasing involvement: presentation, description, criticism, and artistic response. The sophistication of this particular database is in how it blurs the lines between those acts, seeming to realize all at once and none predominantly, and, further, how it reveals the fact that this multiplicity of function must be true of all databases, however subtly, however unintentionally.\r\n\r\nThis remarkable plurality within a single tool (if tool is still an adequate term) is both fitting, in the context of Whitman, and disruptive to the user’s relationship with the technology. It remains to be addressed how, or whether, the user should adjust his or her approach to such a complex mechanism. At the recent undergraduate digital humanities symposium Re: Humanities, keynote speaker Amanda French advocated for the “rehumaniz[ation of] the inhuman mass of data.”[ref]Amanda French, “Humanities Research Methods from 1860 to 2060” (presentation at Re:Humanities, Haverford, PA, November 11-12, 2010).[/ref] She suggests that scholars who favor distant reading may be losing track of a meaningful element of the text. Rather than conducting interpretive based on massive aggregates of information, why not reacquaint ourselves with an affection for individual pieces of data, find “datum love” among the mass of details? The two methods appear to be mutually exclusive. However, by reconceiving the practice of data mining, it is arguably possible to find personal touches in the thrill of broad claims as well as the nuance of the particular.\r\n\r\nIf each database frames its contents in an array of narrative claims, then each one is specific, disputable, and limited. Rather than markers of failure, however, we might use these idiosyncracies to reawaken us to the particular experience that that tool offers. We could use the fact that a database mediates actively to inject an element of personal interaction into the task of digital research. In the course of achieving proficiency with any tool, one gains an understanding of its particular advantages and limitations through repeated contact and experimentation, returning to the interactive original meaning of “interface.”[ref]Defined as “a means or place of interaction between two systems, organizations, etc.; a meeting-point or common ground between two parties, systems, or disciplines; also, interaction, liaison, dialogue.” <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, 2nd ed., s.v. \"Interface.\"[/ref] Here is an opportunity to find a better alternative to the impersonal database experience, an escape from hard vocabulary statistics untempered by readerly love.\r\n\r\nThe management of scale is a challenge that each database must address by determining how the user will navigate between detail and distance. Due to Whitman’s distinctive engagement with matters of scale, especially the fluidity between the individual and the masses, the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> may be uniquely able to offer a distant reading that is paradoxically intimate in its connection to the philosophy of the poet. How can a distant reading cheat the humanist if it scrutinizes the work of the man who wrote, exhilarated, “Here is not merely a nation but a teeming nation of nations. Here is action untied from strings necessarily blind to particulars and details magnificently moving in vast masses?”[ref]Walt Whitman, <em>Leaves of Grass: 150<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Edition</em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), iii.[/ref] Ed Folsom describes Whitman’s “poetic project” as an endeavor “to move from a particular person, period, or place toward an absorptive embrace of all people, periods, and places,”[ref]Folsom, “Database as Genre.”[/ref]emphasizing the blurred distinctions between love of the particular and love of the vast. TokenX, a textual analysis tool that is available through the database, numerically charts the uses of particular words throughout the six editions of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, giving a visual representation to the exponential growth and organic proliferation of certain words as the poetry burgeoned in its various iterations. Statistical tools such as these, when applied to the work of this particular author, are not reductive but in fact profoundly resonant with the tone and principles of the poetry they describe. Perhaps this is the database to wed tender devotion to individual data and multiplicity.\r\n\r\nFeatured prominently on the home page of the <em>Archive</em> is a striking engraving of Whitman’s face.[ref]William J. Linton, (1870-72), engraving, (http://whitmanarchive.org/multimedia/image044.html?sort=year&amp;order=ascending&amp;page=5).[/ref] The poet appears as if caught in motion, whipping past the viewer with his eddies of hair scattered about his face like sprouts. The beard connotes a general outward drift as it spreads from his face in swells and waves. And then, from somewhere in the profusion of hair and wrinkles emerges an arresting pair of dark eyes: Whitman’s eyes simultaneously confront and confide in the viewer, imparting a personal moment amidst a storm of minutiae.','Evan McGonagill, Question #4','In the Digital Humanist’s tool belt, the database is the trusty stand-by. Robust and indispensable, it has become a basic tool of modern academic research. One of the primary endeavors of the Digital Humanities, however, is to re-focus the perspective on the tools we use, and perhaps to redefine the term “tool” in the process. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a thing … with which some operation is performed; a means of effecting something.\"','inherit','open','open','','136-revision-7','','','2011-03-05 01:19:14','2011-03-05 01:19:14','',136,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/03/136-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(119,19,'2012-10-19 04:38:18','2012-10-19 04:38:18','The Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics tend not to pay enough attention to the basics of good design and usability, and can, as a result be confusing and frustrating for users. Since we make decisions about web pages in fractions of a second[ref]G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, F. Fernandes, and J. Brown, “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression,” <em>Behaviour &amp; Information Technology</em> 25 (2005): 115-126.[/ref] and humanities users, in particular, are easily deterred from using a resource that seems untrustworthy to them[ref]Claire Warwick, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “If You Build It Will They Come? The LAIRAH Study: Quantifying the Use of Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities through Statistical Analysis of User Log Data,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:1 (2008): 85-102.[/ref] it is vital that such simple considerations as the look and functionality of the site should instantly seem comprehensible and comfortable for users.[ref]Dana Wheeles, “Accessibility, Usability and the New Face of NINES” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 25:4 (2010). Forthcoming.[/ref]\n\nOne of the most impressive things about the Whitman archive is that it can be addressed in different ways depending on the level of expertise the user may have: this is by no means common in scholarly digital resources. As someone who was once worked on English, but not American, literature and who now regards herself as a full time Digital Humanist, I know relatively little about Walt Whitman\'s life and career. As a result of using the archive, however, I was able to find a considerable amount of information at an appropriate level. In other words, this was content of a level well beyond the introductory but which was not simply directed at other Whitman scholars and other expert users. This is a surprisingly difficult balance to achieve in any medium but seems especially challenging in the digital one. Many digital scholarly resources tend to assume that their users will be experts in the subject matter. This is not necessarily the case and as a result non-expert users may easily be confused or lose interest.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref] This seems particularly perverse, since digital resources are an excellent way for scholars to engage with those outside academia who share their interests and to encourage those with an interest to become to sufficiently intrigued that they become the experts of the future. If the non-expert user is deterred, how will they make progress to expertise? This is an opportunity that the Whitman archive has fully understood.\n\nThis does not mean that expert users are neglected, however. The archive has evidently been designed with the needs of its academic users in mind. For example, scholars interested in the language of poetry who may want to run linguistic analysis software on these texts will be particularly please that the full TEI marked up texts are available for downloading from the archive as well as being presented on line. The fact that such texts and detailed markup guidelines are available is an example of excellent practice and also rather unusual. Even some of the best TEI practitioners can seem somewhat nervous of making their markup decisions so public, and many digital humanities resources only make texts available as post-processed XHTML.\n\nThere is also a clear understanding on the part of the Archive’s creators of the way that scholars prefer to work in digital and physical environments. We know, for example, that however many resources are digitised scholars generally want to see the originals. It is now well known that the more digital resources are available the higher the demand that tends to be for original material. As a result, it is especially welcome that the archive has provided such detailed guidance as to how the original materials may be accessed with full bibliographic records. This means that scholars are able to consult manuscript images and transcriptions before they visit physical archives, which enhances, rather than disrupts their use of archival material. This is a particularly effective use of digital resources to complement physical ones.\n\nOne of the most impressive features of the Whitman Archive is that documentation about the project is so easy to access. As we recommended in the LAIRAH study[ref]Claire Warwick, I. Galina, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities Projects,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:3 (2008): 383-396.[/ref] there is a top level link from the title page to documentation about the project. Under this link are to be found a great variety of very useful documents telling readers and users just about anything they might want to know about the archive in terms of its scholarly principles, history, technical standards and encoding guidelines. It is also clear who its creators are their expertise and how this has been used to take decisions about the creation and direction of the archive. This excellent feature is surprisingly difficult to find in many digital archives, editions or resources. However, it is vital, since users require users require this type of contextual information about the processes used to select and interpret data. In the print medium we have evolved techniques and processes to indicate that a selection and evaluation process has taken place (the footnote, the imprimatur, the authorial biography, the bibliography) In the digital world such things are still developing and the digital still remains, for many academic users in particular, less trustworthy than print.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref]','The Walt Whitman Archive – Warwick 1','The Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics...','inherit','open','open','','117-autosave','','','2012-10-19 04:38:18','2012-10-19 04:38:18','',117,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/117-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(2184,19,'2012-09-17 21:45:51','2012-09-17 21:45:51','It is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive.  I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it. For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems.  Web log analysis suggests that the more clicks a users is required to make, the less likely they are to use that part of a site.[ref]P. Huntington, D. Nicholas, P. Williams and B. Gunter “Characterising the Health Information Consumer: an Examination of the Health Information Sources used by Digital Television Users,” <em>Libri</em> 52:1 (2002): 16-27[/ref] Thus I would suggest that if at all possible some of the intermediate levels of nesting are removed to allow better access to material.\r\n\r\nI also found it difficult to access the newspaper content, since the page images took a very long time to load, on an average home broadband connection. This will not cause problems for academics using the site on fast campus networks. However it might limit its usefulness and usability of these newspapers for members of the public to high school students who might be accessing them on a slower connection.\r\n\r\nI also had some problems using the search function, or rather understanding the results returned. I typed the words ‘metaphysics’ and ‘books’ into the search box as someone searching for the exact origin of a quotation might do. I would have hoped that the first hit in any general search of the archive might have referred me to published works, but instead it took me to instances of the words in criticism, but it was not clear why this happened, and would, I think be counter intuitive for most users. I then clicked on the top hit of published works, and when I clicked on it, this did indeed take me to Leaves of Grass, but only to the title page. Again this would not be intuitive for users accustomed for example to the functionality of commercial resources such as EEBO who would expect to be taken to the exact hit without a need to use the search function in Firefox to locate it.\r\n\r\nThese are technical problems which should be relatively easily corrected. However, I would also like to point out something which while not exactly being a weakness may more correctly be thought of as an opportunity that has not yet been exploited: that is the possibility of involving users more extensively in the Archive’s activities. At present, apart from leaving comments, it is difficult to see how academic users or members of the public interested in Whitman might be able to get involved in the project.\r\n\r\nThe current model for the Archive seems very much that of conventional publishing whereby the team produces content for its users, in a one-to-many fashion. It may be that this is a deliberate decision on the part of the editors: involving users is not appropriate for every digital project. However, if further content is to be created in future, the Whitman archive may consider taking part in some kind of crowd sourcing project. This is still a somewhat unusual method, but is being used by projects such as Transcribe Bentham at UCL to access crowd sourced transcriptions of page images of manuscripts. The use of crowd sourcing and social networking by memory institutions such as museums, has demonstrated that those outside academia are interested in participating in projects about their heritage and history and it may be that there is a potential new way for the Archive to engage with its user community, and to add further content while doing so.','360°: The Walt Whitman Archive – Warwick 2','It is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive.  I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it.For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems.  Web log analysis suggests...','inherit','open','open','','122-revision-16','','','2012-09-17 21:45:51','2012-09-17 21:45:51','',122,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/issue/2/uncategorized/122-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(118,1,'2011-01-21 17:28:55','2011-01-21 17:28:55','<ol>\n	<li><strong>1. </strong><strong>What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work? </strong></li>\n</ol>\nThe Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics tend not to pay enough attention to the basics of good design and usability, and can, as a result be confusing and frustrating for users. Since we make decisions about web pages in fractions of a second[ref]G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, F. Fernandes, and J. Brown, “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression,” <em>Behaviour &amp; Information Technology</em> 25 (2005): 115-126.[/ref] and humanities users, in particular, are easily deterred from using a resource that seems untrustworthy to them[ref]Claire Warwick, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “If You Build It Will They Come? The LAIRAH Study: Quantifying the Use of Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities through Statistical Analysis of User Log Data,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:1 (2008): 85-102.[/ref] it is vital that such simple considerations as the look and functionality of the site should instantly seem comprehensible and comfortable for users.[ref]Dana Wheeles, “Accessibility, Usability and the New Face of NINES” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 25:4 (2010). Forthcoming.[/ref]\n\nOne of the most impressive things about the Whitman archive is that it can be addressed in different ways depending on the level of expertise the user may have: this is by no means common in scholarly digital resources. As someone who was once worked on English, but not American, literature and who now regards herself as a full time Digital Humanist, I know relatively little about Walt Whitman\'s life and career.  As a result of using the archive, however, I was able to find a considerable amount of information at an appropriate level. In other words, this was content of a level well beyond the introductory but which was not simply directed at other Whitman scholars and other expert users. This is a surprisingly difficult balance to achieve in any medium but seems especially challenging in the digital one. Many digital scholarly resources tend to assume that their users will be experts in the subject matter. This is not necessarily the case and as a result non-expert users may easily be confused or lose interest.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref] This seems particularly perverse, since digital resources are an excellent way for scholars to engage with those outside academia who share their interests and to encourage those with an interest to become to sufficiently intrigued that they become the experts of the future. If the non-expert user is deterred, how will they make progress to expertise? This is an opportunity that the Whitman archive has fully understood.\n\nThis does not mean that expert users are neglected, however.  The archive has evidently been designed with the needs of its academic users in mind. For example, scholars interested in the language of poetry who may want to run linguistic analysis software on these texts will be particularly please that the full TEI marked up texts are available for downloading from the archive as well as being presented on line. The fact that such texts and detailed markup guidelines are available is an example of excellent practice and also rather unusual. Even some of the best TEI practitioners can seem somewhat nervous of making their markup decisions so public, and many digital humanities resources only make texts available as post-processed XHTML.\n\nThere is also a clear understanding on the part of the Archive’s creators of the way that scholars prefer to work in digital and physical environments. We know, for example, that however many resources are digitised scholars generally want to see the originals. It is now well known that the more digital resources are available the higher the demand that tends to be for original material. As a result, it is especially welcome that the archive has provided such detailed guidance as to how the original materials may be accessed with full bibliographic records. This means that scholars are able to consult manuscript images and transcriptions before they visit physical archives, which enhances, rather than disrupts their use of archival material. This is a particularly effective use of digital resources to complement physical ones.\n\nOne of the most impressive features of the Whitman Archive is that documentation about the project is so easy to access. As we recommended in the LAIRAH study[ref]Claire Warwick, I. Galina, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities Projects,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:3 (2008): 383-396.[/ref] there is a top level link from the title page to documentation about the project. Under this link are to be found a great variety of very useful documents telling readers and users just about anything they might want to know about the archive in terms of its scholarly principles, history, technical standards and encoding guidelines. It is also clear who its creators are their expertise and how this has been used to take decisions about the creation and direction of the archive. This excellent feature is surprisingly difficult to find in many digital archives, editions or resources. However, it is vital, since users require users require this type of contextual information about the processes used to select and interpret data. In the print medium we have evolved techniques and processes to indicate that a selection and evaluation process has taken place (the footnote, the imprimatur, the authorial biography, the bibliography) In the digital world such things are still developing and the digital still remains, for many academic users in particular,  less trustworthy than print.[ref][/ref]\n\n<hr size=\"1\" /><a href=\"#_ednref\">[i]</a> <em>G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, F. Fernandes, and J. Brown, “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression,” Behaviour &amp; Information Technology</em><em> 25 (2005): 115-126.</em>\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[ii]</a> Claire Warwick, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “If You Build It Will They Come? The LAIRAH Study: Quantifying the Use of Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities through Statistical Analysis of User Log Data,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:1 (2008): 85-102.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iii]</a> Dana Wheeles, “Accessibility, Usability and the New Face of NINES” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em><em> </em>25:4 (2010). Forthcoming.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iv]</a> Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[v]</a> Claire Warwick, I. Galina, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities Projects,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:3 (2008): 383-396.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[vi]</a> Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”','Claire Warwick','','inherit','open','open','','117-revision','','','2011-01-21 17:28:55','2011-01-21 17:28:55','',117,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/117-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(120,1,'2011-01-05 04:09:07','2011-01-05 04:09:07','Issue #1 Topic: <em>The Walt Whitman Archive</em>\r\n\r\nEach contributor has been asked to respond to three (3) set questions in 500 words or less for each question; you can read vertically (by author) or horizontally (by question).','360°','','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-15','','','2011-01-05 04:09:07','2011-01-05 04:09:07','',16,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/16-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(121,1,'2011-01-21 17:29:42','2011-01-21 17:29:42','<strong>What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</strong>\r\n\r\nThe Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics tend not to pay enough attention to the basics of good design and usability, and can, as a result be confusing and frustrating for users. Since we make decisions about web pages in fractions of a second[ref]G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, F. Fernandes, and J. Brown, “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression,” <em>Behaviour &amp; Information Technology</em> 25 (2005): 115-126.[/ref] and humanities users, in particular, are easily deterred from using a resource that seems untrustworthy to them[ref]Claire Warwick, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “If You Build It Will They Come? The LAIRAH Study: Quantifying the Use of Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities through Statistical Analysis of User Log Data,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:1 (2008): 85-102.[/ref] it is vital that such simple considerations as the look and functionality of the site should instantly seem comprehensible and comfortable for users.[ref]Dana Wheeles, “Accessibility, Usability and the New Face of NINES” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 25:4 (2010). Forthcoming.[/ref]\r\n\r\nOne of the most impressive things about the Whitman archive is that it can be addressed in different ways depending on the level of expertise the user may have: this is by no means common in scholarly digital resources. As someone who was once worked on English, but not American, literature and who now regards herself as a full time Digital Humanist, I know relatively little about Walt Whitman\'s life and career.  As a result of using the archive, however, I was able to find a considerable amount of information at an appropriate level. In other words, this was content of a level well beyond the introductory but which was not simply directed at other Whitman scholars and other expert users. This is a surprisingly difficult balance to achieve in any medium but seems especially challenging in the digital one. Many digital scholarly resources tend to assume that their users will be experts in the subject matter. This is not necessarily the case and as a result non-expert users may easily be confused or lose interest.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref] This seems particularly perverse, since digital resources are an excellent way for scholars to engage with those outside academia who share their interests and to encourage those with an interest to become to sufficiently intrigued that they become the experts of the future. If the non-expert user is deterred, how will they make progress to expertise? This is an opportunity that the Whitman archive has fully understood.\r\n\r\nThis does not mean that expert users are neglected, however.  The archive has evidently been designed with the needs of its academic users in mind. For example, scholars interested in the language of poetry who may want to run linguistic analysis software on these texts will be particularly please that the full TEI marked up texts are available for downloading from the archive as well as being presented on line. The fact that such texts and detailed markup guidelines are available is an example of excellent practice and also rather unusual. Even some of the best TEI practitioners can seem somewhat nervous of making their markup decisions so public, and many digital humanities resources only make texts available as post-processed XHTML.\r\n\r\nThere is also a clear understanding on the part of the Archive’s creators of the way that scholars prefer to work in digital and physical environments. We know, for example, that however many resources are digitised scholars generally want to see the originals. It is now well known that the more digital resources are available the higher the demand that tends to be for original material. As a result, it is especially welcome that the archive has provided such detailed guidance as to how the original materials may be accessed with full bibliographic records. This means that scholars are able to consult manuscript images and transcriptions before they visit physical archives, which enhances, rather than disrupts their use of archival material. This is a particularly effective use of digital resources to complement physical ones.\r\n\r\nOne of the most impressive features of the Whitman Archive is that documentation about the project is so easy to access. As we recommended in the LAIRAH study[ref]Claire Warwick, I. Galina, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities Projects,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:3 (2008): 383-396.[/ref] there is a top level link from the title page to documentation about the project. Under this link are to be found a great variety of very useful documents telling readers and users just about anything they might want to know about the archive in terms of its scholarly principles, history, technical standards and encoding guidelines. It is also clear who its creators are their expertise and how this has been used to take decisions about the creation and direction of the archive. This excellent feature is surprisingly difficult to find in many digital archives, editions or resources. However, it is vital, since users require users require this type of contextual information about the processes used to select and interpret data. In the print medium we have evolved techniques and processes to indicate that a selection and evaluation process has taken place (the footnote, the imprimatur, the authorial biography, the bibliography) In the digital world such things are still developing and the digital still remains, for many academic users in particular,  less trustworthy than print.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref]','Claire Warwick, Question #1 Response','','inherit','open','open','','117-revision-2','','','2011-01-21 17:29:42','2011-01-21 17:29:42','',117,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/117-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(122,5,'2011-01-21 19:13:36','2011-01-21 19:13:36','It is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive. I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it. For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems. Web log analysis suggests that the more clicks a users is required to make, the less likely they are to use that part of a site.[ref]P. Huntington, D. Nicholas, P. Williams and B. Gunter “Characterising the Health Information Consumer: an Examination of the Health Information Sources used by Digital Television Users,” <em>Libri</em> 52:1 (2002): 16-27[/ref] Thus I would suggest that if at all possible some of the intermediate levels of nesting are removed to allow better access to material.\r\n\r\nI also found it difficult to access the newspaper content, since the page images took a very long time to load, on an average home broadband connection. This will not cause problems for academics using the site on fast campus networks. However it might limit its usefulness and usability of these newspapers for members of the public to high school students who might be accessing them on a slower connection.\r\n\r\nI also had some problems using the search function, or rather understanding the results returned. I typed the words ‘metaphysics’ and ‘books’ into the search box as someone searching for the exact origin of a quotation might do. I would have hoped that the first hit in any general search of the archive might have referred me to published works, but instead it took me to instances of the words in criticism, but it was not clear why this happened, and would, I think be counter intuitive for most users. I then clicked on the top hit of published works, and when I clicked on it, this did indeed take me to Leaves of Grass, but only to the title page. Again this would not be intuitive for users accustomed for example to the functionality of commercial resources such as EEBO who would expect to be taken to the exact hit without a need to use the search function in Firefox to locate it.\r\n\r\nThese are technical problems which should be relatively easily corrected. However, I would also like to point out something which while not exactly being a weakness may more correctly be thought of as an opportunity that has not yet been exploited: that is the possibility of involving users more extensively in the Archive’s activities. At present, apart from leaving comments, it is difficult to see how academic users or members of the public interested in Whitman might be able to get involved in the project.\r\n\r\nThe current model for the Archive seems very much that of conventional publishing whereby the team produces content for its users, in a one-to-many fashion. It may be that this is a deliberate decision on the part of the editors: involving users is not appropriate for every digital project. However, if further content is to be created in future, the Whitman archive may consider taking part in some kind of crowd sourcing project. This is still a somewhat unusual method, but is being used by projects such as Transcribe Bentham at UCL to access crowd sourced transcriptions of page images of manuscripts. The use of crowd sourcing and social networking by memory institutions such as museums, has demonstrated that those outside academia are interested in participating in projects about their heritage and history and it may be that there is a potential new way for the Archive to engage with its user community, and to add further content while doing so.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Warwick 2','It is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive.  I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it.For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems.  Web log analysis suggests...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-warwick-2','','','2012-10-29 19:24:37','2012-10-29 19:24:37','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=122',96,'post','',8),(439,13,'2011-03-05 01:20:13','2011-03-05 01:20:13','<strong>What are the strengths of this archive?  How would you use or refer to this site in your own work?</strong>\r\n\r\nThe Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics tend not to pay enough attention to the basics of good design and usability, and can, as a result be confusing and frustrating for users. Since we make decisions about web pages in fractions of a second[ref]G. Lindgaard, C. Dudek, F. Fernandes, and J. Brown, “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression,” <em>Behaviour &amp; Information Technology</em> 25 (2005): 115-126.[/ref] and humanities users, in particular, are easily deterred from using a resource that seems untrustworthy to them[ref]Claire Warwick, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “If You Build It Will They Come? The LAIRAH Study: Quantifying the Use of Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities through Statistical Analysis of User Log Data,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:1 (2008): 85-102.[/ref] it is vital that such simple considerations as the look and functionality of the site should instantly seem comprehensible and comfortable for users.[ref]Dana Wheeles, “Accessibility, Usability and the New Face of NINES” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 25:4 (2010). Forthcoming.[/ref]\r\n\r\nOne of the most impressive things about the Whitman archive is that it can be addressed in different ways depending on the level of expertise the user may have: this is by no means common in scholarly digital resources. As someone who was once worked on English, but not American, literature and who now regards herself as a full time Digital Humanist, I know relatively little about Walt Whitman\'s life and career.  As a result of using the archive, however, I was able to find a considerable amount of information at an appropriate level. In other words, this was content of a level well beyond the introductory but which was not simply directed at other Whitman scholars and other expert users. This is a surprisingly difficult balance to achieve in any medium but seems especially challenging in the digital one. Many digital scholarly resources tend to assume that their users will be experts in the subject matter. This is not necessarily the case and as a result non-expert users may easily be confused or lose interest.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref] This seems particularly perverse, since digital resources are an excellent way for scholars to engage with those outside academia who share their interests and to encourage those with an interest to become to sufficiently intrigued that they become the experts of the future. If the non-expert user is deterred, how will they make progress to expertise? This is an opportunity that the Whitman archive has fully understood.\r\n\r\nThis does not mean that expert users are neglected, however.  The archive has evidently been designed with the needs of its academic users in mind. For example, scholars interested in the language of poetry who may want to run linguistic analysis software on these texts will be particularly please that the full TEI marked up texts are available for downloading from the archive as well as being presented on line. The fact that such texts and detailed markup guidelines are available is an example of excellent practice and also rather unusual. Even some of the best TEI practitioners can seem somewhat nervous of making their markup decisions so public, and many digital humanities resources only make texts available as post-processed XHTML.\r\n\r\nThere is also a clear understanding on the part of the Archive’s creators of the way that scholars prefer to work in digital and physical environments. We know, for example, that however many resources are digitised scholars generally want to see the originals. It is now well known that the more digital resources are available the higher the demand that tends to be for original material. As a result, it is especially welcome that the archive has provided such detailed guidance as to how the original materials may be accessed with full bibliographic records. This means that scholars are able to consult manuscript images and transcriptions before they visit physical archives, which enhances, rather than disrupts their use of archival material. This is a particularly effective use of digital resources to complement physical ones.\r\n\r\nOne of the most impressive features of the Whitman Archive is that documentation about the project is so easy to access. As we recommended in the LAIRAH study[ref]Claire Warwick, I. Galina, M. Terras, P. Huntington, and N. Pappa, “The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities Projects,” <em>Literary and Linguistic Computing</em> 23:3 (2008): 383-396.[/ref] there is a top level link from the title page to documentation about the project. Under this link are to be found a great variety of very useful documents telling readers and users just about anything they might want to know about the archive in terms of its scholarly principles, history, technical standards and encoding guidelines. It is also clear who its creators are their expertise and how this has been used to take decisions about the creation and direction of the archive. This excellent feature is surprisingly difficult to find in many digital archives, editions or resources. However, it is vital, since users require users require this type of contextual information about the processes used to select and interpret data. In the print medium we have evolved techniques and processes to indicate that a selection and evaluation process has taken place (the footnote, the imprimatur, the authorial biography, the bibliography) In the digital world such things are still developing and the digital still remains, for many academic users in particular,  less trustworthy than print.[ref]Warwick et al., “If You Build It.”[/ref]','Claire Warwick, Question #1','The Whitman archive is an example of excellent practice in the creation of digital scholarly resources. Its layout is simple, clear and easy to understand and navigate. It is obvious to a user where she is in the site, how to return to where she started from and what its various contents are. This might seem basic, but many resources, perhaps particularly those designed by and for academics...','inherit','open','open','','117-revision-7','','','2011-03-05 01:20:13','2011-03-05 01:20:13','',117,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/03/117-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(123,1,'2011-01-21 19:12:55','2011-01-21 19:12:55','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\n\nIt is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive.  I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it. For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems.  Web log analysis suggests that the more clicks a users is required to make, the less likely they are to use that part of a site.[ref]P. Huntington, D. Nicholas, P. Williams and B. Gunter “Characterising the Health Information Consumer: an Examination of the Health Information Sources used by Digital Television Users,” <em>Libri</em> 52:1 (2002): 16-27[/ref] Thus I would suggest that if at all possible some of the intermediate levels of nesting are removed to allow better access to material.\n\nI also found it difficult to access the newspaper content, since the page images took a very long time to load, on an average home broadband connection. This will not cause problems for academics using the site on fast campus networks. However it might limit its usefulness and usability of these newspapers for members of the public to high school students who might be accessing them on a slower connection.\n\nI also had some problems using the search function, or rather understanding the results returned. I typed the words ‘metaphysics’ and ‘books’ into the search box as someone searching for the exact origin of a quotation might do. I would have hoped that the first hit in any general search of the archive might have referred me to published works, but instead it took me to instances of the words in criticism, but it was not clear why this happened, and would, I think be counter intuitive for most users. I then clicked on the top hit of published works, and when I clicked on it, this did indeed take me to Leaves of Grass, but only to the title page. Again this would not be intuitive for users accustomed for example to the functionality of commercial resources such as EEBO who would expect to be taken to the exact hit without a need to use the search function in Firefox to locate it.\n\nThese are technical problems which should be relatively easily corrected. However, I would also like to point out something which while not exactly being a weakness may more correctly be thought of as an opportunity that has not yet been exploited: that is the possibility of involving users more extensively in the Archive’s activities. At present, apart from leaving comments, it is difficult to see how academic users or members of the public interested in Whitman might be able to get involved in the project.\n\nThe current model for the Archive seems very much that of conventional publishing whereby the team produces content for its users, in a one-to-many fashion. It may be that this is a deliberate decision on the part of the editors: involving users is not appropriate for every digital project. However, if further content is to be created in future, the Whitman archive may consider taking part in some kind of crowd sourcing project. This is still a somewhat unusual method, but is being used by projects such as Transcribe Bentham at UCL to access crowd sourced transcriptions of page images of manuscripts. The use of crowd sourcing and social networking by memory institutions such as museums, has demonstrated that those outside academia are interested in participating in projects about their heritage and history and it may be that there is a potential new way for the Archive to engage with its user community, and to add further content while doing so.','','','inherit','open','open','','122-revision','','','2011-01-21 19:12:55','2011-01-21 19:12:55','',122,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/122-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(124,1,'2011-01-21 19:13:31','2011-01-21 19:13:31','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\r\n\r\nIt is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive.  I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it. For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems.  Web log analysis suggests that the more clicks a users is required to make, the less likely they are to use that part of a site.[ref]P. Huntington, D. Nicholas, P. Williams and B. Gunter “Characterising the Health Information Consumer: an Examination of the Health Information Sources used by Digital Television Users,” <em>Libri</em> 52:1 (2002): 16-27[/ref] Thus I would suggest that if at all possible some of the intermediate levels of nesting are removed to allow better access to material.\r\n\r\nI also found it difficult to access the newspaper content, since the page images took a very long time to load, on an average home broadband connection. This will not cause problems for academics using the site on fast campus networks. However it might limit its usefulness and usability of these newspapers for members of the public to high school students who might be accessing them on a slower connection.\r\n\r\nI also had some problems using the search function, or rather understanding the results returned. I typed the words ‘metaphysics’ and ‘books’ into the search box as someone searching for the exact origin of a quotation might do. I would have hoped that the first hit in any general search of the archive might have referred me to published works, but instead it took me to instances of the words in criticism, but it was not clear why this happened, and would, I think be counter intuitive for most users. I then clicked on the top hit of published works, and when I clicked on it, this did indeed take me to Leaves of Grass, but only to the title page. Again this would not be intuitive for users accustomed for example to the functionality of commercial resources such as EEBO who would expect to be taken to the exact hit without a need to use the search function in Firefox to locate it.\r\n\r\nThese are technical problems which should be relatively easily corrected. However, I would also like to point out something which while not exactly being a weakness may more correctly be thought of as an opportunity that has not yet been exploited: that is the possibility of involving users more extensively in the Archive’s activities. At present, apart from leaving comments, it is difficult to see how academic users or members of the public interested in Whitman might be able to get involved in the project.\r\n\r\nThe current model for the Archive seems very much that of conventional publishing whereby the team produces content for its users, in a one-to-many fashion. It may be that this is a deliberate decision on the part of the editors: involving users is not appropriate for every digital project. However, if further content is to be created in future, the Whitman archive may consider taking part in some kind of crowd sourcing project. This is still a somewhat unusual method, but is being used by projects such as Transcribe Bentham at UCL to access crowd sourced transcriptions of page images of manuscripts. The use of crowd sourcing and social networking by memory institutions such as museums, has demonstrated that those outside academia are interested in participating in projects about their heritage and history and it may be that there is a potential new way for the Archive to engage with its user community, and to add further content while doing so.','Claire Warwick, Question #2 Response','','inherit','open','open','','122-revision-2','','','2011-01-21 19:13:31','2011-01-21 19:13:31','',122,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/122-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(125,5,'2011-01-21 19:15:11','2011-01-21 19:15:11','It is difficult for me to answer the final question because most of the scholarly material that I need are now available in digital form. As a digital humanist, rather than a literary scholar I have very little need to use original manuscripts or early printed books in my own work. What we know about the research practices of humanity scholars, however, suggests that this resource is extremely well designed for their needs. It does not assume that the digital will replace the need to use physical books and indeed it makes this easier by the inclusion of complex bibliographic data especially about Whitman\'s manuscripts and their whereabouts. It also follows good practice in digital resource creation in that it provides scanned page images of the books and manuscripts thus allowing users to compare the transcriptions provided in digital form to those images of the original analogue text.\r\n\r\nIt is notable that the website provides links to press material and interviews that scholars involved in it have given. This is especially welcome, since we have found that the strongest single correlation between the use of a digital resource and things that its creators do is effective disseminate of information about the project.[ref]Warwick et al., “The Master Builders.”[/ref] The presence of these transcribed interviews shows that its creators have been doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nAnother intriguing potential of the digital medium which the Whitman Archive makes use of is the ability to record the way that a resource has changed and grown. Books of course may have later editions, but few of us compare them in detail in printed form. This resource gives us clear information about its past as well as the way it is changing, since it not only archives two previous versions of the project, but provides a detailed change log, which tells users in detail what has been altered and when. For those of us interested in digital resources, this is an unusual insight into their evolution; for regular users of the material it gives instant information about what has changed since their last visit. Both are very much to be welcomed.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Warwick 3','It is difficult for me to answer the final question because most to the scholarly material that I need are now available in digital form. As a digital humanist, rather than a literary scholar I have very little need to use original manuscripts or early printed books in my own work. What we know about the research practices of humanity scholars, however...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-warwick-3','','','2012-10-29 19:24:58','2012-10-29 19:24:58','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=125',97,'post','',2),(438,13,'2011-03-05 01:20:06','2011-03-05 01:20:06','<strong>What are its weaknesses?  What do you wish it would let you do?  What changes would you suggest?</strong>\r\n\r\nIt is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive.  I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it. For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems.  Web log analysis suggests that the more clicks a users is required to make, the less likely they are to use that part of a site.[ref]P. Huntington, D. Nicholas, P. Williams and B. Gunter “Characterising the Health Information Consumer: an Examination of the Health Information Sources used by Digital Television Users,” <em>Libri</em> 52:1 (2002): 16-27[/ref] Thus I would suggest that if at all possible some of the intermediate levels of nesting are removed to allow better access to material.\r\n\r\nI also found it difficult to access the newspaper content, since the page images took a very long time to load, on an average home broadband connection. This will not cause problems for academics using the site on fast campus networks. However it might limit its usefulness and usability of these newspapers for members of the public to high school students who might be accessing them on a slower connection.\r\n\r\nI also had some problems using the search function, or rather understanding the results returned. I typed the words ‘metaphysics’ and ‘books’ into the search box as someone searching for the exact origin of a quotation might do. I would have hoped that the first hit in any general search of the archive might have referred me to published works, but instead it took me to instances of the words in criticism, but it was not clear why this happened, and would, I think be counter intuitive for most users. I then clicked on the top hit of published works, and when I clicked on it, this did indeed take me to Leaves of Grass, but only to the title page. Again this would not be intuitive for users accustomed for example to the functionality of commercial resources such as EEBO who would expect to be taken to the exact hit without a need to use the search function in Firefox to locate it.\r\n\r\nThese are technical problems which should be relatively easily corrected. However, I would also like to point out something which while not exactly being a weakness may more correctly be thought of as an opportunity that has not yet been exploited: that is the possibility of involving users more extensively in the Archive’s activities. At present, apart from leaving comments, it is difficult to see how academic users or members of the public interested in Whitman might be able to get involved in the project.\r\n\r\nThe current model for the Archive seems very much that of conventional publishing whereby the team produces content for its users, in a one-to-many fashion. It may be that this is a deliberate decision on the part of the editors: involving users is not appropriate for every digital project. However, if further content is to be created in future, the Whitman archive may consider taking part in some kind of crowd sourcing project. This is still a somewhat unusual method, but is being used by projects such as Transcribe Bentham at UCL to access crowd sourced transcriptions of page images of manuscripts. The use of crowd sourcing and social networking by memory institutions such as museums, has demonstrated that those outside academia are interested in participating in projects about their heritage and history and it may be that there is a potential new way for the Archive to engage with its user community, and to add further content while doing so.','Claire Warwick, Question #2','It is genuinely difficult to identify serious weaknesses of the Whitman archive.  I might suggest a few relatively minor changes to site design. Some of the content is nested quite deeply within the site and requires several clicks to access it.For example in the Disciples section the user is three clicks away from accessing individual poems.  Web log analysis suggests...','inherit','open','open','','122-revision-7','','','2011-03-05 01:20:06','2011-03-05 01:20:06','',122,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/03/122-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(126,1,'2011-01-21 19:14:45','2011-01-21 19:14:45','<strong>What about the digital form – as opposed to working with the materials in analogue form, for example  – works well for you, and what does not? How does this site\'s digital form contribute to the archive\'s strengths and weaknesses?</strong>\n\nIt is difficult for me to answer the final question because most to the scholarly material that I need are now available in digital form. As a digital humanist, rather than a literary scholar I have very little need to use original manuscripts or early printed books in my own work. What we know about the research practices of humanity scholars, however, suggests that this resource is extremely well designed for their needs. It does not assume that the digital will replace the need to use physical books and indeed it makes this easier by the inclusion of complex bibliographic data especially about Whitman\'s manuscripts and their whereabouts. It also follows good practice in digital resource creation in that it provides scanned page images of the books and manuscripts thus allowing users to compare the transcriptions provided in digital form to those images of the original analogue text.\n\nIt is notable that the website provides links to press material and interviews that scholars involved in it have given. This is especially welcome, since we have found that the strongest single correlation between the use of a digital resource and things that its creators do is effective disseminate of information about the project.[ref]Warwick et al., “The Master Builders.”[/ref] The presence of these transcribed interviews shows that its creators have been doing precisely this.\n\nAnother intriguing potential of the digital medium which the Whitman Archive makes use of is the ability to record the way that a resource has changed and grown. Books of course may have later editions, but few of us compare them in detail in printed form. This resource gives us clear information about its past as well as the way it is changing, since it not only archives two previous versions of the project, but provides a detailed change log, which tells users in detail what has been altered and when. For those of us interested in digital resources, this is an unusual insight into their evolution; for regular users of the material it gives instant information about what has changed since their last visit. Both are very much to be welcomed.','','','inherit','open','open','','125-revision','','','2011-01-21 19:14:45','2011-01-21 19:14:45','',125,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/125-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(127,5,'2011-01-21 19:26:18','2011-01-21 19:26:18','In the following section I would like to reflect on some questions about the nature of digital resources, humanities scholarship and the uses to which such material may be put. One of these is the still-contentious issue of whether the creation of such resources is regarded as scholarship in itself or as a way of facilitating the work of other scholars. Even the most recent studies indicate that opinions still remain sharply divided about whether the creation of digital resources such as the Whitman archive is considered to be scholarship and worthy of being rewarded us such by promotion, tenure or in the UK Research Assessment Exercise.[ref]D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence, and C.J. King, “Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines” (UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2010).[/ref] There is an understandable tendency in digital humanities to regard this as an outrageous undervaluation of what we do, and to wish to advocate for our work to be better understood. Yet if we can resist this temptation, the question at issue is an important one. The argument against granting digital resources scholarly status equivalent to a journal article, monograph or critical edition must surely be that such resources are performing a service, akin to that provided by an archive or library in the analogue world: that of bringing together useful materials for other scholars to use.\r\n\r\nIt has long been the case that as Melissa Terras has argued so eloquently, in order for our digital work to be valued we must publish in traditional media.[ref]M. Terras, “Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon Digital Humanities” (plenary presented at Digital Humanities 2010 Conference, Kings College London, 2010). http://melissaterras.blogspot.com/2010/07/dh2010-plenary-present-not-voting.html[/ref] However, this is about to change, at least for some of us. In the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework in the UK, digital resources will be assessed in all subject areas as a comparable output to print. This is a vitally important change, carrying with it the implication of a re-evaluation of the scholarly value of the digital; but it places ever more emphasis on the need for us to consider in a rational, not evangelistic, fashion what may distinguish a digital scholarly work from that which renders a service.\r\n\r\nIn this context, nomenclature is not a useful guide. The Whitman project’s creators chose to call their creation an archive, perhaps because like the Rosetti Archive or Valley of the Shadow it contains a collection of various different types of material. However, McGann himself describes Rosetti as a digital edition.[ref]Jerome McGann, “Electronic Archives and Critical Editing,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010): 37-42.[/ref] While I do not mean to imply that creating and curating an archive in the analogue world is not an intellectual exercise, it is not in itself something for which scholars gain credit. Thus the metaphor would hold that if scholarship done as the result of the use or creation of a physical archive as opposed to in its curation is recognised, then it should be similar in the digital sphere. But is this really appropriate, and does the name ‘archive’ under value the complex nature of what is being achieved in digital resources such as this? Conversely, why is it then that creating a critical edition, whether print or digital form is considered to be a scholarly activity worthy of credit in its own right?\r\n\r\nIt may be because in the print world editors are called upon to make selections and decisions about the best possible copy text, and which textual variants to include. Yet as Gabler argues, as digital technology progresses, digital editions increasingly try to make as many different texts and variants available to readers as possible, to the point that while we may choose to read a literary text in print, the digital medium is most appropriate for complex comparison and study of variants.[ref]H. W. Gabler “Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010): 43–56.[/ref] The theory of social editions also suggests that the literary text should be presented with reference to its broader social and intellectual milieu.[ref]Jerome McGann, <em>A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) and D. F. McKenzie, <em>Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts</em>(London: The British Library, 1986).[/ref]\r\n\r\nThe Whitman archive provides page images and transcriptions of all six printed editions of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, as well as manuscript material and newspaper copy. It calls itself an archive, yet could as easily be considered an excellent example of the digital social edition, where users are encouraged to become part of the scholarly process by comparing transcribed manuscripts with the page images or making judgements about which version of a given poem to use. So this is this, an edition (scholarly product) or an archive (service for others)? I would argue that this distinction is no longer meaningful in the digital sphere where boundaries between what we consider to be editions and archives have become blurred.\r\n\r\nEven if we assert that this is a resource for others to use, that could as easily describe a scholarly edition. It is also arguable that the value of such a resource as a scholarly product in its own right is in the choices made about what types of different materials should be brought together, and how contextual material about Whitman’s life, work and even disciples should be presented. Once again, these are just the kind of decisions that editors of scholarly editions also make. As all digital humanists are aware, the act of marking up text is in itself one of scholarly interpretation, which is why it is so vital that the full marked up texts are presented here. This, like the decision to present page images alongside transcription is an act of intellectual openness: it allows other scholars to understand, and if necessary question the decisions that have been made in their presentation. Far from being a sub-scholarly process, digital resources such as Whitman achieve a lustration of the decision making processes that are the silent underpinning of the task of editors or literary scholars in general. In this sense, digital humanities is ahead of many other fields. Science is only beginning to discover the potential of using digital technologies to link experimental data to articles written as a result of its analysis, so that other scholars may use such data to replicate the experiments that are reported on.[ref]C. Bizer, T. Heath, and T. Berners-Lee, “Linked Data - The Story So Far,” <em>International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems</em> (IJSWIS), Special Issue on Linked Data, ed. T. Heath, M. Hepp, and C. Bizer, (forthcoming). http://linkeddata.org/docs/ijswis-special-issue[/ref] Yet resources such as the Whitman archive have been providing this kind of functionality for some time. Texts are the primary data of literary scholars after all.\r\n\r\nThere is, it appears, a good case to be made for the scholarly robustness of digital resources, even those which modestly refer to themselves as an archive. The other question we must address, however, in making the case for our discipline is not just whether such resources constitute scholarly activity, but what kind of new types of research they make possible which would not have been achievable in an analogue world. This is surely the main criterion by which digital humanities must be judged. At present this is much less clear.\r\n\r\nWe know that the digital medium presents many new possibilities for editors and resource creators themselves, but we still know too little about whether research and scholarship themselves are changing as a result of their use. Vanhoutte, for example, has argued that most users simply require a reading text despite the fact that digital resources make a deeper kind of scholarly engagement possible.[ref]E. Vanhoutte, “Every Reader His Own Bibliographer – An Absurdity?” in <em>Text Editing, Print and the Digital World</em>, ed. Marilyn Deegan and Kathryn Sutherland (London: Ashgate, 2002): 99-112.[/ref] Even the most recent study of humanities users of digital resources[ref]C. Madsen, “Communities, Innovation, and Critical Mass: Understanding the Impact of Digitization on Scholarship in the Humanities through the Case of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies” (PhD diss, Oxford University, 2010): Chapters 6-7.[/ref] suggests they still make relatively simple uses of digital resources, which they value as a way to access greater amounts of primary texts without the need to travel, to search them faster, and ultimately, overwhelmingly, to read them. Digital humanists may be using computational analysis or visualisation techniques on huge data sets, (for example Dan Cohen’s recent studies of Google Books[ref]Patricia Cohen, “Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers,” <em>New York Times</em>, December 3, 2010, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all\">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all</a>[/ref]) but it appears that resources such as the Whitman archive may be more transformative of scholarship from the point of view of their creators than of most of their users. Digital Humanities has have moved on from writing evangelising articles and prescribing more training to writing use cases that, arguably, only the converted digital humanists ever read (for example a recent paper on the Monk project[ref]C. Plaisant, T. Clement, R. Vuillemot, S. Steger, and K. Uszkalo, “Use Cases Driving the Tool Development in the MONK project” (paper presented at the Digital Humanities 2009 conference, University of Maryland, USA, June 22-25, 2009).[/ref]) Yet the results appear the same, such excellent resources as Whitman may find that only a few expert users make best use of the potential of what they are being offered.\r\n\r\nThis may seem rather a depressing vision, but social networking theory may offer a more positive interpretation of this. We know that in most online communities only 10% of the participants post, the others may read, enjoy, but not take part.[ref]B. Nonnecke and J. Preece, “Lurker Demographics: Counting the Silent” in <em>Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems</em> (Proceedings of the SIGCHI, 2000): 73-80. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332040.332409&amp;type=series [/ref] It is also an often repeated law of software development that 80% of users make use of 20% of a given application’s features. Thus if we apply such metrics to digital humanities it seems perverse that we somehow feel we have failed unless all users are making the most extensive use of every last piece of potential a resource has to offer. This is why it is important that, as I argued above, digital resources should be accessible for the interested amateur as well as the academic expert and why we should not be disappointed if most people search for quotations for their college assignments or print out poems to use to teach a class, or to read when writing an article. Digital resources have different types of user, and to expect them all to be expert is a kind of techie arrogance of the worst kind.\r\n\r\nSocial networking is also relevant in another context when consider digital resources. The possibilities of a very different kind of social edition are only beginning to be explored by projects such as UCL’s own Transcribe Bentham project. Yet the popularity of crowd sourcing has been proven in science, and we know that users will support, explore and exploit more fully resources that they help to create.[ref]Claire Warwick, M. Terras and C. Fisher, “iTrench: A Study of User Reactions to the Use of IT in Field Archaeology” (paper presented at Digital Humanities 2008 conference, University of Oulu, Finland, June 25-29 2008).[/ref] Thus it may be that an alternative way of involving users in digital humanities is not only to consult them about what they would like to do, design resources so that they can do it as well as possible, or suggest ways in which a resources might be used, but also to encourage them to take part in their creation.\r\n\r\nIt can be seen therefore that the metaphysics wrought by the digital transformations inherent in the Whitman archives take us well beyond the limitations of books. We can appreciate the new potential inherent in digital production for the scholars who produce such resources, but further work remains to be done on exactly how such editions or archives may transform the lives of their users. Part of this work will be undertaken in the coming year by researchers from the INKE project, when we will consider digital scholarly editions. However, in a more general sense it will be fascinating to see whether and how far any kind of crowd sourced content may be integrated into serious scholarly resources such as Whitman. Until that experiment is tried in earnest, we are still some way from utilising the potential of the truly social edition.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Warwick 4','In the following section I would like to reflect on some questions about the nature of digital resources, humanities scholarship and the uses to which such material may be put. One of these is the still-contentious issue of whether the creation of such resources is regarded as scholarship in itself or as a way of facilitating the work of other scholars. Even the most recent studies indicate that opinions still remain sharply divided...','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-warwick-4','','','2012-10-29 19:25:07','2012-10-29 19:25:07','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=127',98,'post','',15),(442,13,'2011-03-05 01:20:28','2011-03-05 01:20:28','<strong>What about the digital form – as opposed to working with the materials in analog form, for example  – works well for you, and what does not? How does this site\'s digital form contribute to the archive’s strengths and weaknesses?</strong>\r\n\r\nA comparison of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> to its print predecessor, <em>The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. For example, the poetry manuscripts and periodical printings of Whitman\'s poetry were never collected, and the long-promised journalism, projected to appear in six volumes, never appeared in the NYUP edition. Peter Lang eventually published two volumes of the journalism in 1998 and 2003, though these volumes cover only the period from 1834–1848, leaving Whitman\'s innumerable contributions to periodicals in the final forty-four years of his life still to be edited. The Peter Lang volumes are produced so as to replicate the appearance of the New York University Press edition, though the editors of that series (all now deceased) did not oversee their production. Arguably, the Peter Lang volumes constitute volumes 23 and 24 of the Collected Writings of Walt Whitman, and a 25th volume, treating recently discovered correspondence, edited by Ted Genoways, was published by University of Iowa Press in 2004.[/ref] helps to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of digital and analog forms. Despite the many achievements of the print volumes in the <em>Collected Writings of Walt Whitman</em>, this editorial project ultimately became quite chaotic. Whitman\'s outgoing correspondence, for example, has been the subject of editorial treatment since the 1960s, when Edwin Haviland Miller edited five volumes of Whitman’s correspondence. Miller arranged the volumes chronologically, and with the fifth volume, he published an addendum of sixty-five letters that he uncovered even as the first four volumes appeared. Although this addendum meant that some letters would always be out of order, the complications of working with this single addition or revision were not insurmountable. Nine years later, however, a sixth volume appeared, and it included one hundred additional letters, complicating the organization further. Then, in 1991, Miller published fifty new letters in the <em>Walt Whitman Quarterly Review</em>,<em> </em>and Ted Genoways published third and fourth supplements of nearly one hundred letters in the journal<em> </em>in 2000 and 2002. In 2004, the University of Iowa Press issued a seventh volume of Whitman\'s correspondence, which included all of Whitman\'s letters found since Miller\'s sixth volume. In the end, there were nearly as many supplements as the number of Miller\'s original volumes, and over the last six years, even more letters have surfaced. This one aspect of the <em>Collected Writings</em> illustrates how  print editions can devolve into disorder, even when the initial aim is to bring order to the literary record. I am confident that after the <em>Whitman Archive</em> “finishes” work on the correspondence previously unknown or lost letters will surface somewhere. It is a great strength of the digital medium that when this happens, new material can be integrated seamlessly into the collection.\r\n\r\nIn a related way, our “Integrated Guide to Walt Whitman’s Poetry Manuscripts” aggregates facsimile images of all surviving drafts of Whitman’s poems regardless of their geographical dispersion. The digital images and integrated guide bring order to the manuscripts and, for most purposes, erase the need to travel in order to study the manuscripts. (Individual repositories may have labeled an item by its first line or its working title, but we have created an overarching virtual order for all repositories, and we have labeled each individual poetry manuscript with what we call a “work” identifier based on the title of the last published version of the manuscript.) The high quality color facsimiles available on the <em>Archive</em> offer significant advantages for the study of the manuscripts; the images can be manipulated in photo-editing software to help us decipher otherwise illegible handwriting or zoom in on features of the ink, paper, and other characteristics such as pinholes, in order to offer new readings about the manuscripts and their relationships to one another.\r\n\r\nDespite the integrated guide’s utility, however, it remains an under-utilized resource. Indeed, one of our challenges has been how to make sure people find the content and tools most useful for their research questions. Perhaps a downside of bringing together so much material in one place is that doing so can inadvertently re-bury material (in some places, the organizational hierarchy of the <em>Archive</em> is fairly flat or one-dimensional, and in others, it is quite structured). It is hard to get a sense of the magnitude of the <em>Whitman Archive</em> at a glance. The more we enrich the site, the more challenging it becomes to keep the interface simple, straightforward, intuitive, and sufficiently informative.\r\n\r\nBooks are sometimes more convenient in various ways.  The failure of a server does not make individual volumes of the <em>Collected Writings</em> temporarily disappear. For most practical purposes, the <em>Collected Writings</em> as a resource stays stable (and carries all the advantages and disadvantages of that condition). Print can rely on nicely developed interface and design that evolved over centuries, but digital conventions are still relatively young and therefore sometimes neither clear nor aesthetically pleasing.','Kenneth M. Price, Question #3','A comparison of the Whitman Archive to its print predecessor, The Collected Writings of Walt Whitman,[ref]When The New York University Press ceased publishing the Collected Writings in 1984, they had issued twenty-two volumes, many more than were originally projected. Despite the magnitude of what had been accomplished, many of the original objectives of the edition were not met. ','inherit','open','open','','111-revision-6','','','2011-03-05 01:20:28','2011-03-05 01:20:28','',111,'http://stage.archivejournal.net/2011/03/111-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(129,19,'2012-10-29 19:24:47','2012-10-29 19:24:47','In the following section I would like to reflect on some questions about the nature of digital resources, humanities scholarship and the uses to which such material may be put. One of these is the still-contentious issue of whether the creation of such resources is regarded as scholarship in itself or as a way of facilitating the work of other scholars. Even the most recent studies indicate that opinions still remain sharply divided about whether the creation of digital resources such as the Whitman archive is considered to be scholarship and worthy of being rewarded us such by promotion, tenure or in the UK Research Assessment Exercise.[ref]D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence, and C.J. King, “Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines” (UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2010).[/ref] There is an understandable tendency in digital humanities to regard this as an outrageous undervaluation of what we do, and to wish to advocate for our work to be better understood. Yet if we can resist this temptation, the question at issue is an important one. The argument against granting digital resources scholarly status equivalent to a journal article, monograph or critical edition must surely be that such resources are performing a service, akin to that provided by an archive or library in the analogue world: that of bringing together useful materials for other scholars to use.\n\nIt has long been the case that as Melissa Terras has argued so eloquently, in order for our digital work to be valued we must publish in traditional media.[ref]M. Terras, “Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon Digital Humanities” (plenary presented at Digital Humanities 2010 Conference, Kings College London, 2010). http://melissaterras.blogspot.com/2010/07/dh2010-plenary-present-not-voting.html[/ref] However, this is about to change, at least for some of us. In the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework in the UK, digital resources will be assessed in all subject areas as a comparable output to print. This is a vitally important change, carrying with it the implication of a re-evaluation of the scholarly value of the digital; but it places ever more emphasis on the need for us to consider in a rational, not evangelistic, fashion what may distinguish a digital scholarly work from that which renders a service.\n\nIn this context, nomenclature is not a useful guide. The Whitman project’s creators chose to call their creation an archive, perhaps because like the Rosetti Archive or Valley of the Shadow it contains a collection of various different types of material. However, McGann himself describes Rosetti as a digital edition.[ref]Jerome McGann, “Electronic Archives and Critical Editing,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010): 37-42.[/ref] While I do not mean to imply that creating and curating an archive in the analogue world is not an intellectual exercise, it is not in itself something for which scholars gain credit. Thus the metaphor would hold that if scholarship done as the result of the use or creation of a physical archive as opposed to in its curation is recognised, then it should be similar in the digital sphere. But is this really appropriate, and does the name ‘archive’ under value the complex nature of what is being achieved in digital resources such as this? Conversely, why is it then that creating a critical edition, whether print or digital form is considered to be a scholarly activity worthy of credit in its own right?\n\nIt may be because in the print world editors are called upon to make selections and decisions about the best possible copy text, and which textual variants to include. Yet as Gabler argues, as digital technology progresses, digital editions increasingly try to make as many different texts and variants available to readers as possible, to the point that while we may choose to read a literary text in print, the digital medium is most appropriate for complex comparison and study of variants.[ref]H. W. Gabler “Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010): 43–56.[/ref] The theory of social editions also suggests that the literary text should be presented with reference to its broader social and intellectual milieu.[ref]Jerome McGann, <em>A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) and D. F. McKenzie, <em>Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts</em>(London: The British Library, 1986).[/ref]\n\nThe Whitman archive provides page images and transcriptions of all six printed editions of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, as well as manuscript material and newspaper copy. It calls itself an archive, yet could as easily be considered an excellent example of the digital social edition, where users are encouraged to become part of the scholarly process by comparing transcribed manuscripts with the page images or making judgements about which version of a given poem to use. So this is this, an edition (scholarly product) or an archive (service for others)? I would argue that this distinction is no longer meaningful in the digital sphere where boundaries between what we consider to be editions and archives have become blurred.\n\nEven if we assert that this is a resource for others to use, that could as easily describe a scholarly edition. It is also arguable that the value of such a resource as a scholarly product in its own right is in the choices made about what types of different materials should be brought together, and how contextual material about Whitman’s life, work and even disciples should be presented. Once again, these are just the kind of decisions that editors of scholarly editions also make. As all digital humanists are aware, the act of marking up text is in itself one of scholarly interpretation, which is why it is so vital that the full marked up texts are presented here. This, like the decision to present page images alongside transcription is an act of intellectual openness: it allows other scholars to understand, and if necessary question the decisions that have been made in their presentation. Far from being a sub-scholarly process, digital resources such as Whitman achieve a lustration of the decision making processes that are the silent underpinning of the task of editors or literary scholars in general. In this sense, digital humanities is ahead of many other fields. Science is only beginning to discover the potential of using digital technologies to link experimental data to articles written as a result of its analysis, so that other scholars may use such data to replicate the experiments that are reported on.[ref]C. Bizer, T. Heath, and T. Berners-Lee, “Linked Data - The Story So Far,” <em>International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems</em> (IJSWIS), Special Issue on Linked Data, ed. T. Heath, M. Hepp, and C. Bizer, (forthcoming). http://linkeddata.org/docs/ijswis-special-issue[/ref] Yet resources such as the Whitman archive have been providing this kind of functionality for some time. Texts are the primary data of literary scholars after all.\n\nThere is, it appears, a good case to be made for the scholarly robustness of digital resources, even those which modestly refer to themselves as an archive. The other question we must address, however, in making the case for our discipline is not just whether such resources constitute scholarly activity, but what kind of new types of research they make possible which would not have been achievable in an analogue world. This is surely the main criterion by which digital humanities must be judged. At present this is much less clear.\n\nWe know that the digital medium presents many new possibilities for editors and resource creators themselves, but we still know too little about whether research and scholarship themselves are changing as a result of their use. Vanhoutte, for example, has argued that most users simply require a reading text despite the fact that digital resources make a deeper kind of scholarly engagement possible.[ref]E. Vanhoutte, “Every Reader His Own Bibliographer – An Absurdity?” in <em>Text Editing, Print and the Digital World</em>, ed. Marilyn Deegan and Kathryn Sutherland (London: Ashgate, 2002): 99-112.[/ref] Even the most recent study of humanities users of digital resources[ref]C. Madsen, “Communities, Innovation, and Critical Mass: Understanding the Impact of Digitization on Scholarship in the Humanities through the Case of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies” (PhD diss, Oxford University, 2010): Chapters 6-7.[/ref] suggests they still make relatively simple uses of digital resources, which they value as a way to access greater amounts of primary texts without the need to travel, to search them faster, and ultimately, overwhelmingly, to read them. Digital humanists may be using computational analysis or visualisation techniques on huge data sets, (for example Dan Cohen’s recent studies of Google Books[ref]Patricia Cohen, “Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers,” <em>New York Times</em>, December 3, 2010, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all\">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all</a>[/ref]) but it appears that resources such as the Whitman archive may be more transformative of scholarship from the point of view of their creators than of most of their users. Digital Humanities has have moved on from writing evangelising articles and prescribing more training to writing use cases that, arguably, only the converted digital humanists ever read (for example a recent paper on the Monk project[ref]C. Plaisant, T. Clement, R. Vuillemot, S. Steger, and K. Uszkalo, “Use Cases Driving the Tool Development in the MONK project” (paper presented at the Digital Humanities 2009 conference, University of Maryland, USA, June 22-25, 2009).[/ref]) Yet the results appear the same, such excellent resources as Whitman may find that only a few expert users make best use of the potential of what they are being offered.\n\nThis may seem rather a depressing vision, but social networking theory may offer a more positive interpretation of this. We know that in most online communities only 10% of the participants post, the others may read, enjoy, but not take part.[ref]B. Nonnecke and J. Preece, “Lurker Demographics: Counting the Silent” in <em>Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems</em> (Proceedings of the SIGCHI, 2000): 73-80. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332040.332409&amp;type=series [/ref] It is also an often repeated law of software development that 80% of users make use of 20% of a given application’s features. Thus if we apply such metrics to digital humanities it seems perverse that we somehow feel we have failed unless all users are making the most extensive use of every last piece of potential a resource has to offer. This is why it is important that, as I argued above, digital resources should be accessible for the interested amateur as well as the academic expert and why we should not be disappointed if most people search for quotations for their college assignments or print out poems to use to teach a class, or to read when writing an article. Digital resources have different types of user, and to expect them all to be expert is a kind of techie arrogance of the worst kind.\n\nSocial networking is also relevant in another context when consider digital resources. The possibilities of a very different kind of social edition are only beginning to be explored by projects such as UCL’s own Transcribe Bentham project. Yet the popularity of crowd sourcing has been proven in science, and we know that users will support, explore and exploit more fully resources that they help to create.[ref]Claire Warwick, M. Terras and C. Fisher, “iTrench: A Study of User Reactions to the Use of IT in Field Archaeology” (paper presented at Digital Humanities 2008 conference, University of Oulu, Finland, June 25-29 2008).[/ref] Thus it may be that an alternative way of involving users in digital humanities is not only to consult them about what they would like to do, design resources so that they can do it as well as possible, or suggest ways in which a resources might be used, but also to encourage them to take part in their creation.\n\nIt can be seen therefore that the metaphysics wrought by the digital transformations inherent in the Whitman archives take us well beyond the limitations of books. We can appreciate the new potential inherent in digital production for the scholars who produce such resources, but further work remains to be done on exactly how such editions or archives may transform the lives of their users. Part of this work will be undertaken in the coming year by researchers from the INKE project, when we will consider digital scholarly editions. However, in a more general sense it will be fascinating to see whether and how far any kind of crowd sourced content may be integrated into serious scholarly resources such as Whitman. Until that experiment is tried in earnest, we are still some way from utilising the potential of the truly social edition.','The Walt Whitman Archive – Warwick 4','In the following section I would like to reflect on some questions about the nature of digital resources, humanities scholarship and the uses to which such material may be put. One of these is the still-contentious issue of whether the creation of such resources is regarded as scholarship in itself or as a way of facilitating the work of other scholars. Even the most recent studies indicate that opinions still remain sharply divided...','inherit','open','open','','127-autosave','','','2012-10-29 19:24:47','2012-10-29 19:24:47','',127,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/127-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(128,1,'2011-01-21 19:25:18','2011-01-21 19:25:18','“Beyond the Metaphysics of books...” Digital Archives and Their Creators and Users.\n\nIn the following section I would like to reflect on some questions about the nature of digital resources, humanities scholarship and the uses to which such material may be put. One of these is the still-contentious issue of whether the creation of such resources is regarded as scholarship in itself or as a way of facilitating the work of other scholars. Even the most recent studies indicate that opinions still remain sharply divided about whether the creation of digital resources such as the Whitman archive is considered to be scholarship and worthy of being rewarded us such by promotion, tenure or in the UK Research Assessment Exercise.[ref]D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence, and C.J. King, “Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines” (UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2010).[/ref] There is an understandable tendency in digital humanities to regard this as an outrageous undervaluation of what we do, and to wish to advocate for our work to be better understood. Yet if we can resist this temptation, the question at issue is an important one. The argument against granting digital resources scholarly status equivalent to a journal article, monograph or critical edition must surely be that such resources are performing a service, akin to that provided by an archive or library in the analogue world: that of bringing together useful materials for other scholars to use.\n\nIt has long been the case that as Melissa Terras has argued so eloquently, in order for our digital work to be valued we must publish in traditional media.[ref]M. Terras, “Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon Digital Humanities” (plenary presented at Digital Humanities 2010 Conference, Kings College London, 2010). http://melissaterras.blogspot.com/2010/07/dh2010-plenary-present-not-voting.html[/ref] However, this is about to change, at least for some of us. In the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework in the UK, digital resources will be assessed in all subject areas as a comparable output to print. This is a vitally important change, carrying with it the implication of a re-evaluation of the scholarly value of the digital; but it places ever more emphasis on the need for us to consider in a rational, not evangelistic, fashion what may distinguish a digital scholarly work from that which renders a service.\n\nIn this context, nomenclature is not a useful guide. The Whitman project’s creators chose to call their creation an archive, perhaps because like the Rosetti Archive or Valley of the Shadow it contains a collection of various different types of material. However, McGann himself describes Rosetti as a digital edition.[ref]Jerome McGann, “Electronic Archives and Critical Editing,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010): 37-42.[/ref] While I do not mean to imply that creating and curating an archive in the analogue world is not an intellectual exercise, it is not in itself something for which scholars gain credit. Thus the metaphor would hold that if scholarship done as the result of the use or creation of a physical archive as opposed to in its curation is recognised, then it should be similar in the digital sphere. But is this really appropriate, and does the name ‘archive’ under value the complex nature of what is being achieved in digital resources such as this? Conversely, why is it then that creating a critical edition, whether print or digital form is considered to be a scholarly activity worthy of credit in its own right?\n\nIt may be because in the print world editors are called upon to make selections and decisions about the best possible copy text, and which textual variants to include. Yet as Gabler argues, as digital technology progresses, digital editions increasingly try to make as many different texts and variants available to readers as possible, to the point that while we may choose to read a literary text in print, the digital medium is most appropriate for complex comparison and study of variants.[ref]H. W. Gabler “Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010):  43–56.[/ref] The theory of social editions also suggests that the literary text should be presented with reference to its broader social and intellectual milieu.[ref]Jerome McGann, <em>A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) and D. F. McKenzie, <em>Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts</em>(London: The British Library, 1986).[/ref]\n\nThe Whitman archive provides page images and transcriptions of all six printed editions of <em>Leaves of Grass</em>, as well as manuscript material and newspaper copy. It calls itself an archive, yet could as easily be considered an excellent example of the digital social edition, where users are encouraged to become part of the scholarly process by comparing transcribed manuscripts with the page images or making judgements about which version of a given poem to use. So this is this, an edition (scholarly product) or an archive (service for others)? I would argue that this distinction is no longer meaningful in the digital sphere where boundaries between what we consider to be editions and archives have become blurred.\n\nEven if we assert that this is a resource for others to use, that could as easily describe a scholarly edition. It is also arguable that the value of such a resource as a scholarly product in its own right is in the choices made about what types of different materials should be brought together, and how contextual maternal about Whitman’s life, work and even disciples should be presented. Once again, these are just the kind of decisions that editors of scholarly editions also make. As all digital humanists are aware, the act of marking up text is in itself one of scholarly interpretation, which is why it is so vital that the full marked up texts are presented here. This, like the decision to present page images alongside transcription is an act of intellectual openness: it allows other scholars to understand, and if necessary question the decisions that have been made in their presentation.  Far from being a sub-scholarly process, digital resources such as Whitman achieve a lustration of the decision making processes that are the silent underpinning of the task of editors or literary scholars in general. In this sense, digital humanities is ahead of many other fields. Science is only beginning to discover the potential of using digital technologies to link experimental data to articles written as a result of its analysis, so that other scholars may use such data to replicate the experiments that are reported on.[ref]C. Bizer, T. Heath, and T. Berners-Lee, “Linked Data - The Story So Far,” <em>International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems</em> (IJSWIS), Special Issue on Linked Data, ed. T. Heath, M. Hepp, and C. Bizer, (forthcoming). http://linkeddata.org/docs/ijswis-special-issue[/ref] Yet resources such as the Whitman archive have been providing this kind of functionality for some time. Texts are the primary data of literary scholars after all.\n\nThere is, it appears, a good case to be made for the scholarly robustness of digital resources, even those which modestly refer to themselves as an archive. The other question we must address, however, in making the case for our disciple is not just whether such resources constitute scholarly activity, but what kind of new types of research they make possible which would not have been achievable in an analogue world. This is surely the main criterion by which digital humanities must be judged. At present this is much less clear.\n\nWe know that the digital medium presents many new possibilities for editors and resource creators themselves, but we still know too little about whether research and scholarship themselves are changing as a result of their use. Vanhoutte, for example, has argued that most users simply require a reading text  despite the fact that digital resources make a deeper kind of scholarly engagement possible.[ref]E. Vanhouttem, “Every Reader His Own Bibliographer – An Absurdity?” in <em>Text Editing, Print and the Digital World</em>, ed. Marilyn Deegan and Kathryn Sutherland (London: Ashgate, 2002): 99-112.[/ref] Even the most recent study of humanities users of digital resources[ref]C. Madsen, “Communities, Innovation, and Critical Mass: Understanding the Impact of Digitization on Scholarship in the Humanities through the Case of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies”  (PhD diss, Oxford University, 2010): Chapters 6-7.[/ref] suggests they still make relatively simple uses of digital resources, which they value as a way to access greater amounts of primary texts without the need to travel, to search them faster, and ultimately, overwhelmingly, to read them. Digital humanists may be using computational analysis or visualisation techniques on huge data sets, (for example Dan Cohen’s recent studies of Google Books[ref]Patricia Cohen, “Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers,” <em>New York Times</em>, December 3, 2010, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all\">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all</a>[/ref]) but it appears that resources such as the Whitman archive may be more transformative of scholarship from the point of view of their creators than of most of their users. Digital Humanities has have moved on from writing evangelising articles and prescribing more training to writing use cases that, arguably, only the converted digital humanists ever read (for example a recent paper on the Monk project[ref]C. Plaisant, T. Clement, R. Vuillemot, S. Steger, and K. Uszkalo, “Use Cases Driving the Tool Development in the MONK project” (paper presented at the Digital Humanities 2009 conference, University of Maryland, USA, June 22-25, 2009).[/ref]) Yet the results appear the same, such excellent resources as Whitman may find that only a few expert users make best use of the potential of what they are being offered.\n\nThis may seem rather a depressing vision, but social networking theory may offer a more positive interpretation of this. We know that in most online communities only 10% of the participants post, the others may read, enjoy, but not take part.[ref]B. Nonnecke and J. Preece, “Lurker Demographics: Counting the Silent” in Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Proceedings of the SIGCHI, 2000): 73-80. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332040.332409&amp;type=series [/ref] It is also an often repeated law of software development that 80% of users make use of 20% of a given application’s features. Thus if we apply such metrics to digital humanities it seems perverse that we somehow feel we have failed unless all users are making the most extensive use of every last piece of potential a resource has to offer. This is why it is important that, as I agued above, digital resources should be accessible for the interested amateur as well as the academic expert and why we should not be disappointed if most people search for quotations for their college assignments or print out poems to use to teach a class, or to read when writing an article. Digital resources have different types of user, and to expect them all to be expert is a kind of techie arrogance of the worst kind.\n\nSocial networking is also relevant in another context when consider digital resources. The possibilities of a very different kind of social edition are only beginning to be explored by projects such as UCL’s own Transcribe Bentham project. Yet the popularity of crowd sourcing has been proven in science, and we know that users will support, explore and exploit more fully resources that they help to create.<a href=\"#_edn12\">[xii]</a> Thus it may be that an alternative way of involving users in digital humanities is not only to consult them about what they would like to do, design resources so that they can do it as well as possible, or suggest ways in which a resources might be used, but also to encourage them to take part in their creation.\n\nIt can be seen therefore that the metaphysics wrought by the digital transformations inherent in the Whitman archives take us well beyond the limitations of books. We can appreciate the new potential inherent in digital production for the scholars who produce such resources, but further work remains to be done on exactly how such editions or archives may transform the lives of their users. Part of this work will be undertaken in the coming year by researchers from the INKE project, when we will consider digital scholarly editions. However, in a more general sense it will be fascinating to see whether and how far any kind of crowd sourced content may be integrated into serious scholarly resources such as Whitman. Until that experiment is tried in earnest, we are still some way from utilising the potential of the truly social edition.\n\n<hr size=\"1\" /><a href=\"#_ednref\">[i]</a> D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence, and C.J. King, “Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines” (UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2010).\n<h3><a href=\"#_ednref\">[ii]</a> M. Terras, “Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon Digital Humanities” (plenary presented at Digital Humanities 2010 Conference, Kings College London, 2010). <a href=\"http://melissaterras.blogspot.com/2010/07/dh2010-plenary-present-not-voting.html\">http://melissaterras.blogspot.com/2010/07/dh2010-plenary-present-not-voting.html</a></h3>\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iii]</a> Jerome McGann, “Electronic Archives and Critical Editing,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010): 37-42.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[iv]</a> H. W. Gabler “Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition,” <em>Literature Compass</em> 7:10 (2010):  43–56.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[v]</a> Jerome McGann, <em>A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism</em><cite> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) and D. F. </cite>McKenzie, <em>Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts</em><cite> (London: The British Library, 1986).</cite>\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[vi]</a> C. Bizer, T. Heath, and T. Berners-Lee, “Linked Data - The Story So Far,” <em>International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems</em> (IJSWIS), Special Issue on Linked<em> </em>Data, ed. T. Heath, M. Hepp, and C. Bizer<em>, </em>(forthcoming). <a href=\"http://linkeddata.org/docs/ijswis-special-issue\">http://linkeddata.org/docs/ijswis-special-issue</a>\n<h3><a href=\"#_ednref\">[vii]</a> E. Vanhouttem, “Every Reader His Own Bibliographer – An Absurdity?” in <em>Text Editing, Print and the Digital World</em>, ed. Marilyn Deegan and Kathryn Sutherland (London: Ashgate, 2002): 99-112.<em> </em></h3>\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[viii]</a> C. <em>Madsen, “</em>Communities, Innovation, and Critical Mass: Understanding the Impact of Digitization on Scholarship in the Humanities through the Case of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies”  (PhD diss, Oxford University, 2010): Chapters 6-7.\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[ix]</a> Patricia Cohen, “Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers,” <em>New York Times</em>, December 3, 2010, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all\">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/books/04victorian.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all</a>\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[x]</a> <em>C. Plaisant, T. Clement, R. Vuillemot, S. Steger, and K. Uszkalo, “Use Cases Driving the Tool Development in the MONK project” (paper presented at the Digital Humanities 2009 conference, University of Maryland, USA, June 22-25, 2009).</em>\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[xi]</a> B. Nonnecke and J. Preece, “Lurker Demographics: Counting the Silent” in <em>Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems</em> (Proceedings of the SIGCHI, 2000): 73-80. <a href=\"http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332040.332409&amp;type=series\">http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332040.332409&amp;type=series</a> <cite></cite>\n\n<a href=\"#_ednref\">[xii]</a> Claire Warwick, M. Terras and C. Fisher, “iTrench: A Study of User Reactions to the Use of IT in Field Archaeology” (paper presented at <em>Digital Humanities 2008 conference, University of Oulu, Finland, June 25-29 2008)</em>.','Claire Warwick, Part II: Essay','','inherit','open','open','','127-revision','','','2011-01-21 19:25:18','2011-01-21 19:25:18','',127,'http://archivejournal.net/2011/01/127-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(130,8,'2011-01-21 19:53:57','2011-01-21 19:53:57','Though the <em>Walt Whitman Archive</em> seems well designed for researchers at all levels of expertise, it strikes me as particularly well-suited for students or for others who may enter the site with limited knowledge about the author and his works. A significant advantage is the clean and inviting appearance of the layout at all levels of the database. The interface is wonderfully uncluttered, making exploration simple and unintimidating. On the homepage left-hand navigation menu, I found the categories to be intuitive and well-organized. I clarified this assessment with an experiment, in which I browsed manually for items that I already knew existed in the archive. In all cases, I was able to locate the target items with little or no backtracking.\r\n\r\nI found the most valuable feature of the site for the non-expert visitor to be the contextual information that was present on many of the pages in the database. For example, when clicking on any of the major links under the “published works” tab, I was given a short blurb that generally included a preface to the contents of the page, its status of development and coming additions, and any important contextual knowledge that would help me situate it in culture or among Whitman’s other works. It was also extremely helpful to find each of Whitman’s published books (excluding the foreign editions) furnished with a detailed and thoughtful “About” page, which provided enough background and compelling analysis to give me, the student and non-expert, a firm grasp of the material I was about to browse.\r\n\r\nI would feel confident and comfortable investigating a specific topic, browsing for research material, or exploring new content out of curiosity on the <em>Archive</em>. More than a repository, it is well-developed as a learning tool for those who are new to Whitman scholarship.','The Walt Whitman Archive – McGonagill 1','Though the Walt Whitman Archive seems well designed for researchers at all levels of expertise, it strikes me as particularly well-suited for students or for others who may enter the site with limited knowledge about the author and his works. A significant advantage is the clean and inviting appearance of the layout at all levels of the database. The interface is wonderfully uncluttered, making exploration simple and unintimidating.','publish','open','open','','the-walt-whitman-archive-mcgonagill-1','','','2012-10-29 19:22:56','2012-10-29 19:22:56','',0,'http://archivejournal.net/?p=130',91,'post','',2),