Not sure this helps for your slides, but I’m interested in how we can promote the benefits of archives2.0. or perhaps preserve the better bits of archives1.0 in archives2.0. I’d assume that most readers of this thread will agree that archives2.0 has to be a ‘good thing’, but I’m coming from an organisation where I’m afraid the results of a current (online) user consultation looks to be that actually they much prefer the archives1.0 model! Local knowledge, and (especially) local access is hugely valued. If archives2.0 is an evolution, how can we achieve the flexibility and innovation in delivery, and the wider user base we all crave, without alienating existing users and advocates?

Even more, the biggest complaint about the whole Web 2.0 thing is, that there are SO many different tools and ways to do things, and they are all seemingly hard to connect to each other. It would be helpful to even have a standard, for example for storing profile information.

I think that the participatory archives you’re talking about are very much characteristic of the larger phenomenon that I’m calling Archives 2.0. The designation “2.0″ (or 3.0, etc.) doesn’t imply revolution–it’s an evolution or iteration. It’s the next phase of development. And this is most definitely not just about fun new tools. Although being open to using fun new tools is part of what differentiates 1.0 from 2.0–although all of these are clearly broad generalizations, of course. Archives 2.0 is being used as an umbrella term to talk about a larger set of changes that have taken place (and are still taking place in some institutions).

This may also be very much a discussion based on the archival profession and practice in the United States where I do think there are many changes that move far beyond just using Web 2.0 tools. I’ve tried to make it clear that most of the characteristics have little to do with specific tools, except, as I’ve said, a willingness to use them and an appreciation for the speed, transparency and interactive nature of communication they support.

And, Christian and Rebecca–that “standardization” is referring to the increasing use of standards for archival practice (largely for description), so maybe that one should be “use of standards” instead. Does that help?

Actually, I did think of one thing. Some people (including a nagging little voice at the back of my mind, sometimes) may ask “What about preservation?” How can we assure that in adding these new roles to our outlooks and to our work, that preservation is continued? I think that such questions, although sometimes sounding like they come from backwards-looking, change-resistant, hairsplitting worrywarts–sometimes myself included!–are important to address in some way. Can these concerns be addressed simply in a “Hey, relax. We’re not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here” kind of way or should our we use these tensions as an opportunity to look systematically at what are roles as archivists truly are? And if so, how? (My attempts at eloquence on a too-hot Sunday afternoon.)