Print

Print
Message
I agree with Marc.  I think we have systems in place to ensure the authenticity of the copies of the websites we harvest.  If I may be allowed a rant, I feel strongly that we should not allow concerns about the nature of websites to stop us from collecting them (whatever they are).  Most websites dating from before Brewster Kahle (www.archive.org) began collecting in late 1996 have been lost and many of his early ones are not complete.  Future generations might regard us as rather less careful than our predecessors in the fifteenth century - most of Gutenberg and Caxton's works survive.
David
 
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Fresko, Marc
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 6:20 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Quick question...

Gerry,
 
I was trying to avoid this debate, but I don't think I can let this pass without comment.
 
Certainly a website can be changed, in the sense of the rendition we see on a screen at a particular moment after we have typed the site's url.  But I don't think anyone is suggesting that this transient rendition is itself a record.  What we are saying is that the information in that rendition is (may be) worthy of being treated as a record; and that the record will be a static copy of that site, taken at a known time and stored with all the normal record keeping controls to ensure that it cannot be changed and can always be rendered with acceptable accuracy.  This extends well beyond government of course.
 
The above glosses over some theoretical details such as the notions of "rendition" and "copy"; but the basic point is sound, I believe.
 
Incidentally, there are some software solutions which recognise this, and which capture then store as records every web page rendition a user sees, down to the level of every field being filled in and every page sent to the user.  I believe these are used mostly in financial services settings where there may be a risk that what the users sees at any moment is significant to a financial transaction.
 
Marc Fresko
EDM & ERM Consulting Services Director
Cornwell Management Consultants plc
Home Barn Court
The Street
Effingham, Surrey
KT24 5LG
[log in to unmask]

Tel: 01372 456086
Mob: 07767 325630
Fax: 01372 450950

Web: http://www.cornwell.co.uk
From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gerry Dane
Sent: 01 April 2005 08:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick question...

"communicates with its citizens and, increasingly, they are the means by which citizens conduct transactions with government"
 
Precisely, which brings the question round to the quality of the 'evidence'.  The issue becomes one of the integrity of the record - and if we have a 'record' that can be altered then we are not dealing with a 'record' - public or otherwise, we are in fact dealing with a 'document'. A document can certainly yield evidence but it cannot yield 'record' evidence.
 
This is a modern business notion of course and I'm not suggesting we stop relying on the 'historical record' simply because it wasn't declared as a record! But in the present world there is a hankering need  (probably driven by the notions of accountability and transparency), to establish the 'record' and this concerns not only the object of the record itself but equally (if not more so) the system wherein/on which it is/was created.
 
Gerry.
 

Mr.G.Dane
University of Newcastle
Newcastle upon Tyne
Email: [log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------
The views expressed in this message are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the University.

 
 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Thomas
Sent: 31 March 2005 22:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick question...

If you go here you will see that the National Archives does collect websites and does treat them as records.  We have recently acquired the back catalogue of government web sites from 1996 to date.
 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/preservation/webarchive/?source=ddmenu_search5
 
The reasons we believe they are public records are that they are the means by which the government communicates with its citizens and, increasingly, they are the means by which citizens conduct transactions with government.  Nobody would now claim that a fifteenth century proclamation was not a public record just because it was printed, would they?
 
David Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Stephen Howard
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Quick question...

Claire

I suggest you have a look at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/electronicrecords/advice/pdf/website_toolkit.pdf

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Hoy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 March 2005 11:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick question...


Claire,

Wouldn’t have thought so simply because it conveys information, but I
suppose “printed pages” from the website may become a record in
themselves, because they then become static and cannot be altered
without it being apparently noticeable; whereas you could alter a
website and it would not be so apparent.

Regards,

Cliff

-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Claire Park
Sent: 31 March 2005 11:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Quick question...

I would like the opinion of the group on the following statement:

"Is a website a public record?"

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005
 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005