In Steve Zeitlin’s piece “What are the best stories? Where can I find my story?”, he mentions in one brief paragraph that City of Memory plans “to re-curate the site periodically, leaving only the more interesting and substantive entries up permanently” (p. 40). I’m not sure what to think of this practice. On one hand, I can agree that some stories are more interesting than others. Curators of history are tasked with consolidating the whole story into a digestible and accessible format. When I research and write, I certainly choose to leave out certain antidotes, images, and data in favor of more interesting flavors.
However, I am also troubled by this weeding out of memories. Isn’t the point of these public projects to quantify stories, give ordinary folks historic power, and democratize history? Zeitlin rationalized this practice by stating that visitors won’t mind the elimination because, “stories we eliminate are precisely those to which the contributors did not give significant time or thought” (p. 40). I have a hard time buying this. As a curator, you might find a story less provocative or interesting than others, but that can’t mean that all “boring” stories were written haphazardly and without meaning for the author.
I understand the need to present a clean and organized site that features the most engaging stories up front. I would do the same. But I don’t agree with completely banishing the less than impressive stories. There should be an archive feature built into the site, where older, less desirable stories can find a home. This way you can build an exciting website, while still honoring all the stories that have been shared.
Michelle, I definitely paused when I was reading this and had similar reservations. Perhaps it is our nature as historians to see a value in every seemingly mundane memory, artifact, or document, but I definitely think that deleting content goes against the goals of the City of Memory project. Perhaps this is where the feedback-loop of the netflix or youtube style rating system could come into play, letting site visitors determine which stories are listed as features, while still preserving the “less interesting” stories in an archived area.
This annoyed me too!
But this is something I deal with regularly in my life & still haven’t figured out how to deal with. My Nana was raised by two deaf parents and has a very distinctive writing and speech style because of it. So when she asks me to edit her family memoirs I’m at a loss of what to do. Often I feel that I gut the “feel” of her work and make it sound overly academic.
Further, how does Zeitlin know what’s going to be important in the future. Doesn’t Professor Huntley work almost exclusively with small drawings and graffiti that was deemed “unimportant” by the people who drew/wrote it? Graffiti and weird little cat stories pinned onto a map can be useful!
Mia, yes I love the feedback options that were mentioned in several of the readings. I think “like” or “thumbs up” buttons could be hugely beneficial to almost all public history venues.
Kaci, this point about Graffiti is right on! Who knows what future historians will value or need to make interpretations about the past!