Preserving authenticity in the digital age

Abstract

Purpose In this increasingly digital world, archivists have had to reconsider early definitions and measures of authenticity in order to ensure their applicability to the process of preserving digital records. This paper sets out to explore the complexities involved in defining and preserving the authenticity of digital files. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on literature from the field to present a comprehensive overview of traditional definitions of authenticity and highlight the shifting nature of those definitions in the digital age. The discussion begins with a look at traditional archival understandings of authenticity as they relate to physical objects. The paper goes on to examine these challenges and efforts and includes a look at the resource demands and technology tools currently used to evaluate digital authenticity. The paper conducted extensive research on the subject to compile source materials and draw conclusions. Findings This paper highlights the inherent challenge of establishing and maintaining pertinent criteria for authenticity when archivists are, for the most part, electing to reformat and effectively change digital records in order to ensure their long‐term preservation. Practical implications This paper includes practical implications for redefining, measuring, and preserving the authenticity of digital records. Social implications This paper has social implications in that it asserts a need to question the well‐established understanding of what it means to be authentic. Originality/value The paper brings together a range of information and presents a comprehensive yet succinct view of the issues involved in defining and preserving digital authenticity, not otherwise found in the literature serving the archive community.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.