The community archival perspective of this fourth paradigm does not stop withencouraging community archives to keep their archives to serve their own and,eventually, society’s interests in having expanded, vibrant, usable, and contextu-alized records for memory and identity, by sharing expertise and knowledge in bothdirections. Archivists can also engage interested members of the community ininteractive dialogues with mainstream archives and their holdings. Participatorydescription of mainstream archival holdings through online tagging and commen-tary by users and community members, in early experiments, has suggested that bysuch means, records can come into sharper focus and clearer context, addingvaluable information that archivists would not have the time or contacts orknowledge to unearth—to say nothing of building enthusiastic support for archivesthrough such welcoming attitudes (Yakel 2011; Huvila 2008). Another initiative isto rethink appraisal and acquisition in terms of creating a virtual, inclusive, ‘‘total’’archive for a country, province or state, or similar jurisdiction, one held by manyarchives and libraries, including community archives, but unified in conception andcomprehensiveness. Canada is now moving to make ‘‘total archives’’ more thanrhetorical flourish or institutional aspiration, but actual operational reality, within apan-Canadian national collaborative stewardship network to appraise, acquire, andpreserve the nation’s documentary heritage, whether published or unpublished,analogue or digital, text, graphic, or sound. As the Librarian and Archivist ofCanada has recently written, ‘‘We are beginning to understand that the constructionand constitution of the civic goods of public memory are a collective, socialresponsibility requiring broad participation across all sectors.’’
What resonated most with me in this passage was Cook’s emphasis on collective civic accountability and responsibility in archival practice. Traditionally, archival spaces have frequently functioned as exclusive environments, where access was limited and interaction with records was restricted to a specific, skilled group of professionals. I do not agree that this model serves the greater good. If materials are preserved but remain inaccessible to the communities they serve, the archival mission is then a failure. Cook’s argument reinforces the idea that archives should reflect the perspectives, experiences, and sentiments of the communities they serve. I was affected by the example of Canadian archival initiatives. The Canadian archival system demonstrates how a coordinated and collaborative system can bring together institutions, professionals, and communities in order to support more inclusive access and stewardship. In contrast, the current standings of archival work in the United States appear to be moving in the opposite direction, especially regarding access and preservation. This passage made me reflect on how openness and collaboration have the potential to revitalize archives and align them more closely with the needs of society.