Trust and context in cyberspace

Every day we place trust or reliance on other people and on inanimate objects, but trust may be diminished in the world of information resources and technology. We are often told that information needs higher standards of verification in digital realms than in the paper world. Similarly, when we encounter digital records and archives we may be uncertain how far we can trust them. In the past, trust in records was said to be reinforced by trust in archivists and archival institutions. However, trust in professional experts and institutions is waning; notions of expert objectivity are increasingly challenged. This paper explores an idea proposed by David Weinberger, that ‘transparency is the new objectivity’. Where records are concerned, documentation of provenance and context forms a basis for enhancing their transparency and thus for evaluating their trustworthiness. Many commentators have expressed anxiety that, in digital environments where resources are reused and remixed at will, records may become decontextualized. But in computer science questions are now being asked about how data can be trusted and verified, and knowledge of their provenance is increasingly seen as a foundation for enabling trust. Many computer scientists argue that, while data should be reusable, each piece of data should carry evidence of its history and original contexts to help those who encounter it to judge its trustworthiness. Some researchers have set out to develop systems to capture and preserve information about data provenance. In the longer term, this research may help archivists meet the challenges of gathering and maintaining contextual information in the world of digital record-keeping. Methods of automatically harvesting certain kinds of contextual information are under investigation; automated solutions are likely to expedite what are currently time-consuming manual processes. However, merely being presented with information about provenance is not enough. Insofar as individuals or institutions supply us with that information, we have to decide how far we trust what those people or institutions tell us. There is still a place for expert voices, but experts cannot be seen as infallible providers of objective information.