Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio


Núm. 23 (2020): Recalculando archivos. Reflexiones en tiempos de crisis

El archivo invertido: umbrales, autenticidad y Demos (pueblo)

January 27, 2021
January 27, 2021


Este artículo sostiene que el concepto de “umbral archivístico” del ius archivi en el que la recepción de documentos por un archivo sirve para autenticar esos documentos, se invierte en la era de los datos gubernamentales abiertos y de las tecnologías cívicas. Estas tecnologías crean una expectativa de transparencia que invierte la función del umbral. Sólo a través de la transmisión de datos desde los archivos al espacio público se puede determinar la autenticidad. En una época de “noticias falsas” y de los llamados “hechos alternativos”, esta dinámica es problemática y plantea interrogantes sobre la participación en los sistemas de información estatales.

This paper argues that the ius archivi concept of the “archival threshold”, in which receipt of records by an authoritative archive serves to authenticate those records, is inverted in the era of open government data and civic technologies. These technologies of witnessing create an expectation of transparency that reverses the function of the threshold; it is only through the transmission of data out of archives and into public space that authenticity can be judged. In a time of ‘fake news’ and so called ‘alternative facts’, this dynamic is problematic and raises questions about participation in state information systems.


  1. Anderson, SR & Allen, RB. ‘Envisioning the Archival Commons’, American Archivist, 72(2), 2009, pp. 383-400.
  2. Arthur, C. y Cross, M. ‘Give us back our crown Jewels’, The Guardian (9 March 2006) [Consulta: 14 septiembre 2018].
  3. Battley, B. ‘Authenticity in places of belonging: community collective memory as a complex, adaptive recordkeeping system’, Archival Science (2019) 19:1-26.
  4. Baranczak, S. A Fugitive from Utopia: The Poetry of Zbigniew Herbert, Harvard University Press, 1987.
  5. Barrett, M y Ling Kent, J. ‘Inside the government agency designing tech to fight fake news’, NBC, [Consulta: 22 octubre 2018].
  6. Bastian, J. ‘Mine, Yours, Ours: Archival Custody from Transaction to Narrative’ (en prensa).
  7. Blake, A. ‘Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump’s team has ‘alternative facts.’ Which pretty much says it all’,Washington Post, 22 January 2017,, [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020].
  8. Blouin, F. y Rosenberg, W. Processing the Past: Contesting Authority in History and the Archives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  9. Bogard, W. ‘Welcome to the Society of Control: The Simulation of Surveillance Revisited’ en: K Haggerty & R Ericson (eds.) The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility (pp. 55-78). Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 2006.
  10. Clanchy, M. T. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307, 3rd ed.,Wiley Blackwell (2012).
  11. Cook, T. ‘Electronic Records, Paper Minds: The Revolution in Information Management and Archives in the Post-Custodial and Post-Modernist Era’, Archives & Social Studies: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Vol. 1, no. 0 (March 2007).
  12. Cunningham, A. ‘Journey to the End of the Night: Custody and the dawning of a new era on the archival threshold’, Archives and Manuscripts, 24:2, 1996.
  13. Cunningham, A. ‘The Postcustodial Archive’ en: Hill, J. (ed) The Future of Archives and Recordkeeping: A Reader 2010.
  14. Cunningham, A. ‘Archives as a Place’ en: MacNeil, H. y Eastwood, T. (eds.) Currents in Archival Thinking, 2nd ed. Libraries Unlimited, 2017.
  15. Deleuze, G. ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control’, October, Vol. 59. (Winter, 1992), p.7.
  16. Deseriis, M. ‘The General, the Watchman, and the Engineer of Control: The Relationship Between Cooperation, Communication, and Command in the Society of Control’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 35(4), 2011, pp.387-394.
  17. Duranti, L. ‘Archives as a Place’, Archives and Manuscripts, 24:2, 1996.
  18. Duranti L. & Jansen, A. “Records in the Cloud: Authenticity and jurisdiction,” 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), Marseille, 2013, pp. 161-164.
  19. Eastwood, T. “Should Creating Agencies Keep Electronic Records Indefinitely?” Archives and Manuscripts, 24(2), 256-267 (1996).
  20. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Vintage Books, 1995.
  21. Gitelman, L. Paper Knowledge: Toward a Media History of Documents, (Duke University Press, 2014).
  22. Government Digital Service, About, [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020]. The Guardian, Free Our Data, [Consulta: 14 septiembre 2018].
  23. Guilbert, K. ‘Smartphone-wielding civilians to combat war crimes – with an app’, Thomson Reuters Foundation, 7 June 2015 [Consulta: 20 mayo 2018].
  24. Guo, W. Fang, Y. Pan, W., Li, D. ‘Archives as a trusted third party in maintaining and preserving digital records in the cloud environment’, Records Management Journal,2016, Vol. 26 Issue: 2, pp.170-184,
  25. Head, R. ‘Configuring European archives: spaces, materials and practices in the differentiation of repositories from the late Middle Ages to 1700,’ European History Quarterly 46, 3 (2016), pp. 498-518 (Special issue: The Archival Turn in Early Modern European History).
  26. Head, R. ‘Documents, Archives, and Proof Around 1700,’ The Historical Journal 56, no. 4 (12, 2013): 909-930, [Consulta: 14 febrero 2019].
  27. Hetherington, K. Guerrilla Auditors: The Politics of Transparency in Neoliberal Paraguay, London: Duke University Press, 2011.
  28. Hogge, B. Open Data: Six Stories About Impact in the UK. London, UK: Omidyar Network,November 2015. Disponible en [Consulta: 19 mayo 2020].
  29. InterPARES Véase: [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020].
  30. InterPARES Authenticity Task Force, Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining the Authenticityof Electronic Records, (InterPARES, 2002) [Consulta: 18 octubre 2018].
  31. Kitchin, R. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & their Consequences, London: Sage, 2014, p. 49.
  32. Knight Foundation, The Emergence of Civic Tech: Investments in a Growing Field, December 2013 [Consulta: 20 septiembre 2018].
  33. Krivý, M. ‘Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control’, Planning Theory, February 2018, Vol.17(1), pp. 8-30.
  34. Lappin, J. Why a link between MoReq2010 and the OAIS model would benefit both records managers and archivists: The dream of a single record keeping profession’ https://think would-benefit-both-records-managers-and-archivists/ 2012.
  35. Love, J. M. ‘A Society of Control: The People and the Individual’, Public Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 2013, pp.576-593.
  36. Lowry, J. ‘Opening Government: Open Data and Access to Information’, en J Lowry & J. Wamukoya (eds.), Integrity in Government through Records Management: Essays in Honour of Anne Thurston. Ashgate. 2014.
  37. MacNeil, H. Trusting Records: Legal, Historical and Diplomatic Perspectives, Springer, 2000.
  38. MacNeil, H. ‘Providing Grounds for Trust: Developing Conceptual Requirements for the Long-Term Preservation of Authentic Electronic Records’, Archivaria, 50 Fall 2000.
  39. MacNeil, H. ‘Trusting Records in a Postmodern World’, Archivaria, 51 (2001).
  40. MacNeil, H. ‘Trusting Records in the Digital Age: Changing Archival Perspectives’ en Die Zukunft der Vergangenheit in der Gegenwart (pp. 89-100).
  41. Martinez, D. ‘Beyond disciplinary enclosures: Management control in the society of control’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (2011) 200-211.
  42. McKemmish, S. Upward, F. & Reed, B. ‘Records Continuum Model’, Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed.), CRC Press, 2010, pp. 4447-8.
  43. My Society, FixMyStreet,, [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020].
  44. My Society, TheyWorkForYou, [Consulta: 18 marzo2020].
  45. Open Data Institute, Business Plan 2012-2017, [Consulta: 14 septiembre 2018].
  46. Open Government Partnership, Open Government Declaration, [Consulta: 14 septiembre 2018].
  47. Open Government Partnership, About OGP, [Consulta: 14 septiembre].
  48. Open Knowledge International, The Open Definition, [Consulta:14 septiembre 2018].
  49. O’Shea, G. & Roberts, D. ‘Living in a Digital World: Recognising the Electronic and Post-Custodial Realities, Archives and Manuscripts, 24 (2): 1996. pp. 286-311.
  50. Ribes, D. y Jackson, S. ‘Data Bite Man: The Work of Sustaining a Long-Term Study’, en L Gitelman (ed.), Raw Data is an Oxymoron (MIT Press 2013), p. 152.
  51. Schmidt, S. y Bever, L. ‘Kellyanne Conway cites ‘Bowling Green massacre’ that never happened to defend travel ban’, Washington Post, 3 February 2017, [Consulta:18 marzo 2020].
  52. Shadbolt, N. ‘A Year of’, The Guardian datablog, 21 January 2011 [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020].
  53. Theimer, K. citado en: Huvila, I. ‘What is a participatory archive? For real (?)’, 31 August 2011 [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020].
  54. UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Distributed Ledger Technology: Beyond Block Chain, Government Office for Science, 2016, p. 17 [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020].
  55. UK Open Government Network, About, [Consulta: 18 marzo 2020].
  56. Upward, F. & McKemmish, S. “Somewhere Beyond Custody.” Archives and Manuscripts: Journal of the Australian Society of Archivists 22 (2) (1994): 136-49.
  57. Wood, S., Lowry, J. and Lau, A. “Information/Control - Control in the Age of Post-Truth: An Introduction,” en S Wood, J Lowry y A Lau (eds.) “Information/Control:Control in the Age of Post-Truth,” special issue, Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies 2:2 (2019). DOI:
  58. Yeo, G. Records, Information and Data: Exploring the role of Record-keeping in an Information Culture, Facet Publishing, 2018.