Module 4: Curating the Haunted Forest

Archaeobytology 300: Institution Building & Strategic Infrastructure

Module Overview

Core Question: How do we build museums, archives, and memory institutions for murdered digital artifacts—not just storing them, but making them meaningful for future generations?

Learning Objective: Students will design a complete digital memory institution (museum, archive, library, or memorial) that preserves Umbrabytes while providing public access, curatorial interpretation, and cultural context.

Time: Week 9-10

The Shift: From Storage to Meaning

Modules 1-3 focused on preservation: - Module 1: How do we sustain an Archive? - Module 2: How do we monetize sovereignty tools? - Module 3: How do we build distributed infrastructure?

Module 4 asks: What do we do with preserved artifacts once we have them?

The Haunted Forest Metaphor

A Haunted Forest is where murdered digital artifacts go: - They're not "lost" (we have the bits) - They're not "alive" (platforms killed them) - They're haunting—present but inert, demanding to be remembered

Examples: - GeoCities sites (30M websites killed in 2009) - Vine videos (200M 6-second clips, platform shut down 2017) - Google Reader feeds (platform killed 2013, millions of curated feeds lost) - Tumblr pre-purge content (NSFW ban deleted millions of posts, 2018)

The Challenge: These artifacts exist in archives, but they're: - ❌ Decontextualized (why did this matter?) - ❌ Illegible (requires dead software to read) - ❌ Inaccessible (buried in massive archives) - ❌ Unmourned (no public memory of what was lost)

Your Job: Build a memory institution that makes the Haunted Forest visitable.

Core Reading

Primary Texts

Manoff, M. (2004). "Theories of the Archive from Across the Disciplines." Portal: Libraries and the Academy. - Focus: What is an archive? How do power and memory intersect? - Key Insight: Archives don't neutrally preserve—they construct memory - Question: Who decides what's worth remembering?

Drucker, J. (2013). "Is There a 'Digital' Art History?" Visual Resources. - Focus: How do we study/display digital artifacts? - Key Insight: Digital objects resist traditional museum practices - Question: Can you "curate" code, platforms, interfaces?

Chun, W. (2011). "The Enduring Ephemeral, or the Future Is a Memory." Critical Inquiry. - Focus: Digital media's paradox (simultaneously ephemeral and permanent) - Key Insight: We fetishize "permanence" but lose context/meaning - Question: Is preservation enough, or do we need interpretation?

Case Study Readings

Internet Archive's Wayback Machine - What It Is: Time-travel view of archived websites - Strengths: Massive scale (800B+ pages), public access, easy browsing - Weaknesses: No curation (just chronological), no context (why did this site matter?), technical fidelity issues (JavaScript/Flash often broken) - Question: Is this a museum or a warehouse?

The Museum of Obsolete Media - What It Is: Physical/digital museum of dead media formats (Betamax, LaserDisc, Zip disks, etc.) - Strengths: Curatorial interpretation, cultural context, format-agnostic - Weaknesses: Small scale (individual collector's project), not comprehensive - Question: How do you scale curation?

GeoCities Archive (by Archive Team) - What It Is: 650GB torrent of GeoCities sites, plus "OoCities" web interface - Strengths: Preserved what Yahoo deleted - Weaknesses: No curation, no search, no interpretation—just a data dump - Question: Is this a "rescue" or just hoarding?

The Strong National Museum of Play (Video Game Archive) - What It Is: Physical museum with playable game archives - Strengths: Emulation allows hands-on interaction, curatorial exhibits provide context - Weaknesses: Legal grey area (copyright on ROMs), limited access (must visit Rochester, NY) - Question: How do you balance preservation, access, and legality?

The September 11 Digital Archive - What It Is: Curated collection of 9/11 digital artifacts (emails, photos, websites, first-person accounts) - Strengths: Community-contributed, curatorial interpretation, emotional/cultural context - Weaknesses: Time-limited (closed to new submissions), requires active maintenance - Question: How do you curate trauma?

Lecture: The Memory Institution Design Matrix

Memory institutions have existed for centuries (libraries, museums, archives). Digital preservation requires new models.

Dimension 1: Institutional Type

| Type | Primary Function | Access Model | Curatorial Approach | Example | |------|-----------------|--------------|---------------------|---------| | Library | Circulate materials for use | Open borrowing, public access | Cataloging, not interpretation | Public library, university library | | Archive | Preserve records for research | Restricted, researcher access | Minimal interpretation, focus on authenticity | National Archives, corporate archives | | Museum | Display, interpret, educate | Public exhibits, guided experience | Heavy curation, thematic narratives | Smithsonian, MoMA | | Memorial | Commemorate, mourn, remember | Public, often free | Emotional/ethical framing | Holocaust Museum, 9/11 Memorial | | Research Collection | Enable scholarly study | Restricted, academic access | Minimal curation, maximum documentation | Beinecke Library, Bancroft Library |

For digital artifacts: - Library model: Wayback Machine (browse, search, retrieve) - Archive model: Software Heritage (researchers can query all source code) - Museum model: Strong Museum (curated exhibits on video game history) - Memorial model: GeoCities Archive (monument to a murdered platform)

Key Question: What's your institution's primary goal? Preservation, access, education, or mourning?

Dimension 2: Curatorial Philosophy

| Approach | What Gets Preserved | How It's Organized | Strengths | Weaknesses | |----------|--------------------|--------------------|-----------|------------| | Comprehensive | Everything (no selection) | Chronological, minimal curation | Nothing lost, no editorial bias | Overwhelming, unusable at scale | | Curated | Selected artifacts | Thematic, narrative-driven | Meaningful, educational | Bias in selection, loss of context | | Community-Driven | User submissions | Tags, categories by contributors | Democratic, diverse perspectives | Quality varies, spam risk | | Algorithmic | Automated importance ranking | Popularity, links, engagement | Scalable, objective metrics | Misses marginalized content | | Hybrid | Mix of above | Multiple entry points | Balances comprehensiveness and usability | Complex to maintain |

Examples: - Comprehensive: Internet Archive (everything gets archived) - Curated: Museum exhibits (staff selects representative artifacts) - Community-Driven: 9/11 Digital Archive (public submissions + moderation) - Algorithmic: Google (PageRank determines what's "important") - Hybrid: Library of Congress Web Archive (automated crawling + librarian selection)

Key Question: Who decides what's worth remembering?

Dimension 3: Access & Experience

| Access Model | Who Can Use It | How They Use It | Example | |-------------|---------------|----------------|---------| | Open Web | Anyone, anywhere | Browse in web browser | Wayback Machine | | On-Site Only | Must visit physical location | Hands-on with artifacts | Strong Museum playable games | | Researcher Access | Must apply/qualify | Submit requests, staff retrieve | National Archives | | Embargoed | No access until X years pass | Protect privacy/copyright | Corporate archives, personal papers | | Tiered | Public gets some, researchers get more | Multiple access levels | Academic libraries |

For digital artifacts: - Open Web: Easy access, massive reach, but no guidance - On-Site: Ensures fidelity (view on original hardware), but limited access - Researcher Access: Protects copyright, enables deep study, but excludes public - Embargoed: Respects rights-holders, but delays cultural memory - Tiered: Balances public engagement with researcher needs

Key Question: Who is your audience? (Public? Scholars? Both?)

Dimension 4: Technical Fidelity

How do you make dead artifacts usable?

| Strategy | What It Preserves | What You Can Do | Example | |----------|------------------|----------------|---------| | Screenshots/Video | Visual appearance only | Look, but not interact | Most museum exhibits | | Static Archive | HTML/CSS/images | Browse, but dynamic features broken | Wayback Machine for simple sites | | Emulation | Full interactive experience | Use as originally designed | Internet Archive's browser emulators | | Source Code | Underlying code | Recompile, study, fork | Software Heritage | | Live Preservation | Original infrastructure kept running | Use exactly as intended | Rare, expensive (museums with vintage hardware) | | Resurrection | Rebuild on modern infrastructure | Use adapted version | Fan-made remakes, spiritual successors |

The Fidelity Ladder: 1. Documentation (screenshots, descriptions) → Easy, but least faithful 2. Static Preservation (archived HTML) → Medium, works for simple sites 3. Emulation (run old software in sandbox) → Hard, but high fidelity 4. Resurrection (rebuild from scratch) → Very hard, but modernized

Key Question: How much fidelity do you need? (Screenshots for most, emulation for research?)

Framework: The Haunted Forest Design Canvas

Your assignment will design a complete memory institution.

Section 1: Mission & Scope

What are you preserving? - Artifact Type: Websites? Software? Social media? Games? - Platform: What was murdered? (GeoCities? Vine? Flash? Google Reader?) - Scale: How many artifacts? (Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?) - Timeframe: When were they created? When were they killed?

Example (hypothetical):

Mission: Curate a museum of the "Web 1.0 Personal Homepage Era" (1994-2004), focusing on individual expression before social media platforms.

Artifacts: 10,000 representative GeoCities/Angelfire/Tripod sites

Timeframe: Created 1994-2004, murdered 2009 (GeoCities shutdown)

Section 2: Institutional Model

What kind of institution are you?

Choose one primary model (you can blend):

Option A: Museum

- Goal: Educate the public about digital history - Access: Public-facing exhibits, guided narratives - Curation: Heavy (select representative artifacts, provide context) - Example: "The Museum of the Early Social Web"

Option B: Archive

- Goal: Preserve for researchers - Access: Researcher access, searchable catalog - Curation: Light (organize, don't interpret) - Example: "The Personal Homepage Archive"

Option C: Library

- Goal: Circulate access to artifacts - Access: Public borrowing/viewing - Curation: Cataloging (like books: author, title, subject) - Example: "The Digital Ephemera Library"

Option D: Memorial

- Goal: Commemorate what was lost - Access: Public memorial, emotional experience - Curation: Thematic (loss, community, erasure) - Example: "The GeoCities Memorial"

Option E: Living Archive

- Goal: Resurrect artifacts, make usable today - Access: Fully interactive, updated for modern use - Curation: Adaptive (port old content to new platforms) - Example: "The Revived Web: GeoCities Redux"

Key Question: Are you preserving the past as it was, or adapting it for how we live now?

Section 3: Curatorial Strategy

How do you organize millions of artifacts?

Collection Strategy

- Comprehensive: Archive everything (like Internet Archive) - Curated: Select representative samples (like museums) - Community-Driven: Users nominate what to preserve - Algorithmic: Use metrics (popularity, links, influence) to prioritize

Organization Taxonomy

How do visitors find artifacts?

- Chronological: Browse by year (2004, 2005, etc.) - Thematic: Browse by topic (Fan Sites, Personal Diaries, Art Projects, etc.) - Demographic: Browse by creator (Teenagers, Artists, Academics, etc.) - Technological: Browse by format (HTML, Flash, Java applets, etc.) - Search: Free text search (like a library catalog)

Example (Museum of the Early Social Web): - Permanent Exhibits: Curated themes (e.g., "Fan Culture Before Social Media," "Teenage Bedrooms as Websites") - Special Exhibits: Rotating topics (e.g., "Queer GeoCities: LGBTQ+ Identity Before Facebook") - Browse by Year: Time capsule experience (see what 1999 felt like) - Search: Full-text search across all artifacts

Section 4: Interpretation & Context

How do you make artifacts meaningful?

Museums don't just show objects—they interpret them. Your institution needs:

Artifact-Level Context

- Creator Information: Who made this? (If known) - Historical Context: When? Why did this exist? - Cultural Significance: What did this represent? (E.g., "Sailor Moon shrine sites were how teenage girls created identity before Instagram") - Technical Context: What tools were used? (HTML? FrontPage? Notepad?)

Thematic Narratives

- Exhibits: Group artifacts into stories (e.g., "The Geocities Watercoloring Community") - Essays: Scholarly/curatorial writing on significance - Oral Histories: Interviews with creators (if alive/findable) - Comparative Analysis: "Then vs. Now" (GeoCities homepage vs. Instagram bio)

Educational Programming

- Workshops: Teach people to build Web 1.0-style sites - Talks: Invite scholars, creators, archivists - School Programs: K-12 digital literacy using historical artifacts - Research Fellowships: Support scholars studying your collection

Section 5: Technical Preservation & Access

How do visitors experience the artifacts?

Preservation Strategy

- Level 1 (Documentation): Screenshots + descriptions (easiest) - Level 2 (Static Archive): Preserved HTML/CSS (medium difficulty) - Level 3 (Emulation): Run in browser that mimics old environment (hard) - Level 4 (Resurrection): Rebuild on modern infrastructure (very hard)

Example Tiered Approach: - Tier 1 (10,000 sites): Screenshots + metadata (everything gets this) - Tier 2 (1,000 sites): Full static archive, browsable (representative sample) - Tier 3 (100 sites): Emulation with plugins (Flash, Java applets) (most significant) - Tier 4 (10 sites): Full recreation (flagship exhibits)

Access Platform

- Website: Public-facing online museum - Physical Location: Optional brick-and-mortar space - API: Researchers can query programmatically - Download: Full dataset for scholars (like GeoCities torrent)

Section 6: Legal & Ethical Considerations

Can you legally/ethically preserve this?

Copyright Challenges

- Problem: Most creators didn't explicitly license their work - Solutions: - Fair Use: Argue preservation is transformative - Orphan Works: Try to find creators, if unfindable, proceed cautiously - Opt-Out: Publish collection, allow creators to request removal - Explicit Permission: Contact creators, ask for consent (slow, incomplete)

Privacy Concerns

- Problem: Personal info (names, addresses, emails) in old sites - Solutions: - Redaction: Remove/obscure personal info - Embargo: Restrict access for X years - Consent: Contact creators, ask permission to preserve - Public Interest: Argue historical value outweighs privacy

Platform Relationship

- Problem: Platforms may claim ownership (e.g., Twitter ToS says they own your tweets) - Solutions: - Ignore Them: Archive anyway (civil disobedience) - Negotiate: Seek partnerships (like Library of Congress Twitter Archive—though later ended) - Wait Them Out: Once platform dies, who enforces their ToS?

Your Approach: - What's your legal strategy? (Fair use? Opt-out? Permission?) - What's your ethical stance? (Preserve everything? Protect privacy?)

Section 7: Economic Sustainability

How do you fund this?

| Funding Model | Amount/Year | Pros | Cons | |--------------|-------------|------|------| | Grants | $50k-500k | Legitimacy, large sums | Limited duration, competitive | | Donations | $10k-100k | Mission-aligned | Unpredictable | | Memberships | $5k-50k | Recurring, community buy-in | Limited scale | | Admissions (if physical) | $10k-100k | Sustainable, visitor-funded | Excludes low-income visitors | | Merchandise | $1k-10k | Brand-building | Trivial revenue | | University Partnership | In-kind (hosting, staff) | Free infrastructure | Loss of independence | | Endowment | Interest on $1M-10M | Permanent | Requires massive upfront capital |

Example Budget (Digital Museum): - Staff: 2 FTE (curator + developer) = $150k/year - Infrastructure: Hosting, storage = $10k/year - Programming: Events, workshops = $5k/year - Marketing: Outreach = $5k/year - Total: $170k/year

Funding Mix: - Year 1-3: Grants (NEH, Mellon, Knight Foundation) = $200k/year - Year 4-5: Transition to donations + memberships = $100k/year (need to grow) - Year 6+: Endowment goal ($2M to sustain $80k/year) + ongoing fundraising

Section 8: Three Pillars Embodiment

Does your memory institution embody The Three Pillars?

Declaration (Sovereignty)

- ❓ Is the institution independent? (Not owned by a platform or government) - ❓ Can it survive without corporate support? - ❓ Does it control its own narrative? (Not subject to platform censorship)

Connection (Intentional Community)

- ❓ Do users/creators participate in curation? - ❓ Is there a community around the collection? - ❓ Can visitors connect (forums, events, collaborations)?

Ground (Ownership)

- ❓ Is the collection exportable? (Downloadable, forkable) - ❓ Is infrastructure self-hosted? (Not dependent on a platform) - ❓ Can the collection survive the institution? (If museum closes, archive persists)

The Test: If your institution closed tomorrow, could someone else resurrect it? If no, you're too centralized.

Case Study Deep-Dives

Case 1: Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (The Warehouse Model)

What It Preserves: 800B+ web pages (1996-present)

Institutional Type: Library/Archive hybrid

Curatorial Approach: Comprehensive (archive everything)

Access: Open web, free, searchable by URL

Technical: Static snapshots (HTML/CSS), emulation for some interactive content

Strengths: - ✅ Massive scale - ✅ Public access - ✅ Chronological browsing ("time travel")

Weaknesses: - ❌ No curation (no themes, no "exhibits") - ❌ No context (why did this site matter?) - ❌ Fidelity issues (JavaScript/Flash often broken) - ❌ Legal vulnerability (lawsuits from publishers)

Student Discussion: 1. Is Wayback Machine a museum or a warehouse? 2. How could you add curation without losing comprehensiveness?

Case 2: The Strong Museum (The Interactive Model)

What It Preserves: Video game history (playable archives)

Institutional Type: Museum

Curatorial Approach: Highly curated (select representative games)

Access: On-site only (visit Rochester, NY)

Technical: Emulation (games playable on modern hardware)

Strengths: - ✅ High fidelity (games actually work) - ✅ Curatorial interpretation (exhibits explain cultural context) - ✅ Hands-on (visitors can play)

Weaknesses: - ❌ Limited access (must visit in person) - ❌ Legal grey area (ROMs violate copyright) - ❌ Small scale (only a few thousand games preserved)

Student Discussion: 1. Could you build a "virtual" Strong Museum (emulation on the web)? 2. How do you balance legal risk with preservation mission?

Case 3: The September 11 Digital Archive (The Community Model)

What It Preserves: Digital artifacts from 9/11 (emails, photos, websites, first-person accounts)

Institutional Type: Memorial/Archive

Curatorial Approach: Community-driven (public submissions + staff curation)

Access: Open web, searchable, thematic exhibits

Technical: Digital scans, documents, born-digital files

Strengths: - ✅ Community participation (diverse perspectives) - ✅ Emotional/ethical framing (commemoration, not just documentation) - ✅ Thematic exhibits (e.g., "How the Internet Responded")

Weaknesses: - ❌ Time-limited (closed to new submissions after a few years) - ❌ Quality varies (amateur contributions) - ❌ Requires active maintenance (links rot, files degrade)

Student Discussion: 1. Should digital memorials be "closed" at some point, or perpetually open? 2. How do you curate trauma without exploiting it?

Case 4: GeoCities Archive / OoCities (The Rescue Model)

What It Preserves: ~650GB of GeoCities sites (rescued before 2009 shutdown)

Institutional Type: Anarchist Archive

Curatorial Approach: Comprehensive (everything rescued, no selection)

Access: Torrent (full dump) + web interface (OoCities)

Technical: Static HTML, varying degrees of functionality

Strengths: - ✅ Rescued what Yahoo deleted - ✅ Full dataset available (researchers can query) - ✅ Community-driven (Archive Team volunteers)

Weaknesses: - ❌ No curation (no search, no themes, no interpretation) - ❌ Overwhelming (30M sites = impossible to browse meaningfully) - ❌ Legal grey area (Yahoo claimed ownership, rescuers ignored)

Student Discussion: 1. Is this a "museum" or just hoarding? 2. How could you add curation layer to a data dump this large?

Assignment: Design Your Haunted Forest

Objective: Create a complete memory institution for murdered digital artifacts.

Deliverable: Memory Institution Prospectus (4000-5000 words)

Required Sections:

1. Executive Summary (300 words)

- What are you preserving? (Platform, timeframe, artifact type) - What kind of institution? (Museum, archive, library, memorial, or hybrid) - Who is your audience? (Public, researchers, both) - Three Pillars alignment

2. Mission & Collection Scope (600 words)

- What was murdered? (Platform death, community loss, cultural erasure) - Why does this matter? (Cultural, historical, emotional significance) - Collection size (how many artifacts?) - Selection criteria (comprehensive or curated?)

3. Institutional Model & Curatorial Philosophy (800 words)

- Primary model (museum, archive, library, memorial, hybrid) - Curatorial approach (comprehensive, curated, community-driven, algorithmic) - Organization taxonomy (how visitors find artifacts) - Permanent exhibits (if museum model)

4. Interpretation & Educational Programming (700 words)

- Artifact-level context (creator, historical, cultural, technical) - Thematic narratives (exhibits, essays, stories) - Educational programs (workshops, talks, fellowships) - Community engagement (how do you involve creators/users?)

5. Technical Preservation & Access (700 words)

- Preservation fidelity (documentation, static, emulation, resurrection?) - Access platform (website, physical location, API, downloadable dataset) - User experience (how do visitors browse/search/interact?) - Infrastructure (where is data hosted? redundancy?)

6. Legal & Ethical Framework (500 words)

- Copyright strategy (fair use, permission, opt-out) - Privacy protections (redaction, consent, embargo) - Platform relationship (negotiate, ignore, civil disobedience) - Ethical stance (preserve everything vs. protect individuals)

7. Economic Sustainability (600 words)

- Annual budget (staff, infrastructure, programming) - Funding model (grants, donations, memberships, admissions, endowment) - 10-year financial roadmap - Contingency plan (what if funding ends?)

8. Three Pillars Integrity Check (400 words)

- Declaration: Independent? Survives without corporate support? - Connection: Community participation? Visitor engagement? - Ground: Exportable collection? Self-hosted infrastructure? - The Test: If institution closes, can collection be resurrected?

9. Comparison to Existing Models (400 words)

- How is your design different from Wayback Machine, Strong Museum, 9/11 Archive, GeoCities dump? - What did you adopt? - What did you improve?

Evaluation Criteria:

| Criterion | Points | What We're Looking For | |-----------|--------|------------------------| | Cultural Significance | 25 | Does this preserve something genuinely important? Is the "murder" well-documented? | | Curatorial Vision | 25 | Is there a clear interpretive framework? Or just a data dump? | | Technical Feasibility | 20 | Can this be built? Is preservation fidelity appropriate for artifacts? | | Public Engagement | 15 | Will people actually use this? Is it educational? Emotionally resonant? | | Sustainability | 10 | Can this institution last 10+ years? | | Three Pillars | 5 | Does it embody Declaration, Connection, Ground? |

Total: 100 points

Optional Extension: Build a Prototype

Students with strong designs may receive funding to build a minimum viable product: - Website: Prototype online museum (10-20 curated artifacts) - Exhibit: Physical pop-up exhibit (if local community interested) - API: Searchable database for researchers - Prize: $5,000 seed funding + technical mentorship

Discussion Questions for Seminar

1. The Warehouse vs. Museum Dilemma: Internet Archive preserves everything but curates nothing. Is that enough?

2. The Access vs. Fidelity Tradeoff: Screenshots are easy but low-fidelity. Emulation is faithful but complex. What's the right balance?

3. The Curation Politics: Who decides what's "important"? What biases do curators bring? How do you democratize selection?

4. The Living vs. Dead Archive: Should preserved artifacts be frozen in time, or adapted for modern use (resurrection)?

5. The Copyright Dilemma: Fair use is ambiguous. Do you risk lawsuits to preserve, or wait for permission (which may never come)?

6. The Memory vs. Mourning Question: Is digital preservation about documenting history, or commemorating loss? Can it be both?

Module Deliverables

By the end of Module 4, students will have:

1. ✅ Completed Reading Responses (Manoff, Drucker, Chun on archives, digital art, memory) 2. ✅ Case Study Analysis (Wayback Machine, Strong Museum, 9/11 Archive, GeoCities comparative analysis) 3. ✅ Memory Institution Prospectus (4000-5000 words, complete institutional design) 4. ✅ Curatorial Plan (Exhibit themes, interpretation strategies, educational programs) 5. ✅ Technical Preservation Strategy (Fidelity levels, access platforms, user experience)

Looking Ahead: Module 5

Next week, we zoom from cultural institutions to political economy.

Module 5: The Political Economy of Ground asks:

"Who controls digital real estate? How do we build ownership systems that resist enclosure, speculation, and platform capture?"

You'll analyze existing domain/hosting/identity systems, identify their failure modes, and design alternatives that embody Three Pillars sovereignty.

Instructor Notes

- Guest Speaker: Invite museum curator, digital archivist, or memory studies scholar - Site Visit: Tour Internet Archive (San Francisco) or a digital preservation lab - Hands-On: Have students curate a mini-exhibit (select 5 artifacts, write context, present to class) - Ethics Workshop: Debate copyright, privacy, and consent (role-play: archivist vs. creator vs. platform) - The "Would You Visit?" Test: If students wouldn't visit their own museum, it's not compelling

End of Module 4