Talk:Records management/Archives/2016

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Records Classification

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has anyone thought of adding a section on Records Classification to the article? I think it could be very useful to most readers. I'd be happy to help develop it. --SunShines123 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good addition. Morskyjezek (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Records management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Record

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The definition of record is rather short, and does not reflect the body of practice and theory that has explored this concept rather widely. As with the below suggestion to add more about classification, expanding the definition of 'record' would be an improvement. The article also reads more like a glossary than a discussion of what records/information management is, etc. Morskyjezek (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

References may include:

ISO 15489-1:2001, Information and documentation—Records management. Paragraphs 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), and 7.2 (Characteristics of records)
"Conceptual Understandings of Records" at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/icarus/projects/conceptual-understandings
SAA Glossary definition of record http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/r/record

Morskyjezek (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Updated the discussion of record in opening of article, using two of the above. Also included mention of historical roots of the concept to late 19th century archival and administrative theory. Mention of ISO 15489 would still be relevant. Morskyjezek (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

List of "100 Best" Records Mgmt Resources

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am not sure if this article is the appropriate place for this, or if it should go on a separate WIKI site?. Feedback please? Paulduller (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This list (assuming your comment is regarding the list below?) does not appear to add much in the Talk page. This should be devoted to issues or discussions about the article. If the below links do have something useful to add to the RM/RIM article, then the insights should be incorporated and properly cited. If the list is maintained elsewhere, e.g., ARMA or other groups, it should be linked to there. Morskyjezek (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a useful list, but it should be integrated via citations to appropriate comments or information in the article. Since it doesn't add to the talk page, I'm replacing the list with a link to a copy of the message on the email listserv. For those interested, the list of 100 RM resources can be found (as of Nov 2016) at https://lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=RECMGMT-L;nMJXwQ;20130723105717-0500d Morskyjezek (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

DOD 5015.2

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Some discussion of the DOD 5015.2 reference model would be highly appropriate. All leading EDRMS software solutions conform to this defacto world standard. ~~india carlos~~
Surely not - 5015.2 has its own article in wikipedia - that is where any discussion belongs. Mind you, that article is trivial, so it must attract incredibly little interest. And I'd question the appellation "defacto world standard" - it is known about around the world, but is very USA-specific, relying as it does on over 88 federal laws and other US government documents. In other words, it is widely known, and is followed by organisations that have to follow it becuase of US listings, contracts and other business interests, but it is not widely recognised as a standard outside the USA. MarcMFresko (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how american use the term record management. But my lecturer said that record management has almost the same meaning with the term corporate memory in wikipedia. Can the admin of this site talk more about it?

I totally agree. What is important is the ILO standard on records management. The external link does not take you to the standard, which I believe is ISO 15489. To make this article more complete a discussion of standards, especially the ILO standard is needed.

BrianOrr2020 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be partially true. However, "records and information management" in the US federal and state government context refers to the management of organizational information resources, often as a regulatory or statutorily mandated administrative function in the records lifecycle that implements appraisal decisions on materials that may eventually be archivally managed (i.e., by the National Archives). The concept of "corporate memory" as described currently in the article tends to carry a much broader connotation in English than the sense described by Megill, which is a much broader, archivally-oriented concept as it is developed here. Corporate and collective memories draw on much more than recorded and preserved records. Morskyjezek (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The terminology does not represent all records management systems worldwide. For example in the Australian system, used by several other countries, all documents (the definition of "document" is very broad and includes emails, social media, etc) are records. Records are not "declared", they are automatically records upon creation and can be changed. But ephemeral records can be destroyed without specific authority (known as "normal administrative practice"). 167.123.240.35 (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The use of "declared" suggests a US perspective to me. Your observation, however, also turns on the definition of "document," which in the sense you describe may be similar to that of record as outlined in this article. For a perspective on this, see Geoffrey Yeo's talk at https://youtube.com/watch?v=yhQMa3H6XEM?t=147 (he notes debate around whether "record" refers to those managed by and judged to include record content, or whether anything recorded is a record). Also note, there are various traditions of records management and archival thought in US, UK, Canada, Australia, and various European countries, not to mention similar but distinct concepts about information that should be remembered in many world cultures. Morskyjezek (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)