 Well, it was quite a remarkable piece of programming that I'm going to follow Ed with, well, there's lights are bright. We only spoke for the first time yesterday, but there's quite a lot of similarities between that sort of macro story that Ed talked about, and a more sort of localised implementation of that that I'm going to talk about, including quotes from Vern Harris. So I'll just rip into it. If you're wondering about the title, that's the Vern Harris link. In 2001, South African archival practitioner and scholar, Vern Harris, gave a keynote presentation at the Conference of the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand. Vern is an archival hero, they do exist, and a social justice activist. In his keynote, Vern took us through the well-known power dynamic of the archive, and by archive I mean any collection. He used the metaphors of voice and silence, of seeing and blindness, to encourage discourse on the archive as a social space, and therefore a space of tension and struggle, a space of little consensus. So collections have voices, he said. They never speak to us as things in and of themselves, they speak to us through the specificities of particular power relations and social dynamics. Every collecting decision is an act of remembering or forgetting, depending on what those decisions, depending on whether the decision is to collect or not. Vern's call to New Zealand archivists was to listen to the silences in their collections, to be an activist of deconstruction rather than an advocate of truth. I quote, archivists of deconstruction know that every move they make is a construction of knowledge and an exercise of power. They feel compelled to disclose their complicity in these constructions and exercises. Of crucial importance, they are bound by the principle of hospitality to otherness. They respect every other, invite every other in. So it's irrespective of whether they're collecting, describing, or making records available, they listen intently to the voices of those who are marginalised or excluded by prevailing relations of power in the archive. And without knowing what Courtney was going to talk about, I think she gave a really excellent sort of exemplification of that sort of receptiveness to the other. So like Courtney, I want to emphasise that this is not a new issue, that many institutions and memory sector professionals have been responding accordingly in the last 20 years or so. So I'm not going to go into great detail of this, otherwise it would turn into a talk about archival theory, and that's a threat. But I invite you to think about the voices and silences and the digital memory of your institution and your practice, or that you've come across while trying to access and use the digital collections in New Zealand. And while you're doing that, I'll present you with a really brief update of the New Zealand Web Archive through a similar lens. Here's an overview of the digital collections at the National Library of New Zealand, as at the 31st of December 2012. It's a total of stuff that's in the National Digital Heritage Archive. Not all of our digital stuff is in there yet. But we've got over just over a million items, and in some ways the item count is a bit irrelevant. An item could be a database, or an item could be a single photo. So it's a blunt categorisation used for the purpose of overview, and to emphasise a couple of points. Archive websites currently only make up 1% of the digital collections. It just shows that it's still a really boutique component of the overall collecting activity of the Turnbull Library and the National Library, which is also a little bit misleading the 1%, because we're still yet to ingest three whole-of-domain harvests, and our GeoCities copy that we've got at the National Library of New Zealand as well. So whether you count them as one object or millions of objects, you can see the disparity of the numbers. But web archiving is still boutique, that's the point. The dominance of serials is about paper's past. Given the number of years the library has been digitising collections, the unpublished born digital items, so manuscripts, photographs, oral histories, ephemera, etc., are holding their own pretty well, and appear to be slowly increasing their percentage. It's not quite the digital tsunamis that many commentators are so fearful of yet. And my colleague Kirsty Cox talked about our experiences of archiving unpublished born digital stuff yesterday. Speaking of yesterday, Penny mentioned the significance of the investment in the digital preservation system at the National Library of New Zealand. I'd just like to emphasise that it's only through acts of collecting and preserving that things can be made accessible. And the point here is that the act of collecting of an increasing number of born digital collections, including websites, is the result of having this digital preservation capacity and capability. A lot of people did and continue to do a lot of good work here. It's a significance on the landscape of the New Zealand memory sector. It cannot be overstated, I don't think. And as Ed said, digital preservation is access in the future. So there's just some numbers, an overview of the numbers of websites that we have collected in the last sort of four years. We've been responding to the sort of change of, we've been responding to the web archiving challenge by collecting websites since 1999. However, the numbers here are from 2008. There's two important things happen. That was the first release of the National Digital Heritage Agency. And that's when the regulations came in to support the illegal deposit change in the legislation from the 2006 National Library of New Zealand Act. And Ed talked about the limitations in the Library of Congress around collecting websites and having to ask permission. The legislation changes means we don't have to ask permission. We can essentially take. Please note that by a website, I mean the public website, the HTML files that presents a page and its contents to the users, including other documents uploaded on the site such as PDF files or MP3s, et cetera. This isn't a talk about how we collect the web, but it's worth mentioning that the library exclusively uses an open source piece of software called the Web Curator Tool. The National Library of New Zealand developed the Web Curator Tool in collaboration with the British Library and the Internet, the International Internet Preservation Consortium that Ed talked about. And here's just a snap of its source forage page. It's an open source tool. I'm not going to go in the interest of time into too much detail about that. There are two primary approaches to web archiving. There's selective harvesting for which we exclusively use the Web Curator Tool. It's sort of people selecting URLs, programming them into the tool, scheduling when they get harvested. A harvester goes out and pulls the file, brings it back into our systems. We do some QA and then ingest it into the archive. That's pretty much the workflow. It sounds really simple, but it's kind of not. Yeah, so there are two primary approaches to web archiving. Selective harvesting for which we use the Web Curator Tool and bulk harvesting. So bulk harvesting is intended to capture a snapshot of an entire domain, which is everything from an hour in our case, which is everything from the web archiving to the Internet Archive. And now in our case, which is everything from a New Zealand-based server within the .nz domain, or selected international sites with significant content from New Zealanders. The National Library currently runs these as biennial projects, which we contract out to the Internet Archive in the US. We collect a lot of stuff this way. We started the Whole of Domain Web Program in 2008 and then harvested 105 million URLs at four terabytes. We followed it up in 2010 and harvested 130 million URLs at eight terabytes. We recently completed the 2013 harvest, which is about 190 million URLs at about 11 terabytes. These datasets are pretty big by the standards of an infrastructure of our sector. We can store them safely and perform a search on behalf of a researcher if they're interested. But generally they're too big. Not that scary, I just like the slide, to provide any meaningful access to them at this stage. But one day this temporary silence will be ended. But despite the seemingly catch-all approach, it's still sporadic and selective harvesting is still a necessity. It provides flexibility, selective harvesting, provides flexibility to curate. It enables us to dive deeper into some websites. And critically it enables us to respond to what may be short-lived web-based documentation of something important. Like a snap election or some earthquakes in Canterbury or the Rena oil spill. Ed talked about the average age of a URL, but he was talking about that in relation to the academic publishing sector. The average age of a URL in the sort of wider wild web, I think you mentioned, is a contested measure. The internet archives suggest somewhere between 44 and 75 days. And the arguments rarely go past 100 days. So we have to keep a measure of selective archiving, web archiving capability alongside our catch-all approach of domain harvesting. But drilling deeper into what is collected and why, archival theorists Sue McKemish summed it up best in this book, I Digital Personal Collections in the Digital Era. She had a chapter entitled Evidence of Me in a Digital World, where she explained the increasing role of the internet as a mechanism to document and memorialise the lives of individuals, communities, families and interest groups. I think that sentence sums it up best, so I'm going to repeat it. The internet is the mechanism that is increasingly used to document the lives of individuals, communities, families and interest groups. So naturally the only way to capture this for the collective memory of a country like ours is via a web archiving function. With our selective web archiving programme there's a deliberate intention to collect websites that complement existing collecting priorities for unpublished collections, as well as making an intervention to give place in the national memory to those voices that don't often get a chance to speak. So we're still primarily making remembering and forgetting decisions. The themes we use around to select our websites from include the visual and performing arts, politics, public sector organisations, community and religious organisations, Māori organisations, online largely amateur music production, which is a whole other talk in itself and really cool. Protest or lobby groups in those groups and individuals who provide an alternative view to the government perspective, because we've got a massive collection of government perspective of things that's called Archives in Zealand. Sport, environment, history and events take a lot of our time, like the Olympics, central and local government elections, Canterbury earthquakes and currently the web response to the centenary of the First World War, which is a project we call Lest We Forget the Remembering. So here are a few examples from outside of the government area that represent our collecting priorities and our attempts to give voice to the often silenced. I'm just going to whip through them quickly. I think they speak for themselves. Those snapshots, by the way, we do actually collect the website. You can get in and click around and play around like it is a real website. Paul, I think, spoke really beautifully yesterday about the relationship for Māori with memory in place. And the sort of the diaspora and some of the dislocation around place. We've talked with a few researchers who are researching on the Māori diaspora and the sense of identity within iwi. And the web archives of iwi, I think, are a really excellent source of information about connecting iwi with each other. This blog has changed from, at the start, the Chairman's blog was totally in Chinese and there's sort of an increasing amount of English that's coming through. The Pleather of New Zealand Bands in Melbourne. This is a YouTube channel which offers an in-depth look into a sort of, well, not look, it's like a sliver, I guess, of the South Island rap scene. Ed talked about the Twitter archive capability to download your own archive and around political papers and honestly, we hadn't talked about what we were going to talk about, but yeah, we're doing this. So, yeah. That's the first one that we got. So I contend that through traditional collecting methods, these voices come into the official memory through diaries and letter writing, or letter writing, which often require the extraordinary circumstances of distance or separation to make the ordinary New Zealander pen to paper. Or through the personal archive, which often requires the equally extraordinary circumstance for them to remain intact for decades. The usual workflow for these voices on traditional media is that thoughts and deeds are documented. A significant period of time lapses, often decades, before by archival Darwinism or an occasional targeted intervention, they manage to make their way into the collections of the memory sector. Using the web changes this paradigm. What I'm probably laboring to emphasize is that the web is the place that gives voice to those we don't normally hear from in our memory institutions. It's the great democratiser and the web archive provides an experience of what these individuals, organizations, and communities were saying in the context in which they were saying it. At the National Library of New Zealand, we do our best to respond to these silence, but we're still just a couple of people within the frame and rules and tools of a single institution. Time, money, and a lot of technical limitations which I didn't go into in the first part of the talk. But also we have limitations to the relationships, to the voices that we want to document. Which brings me to a question I want to ask. The National Library Act empowers us to collect by taking anything publicly available on a website without having to ask permission. Anything from a New Zealand server to a New Zealand domain, or most interestingly, well, no, maybe not most interestingly, but also by a New Zealand based New Zealander posting on a foreign website. If you're in the collecting game, and that's most of us here representing institutions, that's a pretty cool function and mandate. So many institutions represented here are indeed in the collecting or memory building game, with many now going through their second or third or fourth phase of reshaping or recalibrating themselves for the digital present. Here's a couple of recent commitments that got me thinking. This is from the Auckland City Library's strategic plan who seek to capture the new stories of a diverse Auckland. Here's from the Tappapa Strategic Priorities page which articulates their commitment to reflect New Zealand identities past, present, and future. So I believe the National Library of New Zealand Act and the web archiving function and the ecology of the memory sector forces us as a sector to address this question. If the new stories of a diverse Auckland community that the Auckland City Library wants to document and the present and future identities that Tappapa want to reflect are increasingly, and I acknowledge it's not exclusively, communicating and documenting themselves via the internet, then what is the role of the capacity, capability, and collections of the New Zealand Web Archive? Please note that I only highlight those two institutions because I gave a version of this talk at Auckland City Library in May and because I'm here in this place. The size or place of your institution is irrelevant. The silence reflected by what you want to collect that's on the web but can't or don't know how is relevant. The Web Archive mandate capacity and capability is an opportunity for the New Zealand memory sector to coordinate and, dare I say, possibly even collaborate even more, especially if it's to effectively use its increasingly tight resources. And I'm not just talking money here. I also mean the necessary skills to ensure the adequate documentation of New Zealand's often-silenced communities or that the web voice of the communities that the sector as a whole wants to reflect are not silenced. So please, if you're interested, then the Web Archive team represented here by Gillian Lee and Susanna Jo, and because it's Saka, I won't make them stand up, would be very happy to hear from you. We may have already collected what complements your collection, where our priorities and intentions may overlap. And if we haven't and they don't, then I'm confident we'll have an interesting time coming up with a solution. Penny talked yesterday about the value of the uniquely Kiwi way of collaborating. So I'm not talking about MOUs or anything here. I'm talking about getting in touch and talking about things you want to document on the web and having a conversation about how we can maybe make that happen. So really briefly, because the strobe light of the flashlight app of Matt is sort of telling me time's up. I've got a couple of points to make about access and use. Check out these three collection items. The Securities Commission of New Zealand. The websites. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. And the Bioethics Council of New Zealand. What do you think they've all got in common? Well, they're all government websites. They're all no longer live websites. But the main thing about these three items is that they are the top three items in the list of things most accessed in the National Library collections. Which I said really poorly. They're our heavy hitters. I did have a whole lot about numbers, but I think as Simon pointed out properly yesterday, the numbers are meaningless. But they're important if you want to get people's attention. But they're actually meaningless in terms of representing impact. So I'm not going to go into them. But there's thousands, three collection items in 2012, thousands. Looking at these collection items as instruments of deconstruction, I contend that they're yelling at us. And here's what they're saying. And if I was reading with my nephews, I'd put on the voice of a website at the moment, but I won't. Just imagine it in your head. I think the analytics are telling us that these thousands of hits are coming from the live web. They're completely missing the catalogue. The traditional value add that a library archive or museum has. Coming straight from the live web. And they're mainly coming to us from the... Well, a lot of them are coming to us from the education sector, from law and economic schools. So if your... If your value was around education and the balanced value impact model, that would be a high score there or have high impact, if that was one of the values you held dear. I think they're also telling us that they're wanted soon after creation, so don't leave them lying about. All of these organizations are government agencies. The records being used to create these websites, so the content that people are looking for, will probably go all into the government archive. Eventually they'll be made available to researchers through the normal challenges of the... normal channels of the continuum of the public record. In some cases, that will be soon, but in most cases, that will be about 15 to 30 years. However, there's clearly real benefit in providing access to quality content as soon as it's no longer publicly available to the researcher. They also say something about the relationship between the collecting of the government websites to the public record, which I've got a screed of information about because I used to work there, but I won't go into that. So it is through listening to these combined statements, the relationship between the live web and the archive web, and it glimps into the demand for collection soon after they're created, that I want to make my last point on the possibilities for access to the archive web from the live web without the catalogue intervention. Using a personal principle I often adhere to in my professional practice called getting the hell out of the way. Here's a tool that the Internet... International Internet Preservation Consortia working on at the moment will have worked on. It's called Memento, and it's basically like adding a temporal dimension to the live web. It's a plugin for Firefox or Chrome, and I've circled the sort of toolbar at the top. There's the current National Library of New Zealand website. And quite simply, by scrolling along that bar, you go back in time, and it's a protocol that pulls the website from the Internet archive from the sort of nearest date that you have identified. So there's plenty of documentation online about Memento if you want to explore it. I recommend you just use it in your browser. So it just kind of puts a temporal layer on the live web. So it's completely ignoring the catalogue. It's putting our content where other people are, which is something that I think Deborah talked about quite well this morning. So we're looking at currently making our web archives compatible from Memento, so currently, if you do it, it will pull from the Internet archive in the US. So to conclude, the intention of this paper was to provide a general update on the New Zealand Web Archive to stimulate some thinking and discussion on the role of the Web Archive as a mechanism to give voice to silences that often exist within our official memory, and to highlight some of the possibilities of the mandate capacity and capability of the New Zealand Web Archive at the National Library of New Zealand within the ecology of the memory sector, to stimulate some coordination or collaboration on giving voice to the other. And to those others that you're wanting to reflect in your institution as well. Which is another way of saying if you've got web stuff you want to ensure it's being collected and preserved for your stakeholders, or that complement your collections, then give us a call. Thanks.