后真相时代记忆的文献性

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Claire Scopsi
{"title":"后真相时代记忆的文献性","authors":"Claire Scopsi","doi":"10.35492/DOCAM/5/2/4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares the definitions of the document, produced by the document theorists and the arguments advanced by the French historical epistemology of the twentieth century in order to set what is a reliable documentary source. In the context of digital post-truth, the former criteria, based on the paradigm of truth and authenticity guaranteed by institutions and scientists, can be questioned. We suggest to consider the production of historical narratives as a design process, and to evaluate the truthfulness of a source according to their three regimes of documentality: textualization, auctorialisation and documentarisation.","PeriodicalId":36214,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings from the Document Academy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Documentality of Memory in the Post-Truth Era\",\"authors\":\"Claire Scopsi\",\"doi\":\"10.35492/DOCAM/5/2/4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article compares the definitions of the document, produced by the document theorists and the arguments advanced by the French historical epistemology of the twentieth century in order to set what is a reliable documentary source. In the context of digital post-truth, the former criteria, based on the paradigm of truth and authenticity guaranteed by institutions and scientists, can be questioned. We suggest to consider the production of historical narratives as a design process, and to evaluate the truthfulness of a source according to their three regimes of documentality: textualization, auctorialisation and documentarisation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings from the Document Academy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings from the Document Academy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35492/DOCAM/5/2/4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings from the Document Academy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35492/DOCAM/5/2/4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文将文献理论家对文献的定义与20世纪法国历史认识论提出的观点进行比较,以确定什么是可靠的文献来源。在数字后真相的背景下,基于机构和科学家保证的真相和真实性范式的前一标准可能受到质疑。我们建议将历史叙事的生产视为一个设计过程,并根据其三种文献性制度来评估来源的真实性:文本化,权威化和文献化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Documentality of Memory in the Post-Truth Era
This article compares the definitions of the document, produced by the document theorists and the arguments advanced by the French historical epistemology of the twentieth century in order to set what is a reliable documentary source. In the context of digital post-truth, the former criteria, based on the paradigm of truth and authenticity guaranteed by institutions and scientists, can be questioned. We suggest to consider the production of historical narratives as a design process, and to evaluate the truthfulness of a source according to their three regimes of documentality: textualization, auctorialisation and documentarisation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Proceedings from the Document Academy
Proceedings from the Document Academy Arts and Humanities-Conservation
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信