The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The character, value, and management of personal paper archives
Abstract
We explored general issues concerning personal information management by investigating the characteristics of office workers' paper-based information, in an industrial research environment. we examined the reasons people collect paper, types of data they collect, problems encountered in handling paper, and strategies used for processing it. We tested three specific hypotheses in the course of an office move. The greater availability of public digital data along with changes in people's jobs or interests should lead to wholescale discarding of paper data, while preparing for the move. Instead we found workers kept large, highly valued papar archives. We also expected that the major part of people's personal archives would be unique documents. However, only 49% of people's archives were unique documents, the remainder being copies of publicly available data and unread information, and we explore reasons for this. We examined the effects of paper-processing strategies on archive structure. We discovered different paper-processing strategies (filing and piling)that were relatively independent of job type. We predicated that filers' attempted to evaluate and catergorize incoming documents would produce smaller archives that were accessed frequently. Contrary to our predictions, filers amassed more information, and accessed it less frequently than pilers. We argue that filers may engage in premature filing: to clear their workspace, they archives information that later turns out to be of low value. Given the effort involved in organzing data, they are also loath to discard filed information, even when its value is uncertain. We discuss the implications of this research for digital personal information management.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Documents and professional practice: “bad” organisational reasons for “good” clinical records
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1996) · Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/240080.240342 · Cited by 255
Cited by
Boardman, R., & Sasse, M. A. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985766 · Cited by 414
Family memories in the home: contrasting physical and digital mementos
Petrelli, D., & Whittaker, S. (2010) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0279-7 · Cited by 177
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Whittaker, S., & Hirschberg, J.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 150-170
- ISSN
- 1073-0516 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7325
- OpenAlex
- W2002277714
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The character, value, and management of personal paper archives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/376929.376932
- The paper
- Whittaker, S., & Hirschberg, J. (2001). The character, value, and management of personal paper archives. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/376929.376932
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.