In the section about fact checking, the authors state:
"At the very least, then, providing a paper trail of one’s verification efforts in parentheticals or endnotes will allow readers to assess whether or not the author has convincingly made the case with the data at hand" (my highlight).
The concrete example of how to include different ways of fact checking is helpful when thinking about traditional ethnographies in the form of books. I think we could add the arguement that the length, scope and readers engagement with this "paper trail" could be creatively built into archives (if not requires a form of archive to keep up with it).
Thinking through different stakeholders of an archive is one way to approach the design question: which paper trail for which audience, with which standards and limits? The article deliberately focuses on ethnographers, but also points to journalists, who have different fact checking expectations. Further, we can ask what a peer-review of the paper trail (or archive) that each author is expected to create will look like -- including but also going beyond scholarly review articles like this one.
