When it comes to preserving information, one may be faced with the decision of what should be preserved? This is a question that so many librarians are faced with everyday. Since libraries have many users, their library collections are becoming more and more used and abused. Not that it is a bad thing that patrons use the materials, its just that after years of wear and tear books and other materials become old and battered. So what do we do? Tell the patrons that they cannot use the materials anymore? The answer is no. We have to make the decision to preserve these materials so that they will be available for years to come. But now we need to get back to the question, "What needs to be reserved?"
I read an interesting article that talked about what types of materials needed to be preserved. The article: The Information ARK Selection Issues in the Preservation Process, discussed the various issues that librarians dealt with when it came to trying to decide what to preserve. The author was very passionate about what types of things he felt were the most important and should be preserved for the future users. Some of those things included subscription journals because over time they become ruined and to replace them is a great deal of money and early published materials.
SOUND OFF!!!!
*What do you think should be preserved and why?
References
Billings, H. (1994, April) The Information ARK Selection Issues in the Preservation Process. Wilson Library Bulletin, 68, 34-37.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
History, Stories, Pictures, Vaulable documents etc.
Most information should be preserved because if lost, we lose the thoughts and discoveries of humankind. Just think of all the knowledge that was lost in the library of Alexandria. Scientific discoveries, ancient lands and even thoughts of philosophers we would never know.
Are you referring to preservation of the original physical documents or preservation through digitization?
I am definately in favor of digitization, though I am not always in agreement on preservation of print formats; of course it depends on the historic value, number of other copies available, condition, etc.
I hope we can always preserve the physical format as well as a digital format when it comes to books. There is something special about holding an actual book. Also I don't like to read in the electronic format for long stretches. Give me a book any day. However, I definitely see the advantage to the digital world for preserving and accessing journals, research articles, and even books especially reference type materials.
Then there is the world of art and objects. While viewing art online or in books is probably the only way most of us will see the great works. However, we definitely want to preserve the physical form as well.
Another question with the digital format is the rapidly changing world of technology. If we go to the time and expense to convert to a digital format and then have that technology replaced with something better then we also need to find an economical and practical way to update what is already preserved into the new technology.
After my last post I thought of another consideration with digital preservation-widening the information divide. If somethings are only available in the digital format won't we run into problems of equal access for all. Granted it can be argued that everyone can belong to their local library and therefore have online access that way, but that is not always true. Usually there is limited time that a public library allows people to use their computers because of the high demand. But there are still a large number of people out there who do not own or have access to computers or the Internet. If digital preservation is the future how do we see that people have equal opportunities to access this information?
I agree with Sharon. I think it is important to preserve some physical formats. It is hard to imagine not knowing what a book looks or feels like today, but without preservation this could happen. I am sure in the age of stone tablets no one ever imagined they would be virtually extinct.
We should definitely preserve those works that have been given over to the public domain - so journals, literary works, artwork, etc. That can be physically or through digitization.
I think we will see a trend toward digitization because of the incredible volume of information that needs to be preserved and the expense it takes to store and maintain physical copies compared with digital versions.
I don't think we will see it in our lifetime but the book will probably go the way of the stone tablet eventually. Maybe not until we've chopped down all of the trees . . . but eventually.
I think that journals, classic books, newspaper. These things should try to be preserved in 2 ways, physically and digitally so that if one gets destroyed there is a backup copy. We should learn from history and not try to repeat.
I wanted to respond to Sharon's comment about equal access. While a very nice idea, I think the concept of "equal access" of information for all is something of a myth. I am not sure it is even possible and if it is, I doubt very highly that the state of the world will ever be such that all technological and linguistic barriers will be overcome, ensuring truly equal access to all information for all.
Then there is the consideration of format. I agree with Sharon that having the original in your hands is a different experience than reading online. I can access images of the Book of Kells online, for example, but is this experience equal to that of seeing the original manuscript at Trinity College in Dublin? Do I really have equal access to this material with those who live in Ireland and can visit the original?
On the other hand, access to physical materials in libraries (be they print materials or artifacts)can't be considered equal access either. As in my example above, not all will have the means to visit Ireland and see the Book of Kells in person.
I apologize, Tamu, for digressing from your original question. I think that we tend to over-simplify the idea of equal access and wanted to share some thoughts here.
While I agree that equal access will probably never happen, it should still be a consideration. While there are very few people who can go anywhere and see anything they want, most people at least in this country, can enter a public library and have access to anything on the shelf and it is only limited by the hours the library is open. However, internet access is very limited in the public setting. The more information that is accessible only in the digital format the more it affects the inequities.
This is a great question. It makes me think of how dismissive we are of pop culture items, and how we are reminded that Shakespeare was pop cultiure in his day. As for me, I'd like to preserve everything, although I know how impractical that is. But then, I'm a pack rat, anyway.
Post a Comment