... from a very interesting discussion at the government documents list
... I'm forwarding this in case you didn't see that ...
Angie
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Destructive Scanning: perspective of the "half-full"
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:17:06 -0400
From: Deborah Mongeau <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
All,
For those of us who go back a few years (professionally that is!), this
issue has some alarming similarities to the switch to microfilm. In the
60's and 70's libraries universally took their large stacks of newspapers,
especially the local newspaper, and sent them out to be microfilmed, the
originals never to be seen again. This all was done in the interests of
freeing up space and of course there was discussion that patrons would have
an easier time of reading the newspapers on a well lit reader than slogging
through oversized, dusty paper copes. And at the time microfilm was THE
new technology. Many of my courses in library school focused on the new
media and how eventually we were all going to be bringing our portable
microfilm readers to the beach, so libraries were just ahead of the curve
in this regard. Of course there was lots of discussion on preservation and
quality control but like now, many libraries were under the gun to free up
space and save money. The result was that some titles after due
consideration were microfilmed carefully by companies that exerted quality
control and some were sent out willy-nilly to "Joe Schmoe's Microfilm
Shop".
Fast forward some 45-50 years. We now have the capability to provide
access, portability, and quality images of these newspapers that was never
imagined back then and there's now more of a demand than ever for these
treasure troves of local historical content. But...where are the
originals? In many instances all we have left are worn and degraded
microfilm copies with the masters long gone when Joe Schmoe's Microfilm
Shop went under in the early 80's.
I don't have any solutions on how to counteract the "switch and ditch"
digitization mentality of many library directors but maybe if they're old
enough, you could start a dialogue with just one word: " Microfilm".
Deborah Mongeau
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:26 PM, James Jacobs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Michael and all,
>
> Three recent messages to this list highlight what may be the most
> important underlying issue related to the COL proposal: that some *library
> directors* want to get rid of paper FDLP collections and that many front
> line librarians (including FDLP librarians) are accepting that they cannot
> do anything about this, even if they disagree with it.
>
> We believe that this is a battle worth fighting.
>
> We believe that there is ample reason to fight against the destruction of
> our historical collections. We believe that, although digitization *can* be
> done well, *can* guarantee long-term access and usability and preservation,
> it can also be done quickly, cheaply, and in a less-than-thorough manner.
> There is ample evidence that current large digitization projects are *not*
> doing it particularly well. We believe it is worth fighting for doing it
> the right way. We believe that policies driven by the need to cut costs are
> less likely to do things the right way. There is a parallel between this
> and the past policies that resulted in the inadequate cataloging of
> historic FDLP collections that we have today. Those "cost saving" policies
> created problems that we live with today as we look to digitize our
> collections and manage them better.
>
> We believe that FDLP libraries should not replace their commitment to
> government information with an unspecified or vague non-commitment. We
> believe that the COL discussion item 1A is an invitation to do the wrong
> things the wrong way.
>
> We believe that our historical FDLP collections are valuable and that
> hasty, cheap digitize-and-discard policies would result in the irreparable
> *loss* of information. We believe that librarians have an obligation to
> preserve this information and not discard it for short-term cost savings.
>
> There is a lot of discussion these days about the "future of libraries"
> and the "value of libraries" in the digital age. We suggest that the future
> of libraries is in our hands today: the decisions we make today will either
> enable or limit what is possible tomorrow. The decisions we make today will
> also send a message to library users and library funders. It will
> demonstrate to them the value that librarians place on their collections
> and services. What message will users and funders take from our actions if
> we decide that 200 years of historic, public information can be destroyed
> without verifying the accuracy and completeness of what we are substituting
> for those books? What message will they take if we renege on our
> commitment to FDLP information but do not make a new commitment to
> long-term preservation, access, and service?
>
> The COL document proposes and irreversible policy (destroying books). If
> we are not *positive* that this is the right policy, why should we accept
> it as a foregone conclusion?
>
> A lot of library managers are under pressure to cut costs and repurpose
> space. *Good* library managers rely on smart, experienced staff to guide
> and inform their decisions. If we accept bad ideas that come from the top
> even when we know they are bad ideas, we are failing in our job. Front line
> librarians may lack the authority to make these decisions, but we have the
> responsibility to speak up and advocate for what we believe is the best
> policy for our current and future users. That is our job. Let us not prove
> Pogo correct*.
>
> best,
>
> James and Jim
> Free Government Information
>
>
> *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)#.22We_have_met_the_enemy_and_he_is_us..22
>
> --
> James R. Jacobs
> Government Information Librarian
> 123D Green Library,
> Stanford University
> P: 650.862.9871
> E: [log in to unmask]
> AIM: LibrarianJames
> T: @freegovinfo
> W: freegovinfo.info
> lockss-usdocs.stanford.edu
> jonssonlib.stanford.edu
>
> "The art of research is the ability to look at the details, and see the
> passion."
> -- Daryl Zero, "The Zero Effect" (1998)
>
> ----------------------------------
> This message may have been intercepted and read by U.S. government
> agencies including the FBI, CIA, and NSA without notice or warrant or
> knowledge of sender or recipient.
>
> (\
> {|||8-
> (/
>
|
