[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting WSJ Article on when libraries should discard their holdings.
yes, and what gets saved is somewhat haphazard. For my pet interest of ye olde audio writings, I've
had much better luck with old timers, ebay and sometimes my friend at LOC rather than any library
within any logical travel distance. One day, hopefully, some youngster with "obscure" interests will
get between my "archives" and the dumpster.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "RA Friedman" <rafriedman@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting WSJ Article on when libraries should discard their holdings.
The value of material is usually not known by the people who collect it. What's has no research
value now, may have huge potential later on.
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List on behalf of Karl Miller
Sent: Fri 1/5/2007 9:21 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting WSJ Article on when libraries should discard their holdings.
Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: All this culling at libraries is a screaming
endorsement of Google's plot to digitize as many
printed words as possible and make it all searchable. Yeah, they're going to have to make their
money back and yeah there are copyright issues. But 100 years down the line, people might be very
thankful that their digitizing engine was running full throttle as printed books got dumpstered.
-- Tom Fine
I agree. Much of what is archived is that which was collected by individuals and organizations
other than libraries. I have often wondered if we were left with what libraries retain...our
measure of our history would be Harry Potter and no Hemingway...lots of Britney Spears and no
Coltrane.
Well, come to think about it, Britney probably says more about our society than Coltrane.
Karl