4 ms·

>Sure, some of these tomes may have been recoverable, but if they aren't historically valuable for some reason, why save it? Future historical value is hard to

>Sure, some of these tomes may have been recoverable, but if they aren't historically valuable for some reason, why save it? Future historical value is hard to predict. Good example: >Worse is the implication is that if something is not "sufficiently interesting", if it's not part of the story a society wants to tell about itself, it's worthless. The future disagrees about what is and is not important, and why. That's the defining characteristic of the future. No one today cares what the Rosetta Stone actually says [4], yet it is more important to us (as the key to hieroglyphics) than it was to the society that made it. from http://carlos.bueno.org/2008/08/save-web.html http://carlos.bueno.org/2008/08/save-web.html

shittyadmin 8y ago
So store it digitally where it takes up less space. No need to keep a physical copy around.
- 394549 8y ago
  > So store it digitally where it takes up less space. No need to keep a physical copy around. That's a glib answer that ignores the complexity of digital preservation. When you preserve something, you want it to last long term--decades to centuries. Storing things digitally entails choosing software, file formats, and storage media; and the long-term commitment to continuously copy and recopy, convert and reconvert, and test and retest as the technology you choose becomes obsolete. Plus, with digitization, you have the added risk of correctable scanning errors becoming permanent, once the originals are destroyed. Digital works are some of the most ephemeral ever created, to the point where future historians may experience our era as a kind of dark age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    Don't bullshit me, copying files and applying error correction is trivial compared to maintaining paper copies of books which degrade and burn. We write emulators for just about every popular old computer system, so even if you have to use a dated reader to extract the info, should be possible. We have whole organizations dedicated to digital preservation that would have no issue doing this for millions of books.
    - 394549 8y ago
      > Don't bullshit me, copying files and applying error correction is trivial compared to maintaining paper copies of books which degrade and burn. The people who are actually in the business of digital preservation disagree. To wit: I learned the other day that there are businesses that specialize in transferring digital scans to microfilm to better preserve them (and also ones that go the other way to increase accessibility). Digital and analog formats are complementary. But it's the software engineer's burden to lecture every other specialist that they're doing it all wrong, and computers, only computers, are the answer and way forward.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

shittyadmin 8y ago

So store it digitally where it takes up less space. No need to keep a physical copy around.

394549 8y ago
> So store it digitally where it takes up less space. No need to keep a physical copy around. That's a glib answer that ignores the complexity of digital preservation. When you preserve something, you want it to last long term--decades to centuries. Storing things digitally entails choosing software, file formats, and storage media; and the long-term commitment to continuously copy and recopy, convert and reconvert, and test and retest as the technology you choose becomes obsolete. Plus, with digitization, you have the added risk of correctable scanning errors becoming permanent, once the originals are destroyed. Digital works are some of the most ephemeral ever created, to the point where future historians may experience our era as a kind of dark age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  Don't bullshit me, copying files and applying error correction is trivial compared to maintaining paper copies of books which degrade and burn. We write emulators for just about every popular old computer system, so even if you have to use a dated reader to extract the info, should be possible. We have whole organizations dedicated to digital preservation that would have no issue doing this for millions of books.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Don't bullshit me, copying files and applying error correction is trivial compared to maintaining paper copies of books which degrade and burn. The people who are actually in the business of digital preservation disagree. To wit: I learned the other day that there are businesses that specialize in transferring digital scans to microfilm to better preserve them (and also ones that go the other way to increase accessibility). Digital and analog formats are complementary. But it's the software engineer's burden to lecture every other specialist that they're doing it all wrong, and computers, only computers, are the answer and way forward.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]