3 ms·

The government department responsible for managing archives has a very good understanding of these issues and has an active remit to help other government depar

The government department responsible for managing archives has a very good understanding of these issues and has an active remit to help other government departments understand and manage them. https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/understanding-digital-continuity.pdf https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-ma...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
michael1999 3y ago
Is this the same UK government that deliberately destroyed landing records as part of their policy of creating a "hostile environment" for dark skinned immigrants from the Empire? The government has form deleting the past. Why make it easier?
- jdietrich 3y ago
  If these were digitised, they'd be public domain; anyone would have the right to create their own copy. Quietly shredding paper documents is a lot easier than getting a court order against Internet Archive. Open digitisation is a very powerful tool to stop governments from throwing things down the memory hole.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > If these were digitised, they'd be public domain Is that a certainty? "Crown Copyright" is a thing in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, and still seems to be in use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom
    - iggldiggl 3y ago
      And leaving history aside for a moment, by now government probably produces lots of native digital records, but that in no way means that they're automatically publicly accessible.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- andylynch 3y ago
  From old news reports, it was at least as much about not wanting to expend the effort to move the boxes when they relocated offices at some point. Not that that is any better.
- golergka 3y ago
  Did the UK government ever had a regime change since 1066?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - toyg 3y ago
    Not sure why this is relevant, but yes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
happytiger 3y ago
So we should build another new bureaucracy to make sure that our digitization continuity and archive efforts are successful. To save money. Hmm.
- kelnos 3y ago
  That absolutely would save money. The costs of the actual digital storage would be much much lower than for physical items. And once you have an agency that's set up to be experts in digital archival, you can use that for anything, not just these wills.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    I think the breakeven is generally around 50 years. However, it introduces the possibility that records won’t survive the government, and a plethora of other issues that come along with locking into a storage format, the progression of technology, etc. Bear in mind the average age of countries is only 158 years globally. It’s not as cut and dry as it initially appears. Everyone is telling me how obvious it is to gain the cost savings, and perhaps it is. But it is by no means as clear cut, especially when you consider the solution of keeping both but reducing the cost of physical archives to pure storage only post-digitization to be a default against destruction. That use case complicates everything. We also have a boatload of experience maintaining paper records and libraries. We don’t have nearly the track record with digital. https://lifeshareproject.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/physical-conservation-vs-digital-preservation-a-cost-comparison/ https://lifeshareproject.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/physical-c...
- jdietrich 3y ago
  The National Archives are already responsible for managing paper documents held by the government for historical reasons. Given that most of the new documents being added to that archive are digital, it is entirely logical for them to also have responsibility for digitisation. Keeping paper records is not a solution, it is an admission of failure. We have to figure this stuff out now, because the overwhelming majority of important documents being written today will never exist in printed form and need to be preserved for the future. If we don't trust ourselves to scan and shred old documents, then we have much bigger problems.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

michael1999 3y ago

Is this the same UK government that deliberately destroyed landing records as part of their policy of creating a "hostile environment" for dark skinned immigrants from the Empire? The government has form deleting the past. Why make it easier?

jdietrich 3y ago
If these were digitised, they'd be public domain; anyone would have the right to create their own copy. Quietly shredding paper documents is a lot easier than getting a court order against Internet Archive. Open digitisation is a very powerful tool to stop governments from throwing things down the memory hole.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > If these were digitised, they'd be public domain Is that a certainty? "Crown Copyright" is a thing in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, and still seems to be in use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom
  - iggldiggl 3y ago
    And leaving history aside for a moment, by now government probably produces lots of native digital records, but that in no way means that they're automatically publicly accessible.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andylynch 3y ago
From old news reports, it was at least as much about not wanting to expend the effort to move the boxes when they relocated offices at some point. Not that that is any better.
golergka 3y ago
Did the UK government ever had a regime change since 1066?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- toyg 3y ago
  Not sure why this is relevant, but yes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

happytiger 3y ago

So we should build another new bureaucracy to make sure that our digitization continuity and archive efforts are successful. To save money. Hmm.

kelnos 3y ago
That absolutely would save money. The costs of the actual digital storage would be much much lower than for physical items. And once you have an agency that's set up to be experts in digital archival, you can use that for anything, not just these wills.
- happytiger 3y ago
  I think the breakeven is generally around 50 years. However, it introduces the possibility that records won’t survive the government, and a plethora of other issues that come along with locking into a storage format, the progression of technology, etc. Bear in mind the average age of countries is only 158 years globally. It’s not as cut and dry as it initially appears. Everyone is telling me how obvious it is to gain the cost savings, and perhaps it is. But it is by no means as clear cut, especially when you consider the solution of keeping both but reducing the cost of physical archives to pure storage only post-digitization to be a default against destruction. That use case complicates everything. We also have a boatload of experience maintaining paper records and libraries. We don’t have nearly the track record with digital. https://lifeshareproject.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/physical-conservation-vs-digital-preservation-a-cost-comparison/ https://lifeshareproject.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/physical-c...
jdietrich 3y ago
The National Archives are already responsible for managing paper documents held by the government for historical reasons. Given that most of the new documents being added to that archive are digital, it is entirely logical for them to also have responsibility for digitisation. Keeping paper records is not a solution, it is an admission of failure. We have to figure this stuff out now, because the overwhelming majority of important documents being written today will never exist in printed form and need to be preserved for the future. If we don't trust ourselves to scan and shred old documents, then we have much bigger problems.