2 ms·
Historians have always considered artefacts more valuable the closer they are to the original event. This is because the more steps removed you are, the more bi
by itsybitsycoder 11y ago
Historians have always considered artefacts more valuable the closer they are to the original event. This is because the more steps removed you are, the more bias and mistakes can creep in, like a game of telephone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
- glaberficken 11y agoYes I understand the argument about primary sources =). My point is about the feasibility side of it (or lack of it). Why should we have the expectation that we are going to be able to archive everything just because now information is stored digitally? Seems a bit delusional assuming that it is possible at all to archive everything... well I agree that theoretically it is possible, but in practice as we are already seeing barriers pop up all the time. I would bet ancient people were faced with the same problems when dealing with written information.