Assignment #6 (part 1): Response to "History, Digitized (and Abridged)"

Hafner, Katie. “History, Digitized (and Abridged).” The New York Times. 10 March 2007. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/business/yourmoney/11archive.html>

Considering the context of this article, I think the “scare tactic” approach to promoting digitization makes sense. I agree with Helen and Nick, who have pointed out that not digitizing certain objects does not mean that those books or manuscripts will somehow disappear – physical objects that are well cared for can and will continue to be used pretty much as they were prior to digital preservation efforts. However, this article appears in the Money & Business section of The New York Times, thereby reaching a much broader, more diverse audience than most of the articles we read as part of our iSchool coursework. Digital preservation efforts need funding, and making the situation sound dire could be useful in getting a wider public to advocate for (and fund!) these programs.

Specifically, I think Hafner does a nice job of highlighting examples of and possibilities for collaborations between archival collections and corporate enterprises. She mentions that Google, Reuters, IBM, and the Mellon Foundation have all been involved in supporting digital preservation projects. Pooling resources can make for strange bedfellows - the story of the Genealogical Society of Utah's support of digitization efforts at the New Orleans Public Library was an interesting example of how an unlikely partnership can make for a mutually beneficial outcome. It is true that partnering with for-profit institutions or faith-based organizations can bring a whole host of challenges & controversies that many libraries, museums, & archives may not want to deal with. However, it is imperative, especially in the current economic climate, that we think creatively about how to fund and promote digitization projects.