I think our patrons, Baker included, have every
right to criticize us, particularly when they are supporting many
of us through their tax dollars. That doesn't mean we must
agree with them, but certainly we should take what they say
seriously.
This ongoing thread about Baker has revealed to me
something I have suspected for a long time: some of us care far more
about making life easier for ourselves as archives administrators, then we
care about providing for our patrons. We care more about what
*we* think constitutes "historical importance", rather
than looking to our patrons and historiography for help. We are
the experts, they the pedestrians. (Maybe this why so
few user studies have been conducted and published in archives professional
journals).
We can not fulfill
every need/want of our patrons, but trying to meet their needs when
feasible should be our ultimate goal, and that may mean finding the
resources to preserve some originals.
Heather Willever-Farr
Electronic Records Archivist American College of Physicians - American Society of Internal Medicine 190 N. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106-1572 hwillever-farr@mail.acponline.org (w) 215-351-2470 (h) 215-481-0962 >>> "Geri E. Solomon" <Geri.E.Solomon@HOFSTRA.EDU> 04/18/01
12:05PM >>>
I am replying to this although I probably shouldn't. I'm a bit perturbed. As someone who respects the work of many different types of writers, archivists, teachers, sanitation men, telephone operators, etc. etc. please explain to me why this statement makes any sense: Traister writes: "And he is a journalist for (among other places) *The New Yorker*. Walk into any bookstore. You don't actually need to do anything quite so low as to *read* his books if you dislike him so much; simply count what you find of his work vs. what you find by *any* archivist or librarian. Is there a clue here?" Is there a ranking system that I don't know about that says, all writers before librarians, then archivists, then, well I don't know, maybe doctors?????? Because someone wrote something for *The New Yorker* that means their opinion is more valid??????? And did you read VOX????? That seems to me to be a good reason to attack Baker right there...... Then Traister writes: "In a spirit of impatience, I might add that criticism of Baker for not being an archivist, a librarian, or "public" in the way in which he runs his self-created newspaper archive is, it seems to me, ill-judged, mean-spirited, and likely to be remarkably unproductive. The guy has at least put his own money and effort where his mouth is, and he has done so in an area that has nothing to do with his main business in life, writing." But the meaning that I was trying to convey, is that I would not attempt to attack Baker as a writer, (except maybe for that little aside about VOX) but perhaps I would attack him as an archivist! And, just let him walk a while in my shoes, before he attacks ME!!!!! That he might have put his money (and quite a few grants from some other folks as well) where his mouth is, but that he hasn't done the work, yet, just collected a lot of newspapers, and that he might change his tune after he had done some of the other things associated with the work of an archivist! There, I've said my piece.... Geri Solomon Libarges@Hofstra.edu A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List! To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt < rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu > |