The key to Ms. Willever-Farr's statement is "to preserve some originals."
"Some" is completely different from that Mr. Baker insists upon.
Some people on this list have made the leap of criticism that if we, as
a profession, are condoning the destruction of newspapers then "what are
we preserving in the personal collections." Obviously there is a
HUGE difference between preserving newspapers and preserving the papers
of Gertrude Stein. The majority of these newspapers that Mr. Baker
seems (I have not read his book and cannot bring myself to buy it) so animate
about collecting can be found in thousands of libraries and research facilities
across the country. Granted there may be problems with the various
formats (microfilm quality for instance) but I find it hard
to believe that every one of the hundreds of copies that have been
made are all useless to patrons. Now I ask you, if an archivist has
a choice between preserving a N.Y. Times from 1950 (that has already been
copied onto ph neutral paper) or a holograph letter from Stein, which
would we spend the time and money on? the answer to me seems obvious.
I believe this to be one of the biggest challenges to archives and a point
that Mr. Baker does not seem to have a grasp of.
**************************************************** Alex Rankin Assistant Director for Manuscripts Special Collections Boston University ************************************************* All opinions contained here in are only the author's and do not reflect the views of Boston University Heather Willever-Farr wrote: 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 |