I didn't think anyone would question that microfilm and most microfilm
readers can make research incredibly tedious. Though, I did
think someone might say something like: "well, it's better to have
microfilm than nothing at all..."
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 >>> "Kurilecz, Peter" <peter.kurilecz@WOODSIDESUMMITGROUP.COM> 04/19/01 01:56PM >>> Heather
wrote: "I didn't need to be cognizant of this history,
however, to know that microfilm is an awful medium to use and that we
should avoid knee-jerk decisions to microfilm. "
Yes we should
avoid all-knee jerk reactions to image any and everything whether the
medium to be used is microfilm, video or electronic. To use a troutfishing
analogy "match the hatch!"
But to get
back to your comment above. Heather would you please provide this list
with an explanation as to why microfilm is such an awful medium.
Granted I have not
read Mr. Baker's book, but based upon the various reviews, interviews and
reports that I have found his anger is primarily directed at misguided
individuals who did not properly set up their microfilming projects.
In many cases
microfilm is still a very viable medium. What one must do is conduct a
needs assessment to determine what imaging medium is best for the project or
process at hand. I know of too many imaging projects (microform and electronic)
that are failures because the assessment and analysis needed were not
done.
Peter A. Kurilecz CRM, CA Manager, Records Management Group Woodside Summit Group Inc Midlothian, Virginia Office: 804-744-1247 x23 Fax: 804-744-4947 mailto:peter.kurilecz@woodsidesummitgroup.com |