[Genealib] Re: Looking to the Future

Wed Mar 4 14:15:53 EST 2009

What I believe Beth may have been expressing earlier today might be frustration at the continual attack on libraries, societies, and other research repositories and organizations that, in order to best serve their customers, make decisions to continue purchasing reader-printers.  I do believe it is prudent, as Eastman and others have stated, to purchase digital microtext reader-printers so customers may capture microtext images in a digital format.  I do not, however, believe it is prudent for these organizations *not* to purchase these machines at all.  That would be a huge disservice to our customers.

At the completion of our extensive building program here at the Allen County Public Library (and yes, there is still a place for the *right* bricks-'n'-mortar projects), we purchased eight (8) digital reader-printers at nearly $7K/each.  The majority of them, five to seven, are in use nearly constantly during the busiest parts of our days, and from our casual internal-use surveys, we believe that all eight are likely in use between eight and ten percent of the time.  Last year, 46,284 pieces of microtext (film and fiche) were used in our Genealogy Center.  If we didn't have reader-printers, it would be challenging for our customers to obtain copies of material they are interested in saving and/or viewing later.  We don't have the budget to employ personal scribes. <g>

I also believe it is a disservice to say it will only take "quite a few years" to, for example, convert all the newspapers currently extant only on microfilm to a digital format.  The much truer statement is it will take a couple of generations...or more.  (See DGC's response to Eastman's Feb. 16, 2009 column--about not yet living in the *22nd* century.)  There is a big difference between years and generations in my humble opinion.  Digitizing is still relatively costly, it still takes time, and there are still intellectual property rights to consider.  It's not something magic where we'll all close our eyes tightly, turn around twice, wish "real hard," and PUFF, it's done! <g>

For many, there is an additional issue of equality of access.  Are only those with money going to be able to engage in genealogical research?  Why don't *all* libraries in the country subscribe to *all* the online genealogical services, including all the online newspapers?  Because it costs money and most cannot afford all that are available.  

Not speaking for Beth, but I am guessing she, too, has grown tired of broad-brush statements like the two below that really don't have as much grounding in reality as one might think.

**From the Eastman Feb. 16, 2009 column:  "Most big city newspapers in the U.S., Canada, and England, even those from 100 to 200 years ago, have already been converted from microfilm to digital images. This includes the New York Times, the Washington Post, the London Times, the Boston Globe, the Boston Post (now defunct for many years), and many others. You can now sit at home and read those old newspapers on your PC screen, even if we obtain it from a library or a commercial service (Footnote.com) that is many miles away, regardless of the time of day."  Really?!  What is the definition of "most?"  What is the definition of "big city?"  Whatever the definition of "big" is, what about the majority of papers that don't qualify as big? And what is the cost?  Can the every-day genealogist access this data?  Can libraries and archives afford the subscriptions to make these digitized newspapers available?  Very recently I was provided with a quote for an *annual* subscription to nine (9) special focus newspapers titles.  That quote was just short of $65K--per year with no guarantees about cost run-ups in the future.  Some public libraries are being charged between $45K and $71K *each year* for subscriptions to just over 1300 less specifically focused newspapers titles.  But one must watch the title count carefully as there are some information aggregators that tease with a big title list but closer inspection reveals a far from complete run for numerous titles on the list.  

Public libraries and other similar entities have long concerned themselves with lowering the access bar.  And we are still interested in that.  No one can or will deny that electronic access is better--for searchability, transmission, reproduction, and usability.  Can we afford it?  Are the digital projects currently being touted as the best and greatest actually creating "walled gardens" of limited access for the "chosen few" who are rich enough to afford it?  And then there's the whole preservation issue that keep being danced around...

** From the Eastman Feb. 16, 2009 column:  "Luckily, all the major newspapers from many years ago are already available electronically as are many, but certainly not all, small town papers."  Really?!  Again, what is the definition of "major," and what about the medium and small town newspapers?  the ethnic newspapers?  the religious newspapers? the organizational newspapers?  the neighborhood association newspapers?  Are information aggregators going to see enough profitability in digitizing medium and small town newspapers to ever do them, and if done, will anyone, or everyone, be able to afford them?

Another factor to consider when dialoging about digitization initiatives is standards--are all our digitizing projects conforming to the same standards (resolution, file format, etc.) so digital data is easily portable, searched and accessed by near-infinite numbers of users and programs, and transferable to the next software platform and the next generation of storage media?  Yes, digitizing is the way to go--the way to make more materials more widely accessible in the future, and the future starts today.  Let's commit, though, to not "paint with such broad brush strokes" about the issues surrounding digitization.  Let's dialog openly and soberly about the reality of the situation.  Let's look at reality with eyes wide open.  Let's not take easy, comfortable yet fallacious approaches to the challenges that face us--like no more microfilm companies means no more microfilm use.  And let's commit to "keeping the baby!"  

Before anyone thinks, oh my, here's another Luddite librarian speaking, please know that is not the case.  At the risk of sounding immodest, I am on the lead team of every digitizing initiative here at the Allen County Public Library where we have digitizing partnerships with four major outside organizations, three rather robust websites [www.ACPL.Info/Genealogy, www.GenealogyCenter.Info, and www.GenealogyCenter.Info/Military]  on which we are posting indexed and digitized data in an effort to provide exponentially greater, free access to historical data, and we have published more than 15K local history photographic images in our library's "Community Album."  And just wait until you see what we have planned for our newly acquire Lincoln Collection over the next 12 to 24 months.  In addition, our Genealogy Center continues to partner with WeRelate.org in promoting the genealogical community's largest wiki-- with individual pages for over 2,000,000 people and families.  It is a fantastic use of contemporary technology to place significant quantities of data on the web, and make that data searchable and findable, for free use by interested researchers.  As a non-Luddite, I simply believe that it is not necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Curt B. Witcher, MLS, FUGA, IGSF
Manager, Genealogy Center
NE Director, Indiana Genealogical Society
Allen County Public Library
P. O. Box 2270, 900 Library Plaza
Fort Wayne, IN  46801-2270
CWitcher at ACPL.Lib.in.us
260-421-1226
Fax: 260-421-1386
===========================================
The views, opinions, and judgments expressed
in this message are solely those of the author.
The message contents have not been reviewed
or approved by the Allen County Public Library.
===========================================

>>> amsmith at lib.usf.edu 3/4/2009 9:52 AM >>>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Beth Oljace <boljace at and.lib.in.us> wrote:
> Dick Eastman can jabber all he wants about the death of microfilm...

Beth, I think it's unfair to characterize Dick's position on this
issue as "jabbering".  Let's look at some specific points he has
recently made:

"However, the creation of new microfilms has now almost stopped...
FamilySearch, the genealogy operation sponsored by the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) has now almost ceased
sending cameras out to create new microfilms. FamilySearch has issued
numerous reports in the past few years about the organization's
conversion to all digital formats.  The U.S. National Archives now
makes almost no new microfilms. In fact, NARA is working with
Footnote.com and other contractors to issue all new products in
digital formats, not as microfilm."

Now, are you disputing those specific statements of his?  If not,
where exactly is the "jabbering"?

Drew Smith
Tampa, FL
_______________________________________________
genealib mailing list
genealib at mailman.acomp.usf.edu 
http://mailman.acomp.usf.edu/mailman/listinfo/genealib