Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:27 -0400
From: shawn wilbur <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org>
Subject: Re: libertarian microfiche project



Chuck says:

> The format is not the solution.

I'm not sure i claimed it was. However, i'm not sure it's the problem you make
it out to be either.

> Shawn, I think we've had this discussion on the Spunk list a long time ago,
> but the problem with Zube's project is that he fetishizes one format as some
> kind of magical technology. Zube has put alot of work into his project over
> the years and he should get more credit than he has, but the purpose of an
> archive shouldn't be wedded to any specific technology.

Zube's involvement with the CDROM initiatives undercuts the "magic" tech
objection, although his glowing defenses of fiche are pretty over the top at
times. But Zube's hyperbole does not detract from the usefulness of his work.
I've been able to get research done that i could not have done - or afforded to
do - otherwise.

> Zube made the decision many years ago to do his archive on microfiche,
> probably thinking that it would be cheap to distribute and wouldn't take up
> much space.

And, apparently, this has been the case. I got around 15,000 clear pages in one
small envelope for about 60 bucks.

> The problem of course with obsolete and antique technologies (and
> formats) is that there aren't any devices to read the microfiche. Libraries
> have been getting rid of microfiche readers, so it is almost impossible for
> the average person to go out with a Zube microfiche and find a reader for it.

The average person, with the same technology it takes to access Spunk Library,
can pull an adequate reader off eBay or similar sites for a very small sum -
pretty much any day of the week. And there doesn't seem to be consensus on
the obscelescence of fiche. The BGSU libraries have, in fact, just added some
readers for even more obscure microform formats, and upgraded their reader/
printers.

> CD-ROM technology is more ubiquitous, but there are similar considerations
> with this technology. There has been lots of talk about the "lifespan" of
> CDs, with recent studies suggesting that CDs will last longer than previously
> expected. But as a few articles have pointed out, what do you do with your
> CDs in ten year if everybody has moved on to a new technology for mass
> storage? How many PCs and laptops and pocket PCs are ebing shipped with 3.5"
> floppy drives these days? I dare you to find a computer with a 5 1/4" drive.

Again, if you need a machine with any of these storage formats, there is *no*
difficulty in obtaining them, and generally very little expense. When we're
talking
about infoshops or other public-access information initiatives, it doesn't seem
unreasonable at all to think support for older formats - and format conversion
facilities - might be part of the project. The "dare" is a foolish one, since
older
model computers are traded every day. And many older computers are more
affordable.

There's no escaping the planned phasing out of all portable storage forms, at
least until we radically restructure this rotten system, but there is a healthy
current of resistance as well. Consider how quickly external floppy drives
were made available for Macs after Apple abandoned the format. It's
actually hard to find a format that has been completely abandoned. Maybe
8-track tapes count, but there aren't too many others.

And perhaps part of our chore as archivists is to make available info on how
to keep the maximum number of formats useful. It wouldn't take much.

> This is why Internet-based archives are still the way to go for the
> forseeable future. However, we could do better in terms of making the
> information in those archives more accessible to the average person. A CD
> might be the answer, but not one with simply texts on it.

I'm not convinced there is a particular "way to go." There are several problems
to solve. The first is to make texts available in some format relatively simply.

Computer scanning and microfiche both accomplish this basic task. Scanning
may be preferable since it makes later tasks, like creating searchable files,
providing commentary and other forms of elaboration, organizing archives, etc
a bit easier. At the moment, i am leaning towards image scanning as a rapid
means of getting texts distributed, and CDROM as an inexpensive way to
store and distribute the texts. There's no "magic" in either choice, but there
may be more efficiency than in the pamphlet-and-etext approach i had been
taking.

> Ironically, Zube's microfiche project shows off one strength of that
> technology which contemporary technology falls short. The microfilm and
> microfiche format more easily captures the entire look of a printed
> publication. Yes, you can scan these things now, but I believe that filming
> publications for microfiche was much easier.

My interest in texts in their material culture context - not surprising for a
bookseller - is another reason why image scanning as a first step appeals to
me. And why the microfiche is also a satisfying form.

-shawn

> Chuck0
>