Home » Posts tagged 'Digital deposit' (Page 8)
Tag Archives: Digital deposit
Cuts in LC budget threaten NDIIPP
And this is *exactly* why we need a distributed system of digital deposit, collection, preservation and access. "Cuts Impact Digital Work At Library Of Congress", National Journal's Technology Daily, Sep 11, 2007 PMedition by Aliya Sternstein
Budget cuts this year and a paltry funding outlook for fiscal 2008 are frustrating digitization efforts at the Library of Congress, according to Library employees. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans disagree on how much money to supply the program in the future. The National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, established by Congress in 2000, devises means of finding, saving and providing long-term access to cultural resources that exist only in electronic format. But $47 million -- half of the program's funding -- was rescinded in fiscal 2007 to support other critical library programs.Continue reading
Another Example of Access Bad, Ownership Good
Update 8/19/2007
It turns out that this story is both more complex and more unnerving than I present here. So while I am leaving up my original post as a historical record that I am falliable, I suggest you stop reading right now and go to my colleague Jim Jacob's very well researched pieces:
- What really happend with Google Premium Video -- Part one: DRM killed the files
- What really happend with Google Premium Video -- Part Two: Why Google Video story should scare you
But the best part about Jim's story is that it doesn't end with hopeless fear. He suggests concrete actions you can take to ensure the gov't will not "googlize" our info away. - Daniel
The BBC is reporting "Google is shutting down its premium video service, leaving users who have bought or rented content unable to view their videos in the future."
These people paid to access their content and now they not only can't have it, but according to the BBC, they won't be getting refunds, either.
If these same users had bought DVDs from a company that either went under or stopped selling them, these would be happy people watching their programs. But because they bought into an access model that assured them content would be available 24/7 on a third party server, they have nothing but their memories.
I'm positive Google didn't start up the service with the intention of shutting it down. They had every intention of being good to their users. But that was something that for whatever reason, they could not live up to.
Can you see where I'm going with this? The Government Printing Office wants us to accept a centralized model where we point to content housed in FDSys rather than depositing digital documents with the nation's Federal Depository Libraries. They assure us, just like Google assured their subscribers, that their servers will always be available to us on today's usage terms. But they can't really commit future generations of public servants any more than Google could keep its promise to its subscribers. And Google has WAY more money that GPO ever will.
Try to take some time this week to tell your Congress members that you want to see the decentralized depository system of the future, not another monolithic model that can be unplugged at will.
UPDATE: We have updated the information about this issue and its implications in a two part article:
Continue reading
David Rosenthal says “Do it for Preservation!”
David Rosenthal is a member of Stanford's LOCKSS development team who maintains a blog about his professional work. It is well worth reading and deserves a place in everyone's list of RSS feeds. In a June 10, 2007 posting on reasons to preserve e-journals, David explains that multiple, independently hosted government publications are a good thing because they are TAMPER EVIDENT:
The goal of the FDLP was to provide citizens with ready access to their government's information. But, even though this wasn't the FDLP's primary purpose, it provided a remarkably effective preservation system. It created a large number of copies of the material to be preserved, the more important the material, the more copies. These copies were on low-cost, durable, write-once, tamper-evident media. They were stored in a large number of independently administered repositories, some in different jurisdictions. They are indexed in such a way that it is easy to find some of the copies, but hard to be sure that you have found them all. Preserved in this way, the information was protected from most of the threats to which stored information is subject. The FDLP's massive degree of replication protected against media decay, fire, flood, earthquake, and so on. The independent administration of the repositories protected against human error, incompetence and many types of process failures. But, perhaps most important, the system made the record tamper evident. Winston Smith in "1984" was "a clerk for the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so that they match the current party line". George Orwell wasn't a prophet. Throughout history, governments of all stripes have found the need to employ Winston Smiths and the US government is no exception. Government documents are routinely recalled from the FDLP, and some are re-issued after alteration. An illustration is Volume XXVI of Foreign Relations of the United States, the official history of the US State Department. It covers Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines between 1964 and 1968. It was completed in 1997 and underwent a 4-year review process. Shortly after publication in 2001, the fact that it included official admissions of US complicity in the murder of at least 100,000 Indonesian "communists"by Suharto's forces became an embarrassment, and the CIA attempted to prevent distribution. This effort became public, and was thwarted when the incriminating material was leaked to the National Security Archive and others. The important property of the FDLP is that in order to suppress or edit the record of government documents, the administration of the day has to write letters, or send US Marshals, to a large number of libraries around the country. It is hard to do this without attracting attention, as happened with Volume XXVI. Attracting attention to the fact that you are attempting to suppress or re-write history is self-defeating. This deters most attempts to do it, and raises the bar of desperation needed to try. It also ensures that, without really extraordinary precautions, even if an attempt succeeds it will not do so without trace. That is what tamper-evident means. It is almost impossible to make the record tamper-proof against the government in power, but the paper FDLP was a very good implementation of a tamper-evident record.You'll notice that David refers to the depository program in the past tense. He does so because, like GPO itself, he sees the Future Digital System (FDSys) as an inevitable total replacement:
It should have become evident by now that I am using the past tense when describing the FDLP. The program is ending and being replaced by FDSys. This is in effect a single huge web server run by the GPO on which all government documents will be published. The argument is that through the Web citizens have much better and more immediate access to government information than through an FDLP library. That's true, but FDSys is also Winston Smith's dream machine, providing a point-and-click interface to instant history suppression and re-writing.David thinks this is a bad thing, GPO assures us it is a good thing, but both assume this is where we are going. But it doesn't have to be this way. We in the FDLP are definitely "Not Dead Yet!" We have a vital role to play in continuing to preserve the tangible materials entrusted into our care. Further, hundreds of new tangible titles are being shipped each month by GPO to the 1200 plus federal depository libraries. And while the depository community hasn't exactly leaped up and embraced their responsibility to preserve federal electronic publications, individual libraries like the University of North Texas and the New Mexico State Library have. Together with others who have held views on preservation similar to David's for years these libraries will help build the depository system of the future. Or we can sit back and let Winston Smith control our government information. If you are a government information specialist, it's up to you. Continue reading
Iowa Publications Online – Thanks SDLTF!
As part of the ALA meeting: State & Local Documents Task Force, GODORT Annual Meeting: Washington D.C. Saturday, June 22, 2007; 8:00-10:00am Renaissance Hotel: Congressional A/B There will be an open forum that I hope all ALA-attending FGI readers will visit: "Preservation of born digital Iowa online state publications (technological aspects). Barbara Corson, Program Director for Library Services for the Iowa State Library, will be speaking about the technical nuts and bolts of the Iowa Publications Online Project. If you want to know how to preserve born digital State Publications you will want to come to this session. " Compliments to SLDTF for having a session on preserving born digital publications. We at FGI hope it is one of many to come out of ALA Godort meetings. If you attend, please send a write up to admin AT freegovinfo.info. If you're like me and not able to attend ALA this summer, check out the Iowa Publications Online Project and its associated FAQ. Continue reading
Social Psychology for Librarians
I've been reading a textbook called Social Psychology by Thomas Gilovich, et al and looking at its companion website. I wanted to share some ideas from the book that I think will be of real use to librarians and other government information professionals trying to persuade people to take action to ensure access, preservation and privacy with respect to government information. It may also be of use to people trying to raise awareness and usage of government information, library websites and libraries. So often activists put out calls to action that either seemingly fall on deaf ears or make people aware of issues without taking action. Why is this? It could be because of the way people tend to change their attitudes. In chapter 7 of Social Psychology, we are told that people are open to persuasion on two levels -- a central route and a peripheral route. The central route of persuasion is what is most familiar to us -- "People attend carefully to the message, and they consider relevant evidence and underlying logic in detail." Speaking for myself here, this is the way I tend to try and convince others. I attempt to lay out the evidence to convince people of my point of view or to understand why I think something is under threat. I use statistics when I can and logical-sounding thought experiments when I don't have statistics. If you look at campaigns to increase library use or use of library-purchased electronic resources, I think you see a similar pattern -- "You should use the library because we have x and y and you'll save time and money." But it turns out that people only use the central route under certain conditions -- "when the message is relevant to them, when they have knowledge in the domain, and when the message evokes a sense of personal responsibility." What happens when people don't feel like a message is relevant, when they don't have a lot of knowledge in a particular area and/or they feel no personal responsibility? They take the peripheral route of persuasion -- "people attend to superficial aspects of the message. They use this route when they have little motivation or time or ability to attend to its deeper meaning. In this route, people are persuaded by source characteristics (such as attractiveness and credibility of the communicator) and message characteristics (such as how many arguments there are and whether the conclusions are explicit)" Looking that two two methods of persuasion in detail, I see immediate problems in the efforts of librarians in general and documents librarians in particular to get people to care and be good stewards of our resources. I'd like to outline these problems specifically for those helping to stimulate the building of local digital collections and invite librarians in other disciplines to see how these different routes might explain disconnects with their audiences. I believe that I and others in the "digital deposit" movement have been obsessing over crafting ever better "central route" messages without realizing that much of our core audience (other documents librarians and other government information users) are in fact at the peripheral level though no fault of their own. Let's look at the "central route" factors again:
- Relevance to audience;
- Audience has knowledge in the domain;
- Audience has sense of personal responsibility.
Latest Comments