Talk:Preservation (library and archive)

Work in progress note

Students at the Pratt Institute and Indiana University library schools have been adopting these topics and coordinating it with their class work. Consequently, some citations are "down the tree" in individual articles and haven't yet been applied to the main entry. Where information reflects the common practice of the profession, we're also having some discussion over the most appropriate source to cite - any pointers to wikipedia policy or practice on this would be most welcome. Your help and patience is appreciated! Jnadal 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found workshop discriptions helpful for this sort of thing in the past. Take a look at the SAA, SOLINET and AMIGOS sites - often they will cite commonly used techniques in their advertising, and they sometimes include short bios of the presenters as well. A lot of preservation information is given in regional workshops, so once you find a citation for your information, pick it up and use this template (w/o the *'s) just after a sentence's period:

• <*ref*>*{*{*cite web *|url=*|title=* |accessdate=2007-05-19* |publisher=*[webaddy name of org]*}*}*<*/*ref*>

It's also perfectly OK to use the newsletters of folks like Collections Care Network - just use the news cite for those. A particularly rich resource for myself are the power points that folks post on the web after conferences. Even if the link is temporary (i.e. they only leave up the PP for a few weeks), you can still cite the work while it's active. CYA by including *all* the information on the presentation, including the author, title, date, etc. Encourage folks to make their materials available on university servers. Once it's on the web, it's a web publication.Efkeathley 17:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name.

Preservation: Library and Archival Science needs to be moved to something complying with our article naming policy, I don't know what tho. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-16t19:48z

Thanks for the redirect Jeandré; the original name was chosen to provide scope and a clean url, but the suggestion you made seems just fine to me Jnadal 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

These lists need to be wikified and edited for style. 128.158.145.51 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations and style

I have begun cleaning up the citations by simply putting them in the correct format. I love the information presented here, but I agree with the two comments above. Some serious reformatting needs to happen to this article.Efkeathley 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research and Conway

Any citations you could give me for your info in the preservation article would be much appreciated. Just post the cites here if you like and I can add them in - I'm trying to footnote the piece and make sure the whole thing becomes wiki standard.Efkeathley 11:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

For this article, apart from the few citations included, the rest of the information was provided by Paul Conway whom I wrote to and he sent his Curriculum Vitae to me. This was after I could not find many publications about him. Thank you.

I think it's great that you've put this information in, but it needs to be from a published source. Even just web publishing counts! Does Conway have his Vitae on a web page somewhere? If so, we can cite the web page. Sadly, if it's not published elsewhere, this counts as original research, and it can't be used in the wiki. I know it's frustrating, but it's true. I had to take some good stuff out of the archivist article because I didn't have published cites. I'm going to copy these comments over to the preservation article page, because I think other contributors need to know this as well. I enjoy Conway's work, but we need to find a cite. Maybe we can pull from a bio published to advertise one of his classes?Efkeathley 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging media preservation

I think these can be merged and the topics could all be treated pretty easily under the various media specific issues. One potential problem is that the media preservation article as it stands now conflates a number of digital distribution and organizination services (eg snapfish) with preservation services. That makes some sense in the colloquial use of "preservation," but wouldn't fall within the scope of preservation as an area of library science. Jnadal 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some of the confusion can be cleared up by making a Category: Preservation Science page? If the two articles are merged, I suggest Preservation Science as the new title. This title fits well with the current intro paragraph.Efkeathley 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea!! though I'd suggest that "preservation administration" and "conservation science" are probably the more accurate category titles in the library and archives context. I'll go read up on category pages and then should I put together a roadmap for moving the various topics? (I submitted grades last night, so now I have a few months where I can actually work on this myself!) Thanks again for all your advice! Jnadal 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about preservation administration and conservation science as separate categories, but I wonder about where they overlap. For example, Collections Care would seem to be preservation administration, but in archives circles this also sometimes basic book repair techniques, and book repair is conservation science when practiced at an in-depth level. If we separate the two concepts, there's going to be a bit of nit-picking about where things should go. Of course, this type of thing may have been already parsed out in some publication or committee of which I am unaware. I would be more inclined to separate the two concepts if we had a list somewhere of exactly what was "preservation administration" and what was "conservation science". In my practice, the two are so intertwined as to prove difficult to pry apart at their most basic level. While no one would mistake a processing archivist doing hinge tightenings for a ACA conservator reconstructing a leather binding, both these actions are related to the care of the same sort of artifact, and I hesitate to divide them.Efkeathley 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)