Just curious.  Handwritten annotations humanize many of the older
permanently valuable documents preserved at NARA and add insights for
historians. Do you think Bob Haldeman's handwritten annotation, if
written in an email now, would be kept as long as the document from
Chapin?  Would both be available for an exhibit 30 years from now? Or,
as Taylor Branch said (for another reason), will future history be more
lifeless than it was in the past?

As for "managing more crap." well, if everyone felt that way, how
confident could historians be that the truly necessary information will
be preserved?   I know these are stressful times for records managers,
transitional periods always are.  But I've looked at a lot of valuable
"crap" over the decades, glad _someone_ applied the right balancing
tests back then and preserved it, while still getting rid of the stuff
of temporary value, LOL.  Well, one reason I started subscribing to the
List was to learn more about the mindset of records managers and this
debate is a good opportunity to learn!!

Maarja
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/05/05 5:58 PM >>>
>>I assume you mean you find printing out electronic records to be a
burden.  I've found it a help occasionally to have hard copies in the
file.<<
I assume the opposite.  I rarely print electronic documents as I would
rather change the flight path of a few electrons than have to manage
more crap.

>>The Haldeman memo wouldn't be as interesting if we didn't have the
handwritten annotation.<<
The question is which is the most interesting, the fact that the
annotation was handwritten or the content of the annotation.  I expect
the same comment would be made today if an email rather than a typed
memo was involved.

Bill R

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance