paul Scott. from Archive List fame? I remember you :)> "I don't think that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the quote> and will argue that that both Steven and Chris are over-analyzing it."
 
If an accountant wrote it I would agree. A RM wrote it as a quote. I would say that at that point the only context you can asign to it is that the RM believes the quote is factual and true. I also believe hte quote is n intrinsically false. > > "Information which is not communicated is valueless."> > Like Steve, I too have a background in military intelligence. But my> training was to distribute information to those with a need to know so> that they could act on it. Why else would we spend treasure and> sometime lives gathering intelligence?> > Granted, not everyone had a need to know everything and the risk of a> secret being compromised increases exponentially as additional persons> are informed. But, that said, acting on information (and information)> makes the difference between success and failure. Look at General> Patton, he was successful because he acted on intelligence produced by> Ultra. Clark didn't.
I don't have a military intelligence background. So I couldn't speak to why the military gathers the information they do. I am sure they have a purpose in doing so. That purpose my be to distribute it and use it. They may also collect in anticipation of using  and never do. Does that make it valueless? It may not serve the purpose for which it ws gathered but could there be a secondary use or purpose in retaining information, not distributing and not accsessing it? 
> As for Chris' claim, the purpose of an Archives is to preserve and to> make available the permanent records of an organization. 
 
Did I say that? Didn't mean to. You can go to many archives and be denied access. Quite a few maintain the archives solely for he preservation of records. Access is not an issue other than to deny it. Does this mean the records in a closed archive has no value?
 
So the> Clintonian answer is "it depends upon what the definition of> 'communicate' is." I maintain that preparing and making available> finding guides to assist researchers find information in the Archives is> the same as communicating it. And the archivists who work for me are> highly proactive.
 
Yea I have also argued in the past that access is a core responsibility of a responsible archive. Preservation for the sake of preservation has always seemed a huge waste to me. However, it does not mean that the records that are not accessible are valueless.> > "Information which cannot be found is worthless."> > Chris has a cute answer (then why are you looking for it). But think> back to your high school physics: information you cannot find is like> potential energy--if you can get to it is has value, but if it remains> un-accessible you are only wasting your time and kinetic energy.
 
Yea, It's been a while since I took quantum mechanics, but then I wasn't talking about non-Euchlidean Geometry, I was talking about records (I do think that within our lifetime we might reach high enough volumes of information to begin talking about applying quantum physics to information but not yet). 
 
I think John Montana might say that records that cannot be found in your system would have, "potentially" the highest value of any record. A records created with no evidence of disposal, sujbect to a discovery order? Things could get expensive in a hurry. What is the relative value of record that brings down your organization? > > "The value of Information is directly related to its accessibility."> > OK, maybe this one is a bit overstated because a lot of easily> accessible information (or misinformation) has no value and some hard to> find information has such great value that researchers will go to a lot> of effort for. But remember Mooer's Law: "An information retrieval> system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and> troublesome for a customer to have information than for him to not have> it." (I'll grant that this can be read two ways, but it is commonly> understood that he actually meant "obtain" rather than "have.")> > When we make records with "Potential Value" (see above) easily> available, it increases its use, hence value. I have one series of> records that was used no more than 10 times a month when in the hands of> the creating department but is now being used about 500 times a month> because my staff organized it so that we can find things.
 
 
I don't dispute that distribution and access may add to the value of a record. Back to archival theory, the duplication and distribution of copies of records having intrinsic value may devalued by making them so available. If that holds true for some Archival records accessiblity would not have a positive effect on value. 
 
The value in collecting information, holding it, and not make it available might be the the sole value of have the records. How many patents have been swallowed up by large corporations for the main purpose of denying access to those records by the competition. Does that mean the record has no vaue?
 
A far as physics goes, I think we are over 19 planes of reality now. We may or may not be able to access them, what value they have to us is an unkown quantity, the only thing agreed on is that if they do exist they might have value to us. 
 
 
 > > But I do agree with Chris on one thing, it is something that we can (and> should) delve into. > "Paul R. Scott, CA, CRM"
 
Please note that Mr. Scott uses the proper "CA, CRM" designation, not the often used "CRM, CA".
 
 
Chris Flynn
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_instantaccess_042008
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]