"Just print it!"

A common response, including in the comments at Book of Trogool, to raising digital-preservation issues is a chortle of "Guess print doesn't seem so bad now! Let's just print everything out, and then we'll be fine!"

Leaving aside my own visceral irritation at that rather rude and dismissive response—no, we won't. "Just print it out" doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny. Let us scrutinize a moment, shall we?

Problem number one is the variety of digital materials that become useless the instant they are printed, or cannot be "printed" at all. Hypertext. High-resolution imaging, as from microscopy or any number of other digital-imaging processes. Endless columns of numeric data. Source code. Games. Et cetera.

Problem number two is the sheer volume of output we're talking about. You tell me how much paper and ink it would take to print out a night's worth of astronomy observation data from a single telescope, or an entire time-series of microscopic cell observations in 3-D. It's not even remotely feasible.

Problem number three is storage space. Think libraries or archives can take that volume of paper? Think twice. Every research library I personally have any data on (and I have a fair professional network, plus I do my professional reading religiously) is bursting at the seams with physical materials already. Raising the incoming volume by a power of—well, quite a large number, really—is not on.

Problem number four is organization. You think the piles of paper on your desk are bad now? Digital metadata scares you? You ain't seen nothin' yet. (Which reminds me, I need to get back to my discussion of library standards and practices here. I will do that.)

Problem number five is discovery. Who's going to know what data have been printed, where they are, and how to obtain them? If you hate your local library's online catalogue (bias disclosure: I'm not particularly fond of any library online catalogues, though some are less bad than others), imagine it as the sole source of information about datasets.

Problem number six is delivery logistics. Someone wants to work with your data. WIll you FedEx them the printouts? (If you can find them; see problem number four.) Your originals, or a photocopy? Who makes the photocopy? Who pays for all this? How?

I understand the impulse to retreat to a form of knowledge management that seems comfortable, safe, familiar, and easy. I do. I will also point out, though, that "easy" is in the eye of the beholder: there is an immense resource and skill scaffold underlying analog preservation already, in libraries and archives and museums. That it's invisible to most people—ever visited a book conservation lab? or a bindery? or a microfilming center? or a storage vault? I recommend it; they're fascinating operations—doesn't mean it's not there.

We need similar scaffolding for digital preservation. We don't have it yet. That doesn't mean it's impossible to construct, nor does it mean we should or even can retreat to a print-only world.

So, please, let's stop pretending that's a possibility. Further comments along these lines at Book of Trogool may, depending on how I feel that day, be quietly ignored, ruthlessly deleted, or mercilessly mocked.


More like this

There is, in fact, more to life than the California vs. NPG battle royale. I know, I'm surprised too. It's funny because it's true! Daily Life in an Ivory Basement offers the NSF a data-management plan. Along those same lines, coping with data ranks high in worry factor in this OCLC report on…
Many doctoral institutions now accept and archive (or are planning to accept and archive) theses and dissertations electronically. Virginia Tech pioneered this quite some time ago, and it has caught on slowly but steadily for reasons of cost, convenience, access, and necessity. Necessity? Afraid so…
A common problem adduced in e-research (not just e-research, but it does come up quite a bit here) is expertise location, both local and global. You need a statistician. Or (ahem) a metadata or digital-preservation expert. Or a researcher in an allied area. Or a researcher in a completely different…
I'm home sick today, and not precisely looking forward to giving my class tonight because I really do feel wiped out. Fortunately, tidbits posts are easy… Denmark ponders the future of the research library. A thoughtful read for librarians; a good skim for scientists wondering how libraries will…

we really need to get back to the only storage medium that has stood the test of time...clay tablets. They stack real nice, and come in a variety of pleasing earth tones.

Sooooo ... what your sayin' is that you want more shelf space and better printers ... (GD&R)

Problem number seven is re-use. Are you going to rekey all that data so you can reanalyse it, visualise it, etc?

Re clay tablets (comment #1), they are a great preservation technology, but only if you burn the library down. Probably not the kind of thing we should be enouraging...

Yes, that's sort of what I meant by "useless when printed."

I think every library should have its own kiln! Maybe we can get Bill Gates to pony up...

Ah, Dorothea, no problem: We catalog those stacks of printouts, using all the excess original/archival catalogers coming out of LIS, in a new format designed to make sure we can find everything. There can't be more than a few thousands of times as many records here as there are for books. (Well, there can, but...) Then, of course, we print out the cataloging, so it's preserved. And catalog those printouts...

You are, of course, right on the money in the first place.