History and Internet Info
John August
There has been some debate over whether there's any point to archiving all
the information on the net for historical purposes; the debate was originally
on the gun debate, but this post has fallen off my server.
Someone noted that there was a lot of information on the net, and it was
a public service to archive it. Still, I think this brings up questions
of how much information history 'needs' for it to be history.
IMO, every pissy little event is not history, nor is every pissy little
opinion which someone might have. For something to be worth recording, it
must have a little more significance.
Some things might be pissy little things of no concern, but their value
increases simply because they are end up scarce. But their 'historical
impact' is still minor.
Everything which is currently an antique went through a stage when it
was junk. Old things which are junk are things we have a lot of. This
is the only distinction.
Therefore, archiving for its own sake seems a waste of time to me. Just
because something is "out there" does not mean it is worth recording.
Further, storing data always comes at some cost - its a bit stupid to
save everything.
I'm not a historian, nor do I have a formal background in the field. But
this is the sort of useless question I enjoy debating. Does anyone
else have something to add ?
Ok, an internet or historical ng might be more appropriate for this topic.
But I'm not familiar with those ngs.
John August.
Christine Ashby
John August wrote:
>
> There has been some debate over whether there's any point to archiving all
> the information on the net for historical purposes; the debate was originally
> on the gun debate, but this post has fallen off my server.
>
> Someone noted that there was a lot of information on the net, and it was
> a public service to archive it. Still, I think this brings up questions
> of how much information history 'needs' for it to be history.
>
> IMO, every pissy little event is not history, nor is every pissy little
> opinion which someone might have. For something to be worth recording, it
> must have a little more significance.
You are begging one hell of a question here. (Begging the question, for
the increasing number of people who do not understand the expression, is
asserting that which you seek to prove.) What is history if not a whole
lot of pissy little events?
>
> Some things might be pissy little things of no concern, but their value
> increases simply because they are end up scarce. But their 'historical
> impact' is still minor.
>
> Everything which is currently an antique went through a stage when it
> was junk. Old things which are junk are things we have a lot of. This
> is the only distinction.
Oh, come on! I have an antique brooch, so defined because it is more
than 100 years old, but it was valuable when it was made and remains so.
Old things which are junk are things which were rubbish when they were
made and still are - if they are very old they may become curios, but
never antiques. (I never cease to be amazed at how many people assume
that just because something is old it must be worth a lot of money. When
Grandma dies they fight over the oil painting in the front room, insist
on getting Leonard Joel's to value it and then find that the valuation
fee is worth more than the picture!)
>
> Therefore, archiving for its own sake seems a waste of time to me. Just
> because something is "out there" does not mean it is worth recording.
> Further, storing data always comes at some cost - its a bit stupid to
> save everything.
You wouldn't by any chance be related to the person or persons unnamed
who threw out all the Argonaut's Club records?
>
> I'm not a historian, nor do I have a formal background in the field. But
> this is the sort of useless question I enjoy debating. Does anyone
> else have something to add ?
I'm not a professional historian either, but I did two years of it at
Monash in the early 1970's - one subject was British Constitutional
History (compulsory for lawyers) and the other was Australian History,
then under the direction of the inimitable Ian Turner. As a result, I
have some knowledge of historical method and an abiding interest in the
whole area.
I am concerned at the extraordinarily ephemeral nature of most of the
material on the net. I mean, it's literally ephemeral - here today and
tomorrow, poof! As it is, I believe there are already problems with
information stored in formats that can only be accessed by computers now
in museums - anybody remember 8" disks?
John August
Christine Ashby (cma...@lawnet.com.au) wrote:
: John August wrote:
: > IMO, every pissy little event is not history, nor is every pissy little
: > opinion which someone might have. For something to be worth recording, it
: > must have a little more significance.
:
: You are begging one hell of a question here. (Begging the question, for
: the increasing number of people who do not understand the expression, is
: asserting that which you seek to prove.) What is history if not a whole
: lot of pissy little events?
This is just * too * extreme. What conclusions can you draw from such an
amalgamum ? If someone had an argument at the local pub ten years ago
over whether the neighbour's cat was a tabby or not, is this history ?
Asserting what you seek to prove is not the unpardonable sin you make it
out to be. Having a consistent definition is important, and consistency
can be self-maintaining.
In any case, you later distinguish "antiques" and "curious". Similarly, we
could say there are "degrees of history".
: >
: > Some things might be pissy little things of no concern, but their value
: > increases simply because they are end up scarce. But their 'historical
: > impact' is still minor.
: >
: > Everything which is currently an antique went through a stage when it
: > was junk. Old things which are junk are things we have a lot of. This
: > is the only distinction.
:
: Oh, come on! I have an antique brooch, so defined because it is more
: than 100 years old, but it was valuable when it was made and remains so.
Well, lets separate out things which were valuable to begin with from
things which * became * valuable as a result of becoming an antique. A 100
year old gold ingot, for example, is as valuable now as it was then,
but this is not saying much.
: Old things which are junk are things which were rubbish when they were
: made and still are - if they are very old they may become curios, but
: never antiques. (I never cease to be amazed at how many people assume
: that just because something is old it must be worth a lot of money. When
: Grandma dies they fight over the oil painting in the front room, insist
: on getting Leonard Joel's to value it and then find that the valuation
: fee is worth more than the picture!)
You don't address my point. An antique must be both old and scarce. There
is no shortage of old paintings by unknown artists, so what you describe
is no surprise.
If that painting had been made by a famous figure (say Robert Menzies),
who was not a good artist, the painting would nevertheless be valuable.
: >
: > Therefore, archiving for its own sake seems a waste of time to me. Just
: > because something is "out there" does not mean it is worth recording.
: > Further, storing data always comes at some cost - its a bit stupid to
: > save everything.
:
: You wouldn't by any chance be related to the person or persons unnamed
: who threw out all the Argonaut's Club records?
No. Who are they ?
: >
: > I'm not a historian, nor do I have a formal background in the field. But
: > this is the sort of useless question I enjoy debating. Does anyone
: > else have something to add ?
:
: I'm not a professional historian either, but I did two years of it at
: Monash in the early 1970's - one subject was British Constitutional
: History (compulsory for lawyers) and the other was Australian History,
: then under the direction of the inimitable Ian Turner. As a result, I
: have some knowledge of historical method and an abiding interest in the
: whole area.
Does this make you more well qualified to express an opinion ?
:
: I am concerned at the extraordinarily ephemeral nature of most of the
: material on the net. I mean, it's literally ephemeral - here today and
: tomorrow, poof! As it is, I believe there are already problems with
: information stored in formats that can only be accessed by computers now
: in museums - anybody remember 8" disks?
The world as it operates does what it needs to meet the needs of the day,
without any attempt to record things for the sake of posterity.
While printers make newspapers and the like, it is libraries which archive
them, because this is their goal.
This was easily done in the past because paper is a reasonably robust
medium and easy to archive, and further, because of the expense of
publishing, the number of newspapers and journals was never excessive.
Data is nowadays ephemeral because that's what the world wants to operate
* efficiently * . It's what the world has always wanted. It is a symptom
of both the present technology and economic drives which have always
been there.
John Augst.
Graham Cairns
In <4rfbtr$4...@iggy.apana.org.au> jo...@triode.apana.org.au (John August) writes:
>Some things might be pissy little things of no concern, but their value
>increases simply because they are end up scarce. But their 'historical
>impact' is still minor.
>this is the sort of useless question I enjoy debating. Does anyone
>else have something to add ?
Well, the value of Pompeii, for example, is not in the _direct_
result of the explosion of Vesuvius (except to vulcanologists, I guess).
The value of Pompeii is that it gives us a 'slice of life' from a
particular era .. it tells us what the homes & structures were like, but
it also tells us what the society was like (mainly through the graffiti
which has been preserved).
Archiving usenet newsgroups may give future historians a chance to see
what white, middle-class western males were thinking in the late C20.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|gca...@mtpost.apana.org.au ((|)) Mansfield, Qld, Australia. |
|Communications trainer, broadcaster, journalist & all-round nice bloke!|
| I work for, but do not speak for, my employer. All comments are mine |
|=======================================================================|
John August
Graham Cairns (gca...@mtpost.apana.org.au) wrote:
:
: Well, the value of Pompeii, for example, is not in the _direct_
:
: The value of Pompeii is that it gives us a 'slice of life' from a
: particular era .. it tells us what the homes & structures were like, but
: it also tells us what the society was like (mainly through the graffiti
: which has been preserved).
:
: Archiving usenet newsgroups may give future historians a chance to see
: what white, middle-class western males were thinking in the late C20.
Well, present newspapers, via 'letters to the editor', give us a chance
to see what people who were educated enough and motivated enough to
express themselves in such letters were thinking.
Does the internet add anything to this ?
While society is able to archive newspapers at their present generation
rate, archiving the net will involve a lot of resources, for
questionable results.
Let us imagine we do set aside archived net ramblings, and set up
special institutions to do this.
History may be not be appreciative of these archives for what they are.
"The age of arrogance..... that they thought their time would be of
particular interest to future generations".
Sometimes historical photographs tell us more about the photographers
than the people being photographed .....
--
John August
"I smoke two joints in time of peace ...... and two in time of war"
Doug Mulray, "I smoke two joints".