How long will digital history preserve the record of the past?

After reading Cohen and Rosenzweig this week, I am left with some questions and some concerns. The "Preserving Digital History" chapter left me wondering about the life of digital documentation and whether we can count on these documents being around in a hundred or more years. I know that the readings this week discussed much more than just the question of permenance of digital history and focused alot on how to gather information and documentation for a website, but the delicacy of digital documenting is what really stuck with me.

I really had not considered just how fragile the digital world can be until I read these chapters. It was always in my mind that digital history is far superior in the sense of lasting longer than paper documents and that because of this,digital history would be far superior a method of documenting history. I can now say that I seriously have doubts as to the reliability of digital history in comparison to paper history. Cohen and Rosenzweig gave some very good examples of why and how the preserving of digital history is actually quite fragile. Electronic media may seem invincible to us because we utilize it so much and on a daily basis and many of us, if not all of us,cannot imagine any possible scenario where we are denied our electronic access. A great example they give is with the death of an administrator in Norway who was the only one who knew the password to the database of documents at a literary museum, the Ivar Aasen Center of Language and Culture. Upon this man's death,the center was left without any way in which to access the system's catalog. The center then had to offer a prize to any hacker who could help them get into the system to change the password. I know this is an extreme example,but nonetheless,it shows just how delicate and fragile digital history could be.

Cohen and Rosenzweig also mention the problem of data corruption and how the slightest damage of certain forms of data storage can destroy very large amounts of information that may be lost forever. In order to ensure the preservation of their data storage,the New York Times,in 1999,for thier millenium project had to contract the Los Alamos Laboratory in order to make a strorage disk which would be able to withstand,not just the wear and tear of times and use,but would be able to withstand a nuclear war. As Cohen and Rosenzweig explain, "The disk...was created by using an ion beam to carve letters and figures into a highly pure form of nickel. Etched nickel is unlikely to deteriorate for thousands,or even hundreds of thousands of years..." If someone needs to have a nickel disk made at Los Alamos in order to ensure its survivability,then what are the chances of the average forms of data storage,which everybody uses,being able to last? Not to good I would think.

Another interesting example they talk about is found in formats. Formatting changes frequently and what we consider formats which may remain unchanged for a long time,we soon find that format being outdated and replaced with yet another. Who knows what we will be using as data storage in twenty years,let alone more than one hundred years. It would be quite arrogant of us to assume that what we know and trust today in regards to formatting will be used by our great grandchildren. Even if it may seem that we can always find ways to access today's formats tomorrow, does not necessarily mean that that will be the case. What if there is some catatsophic event and a solar flare wipes out huge swaths of digital data? There is always that possibility.

I am not saying that digital history should not be utilized, but what I am saying is that we should be more than aware of the shortcomings of digitization and to remain ever vigilant in safeguarding what we research. I would think that backing up research,with not just electronic backup,but by having paper backups would not be such a bad idea. Paper may deteriorate with time,but look at the Domesday Book,which has lasted over nine hundred years. Basically what I am proposing is that we should consider having physical (paper) copies as well as having backed-up our digital research,just in case.