Ned hit it right on the nail:

>in terms of the real world, experience shows that administrative
>indifference is a much more serious threat to the archaeological and
>archival record.  What difference does it make if we make these
>archival-quality records and carefully shelved collections if some
>idiot administrator decides they are taking up too much space someday?

a collection under the control of someone with a different set of ideals of
what should be saved (and we all have our different ideas) is the biggest
threat to any item, be it a silk scarf or a fossil (think back a few weeks
to the discussion of brick collections).  The vast majority of the
materials in an archive or collection are there not because it was made of
a durable material, but because someone or a series of someones took care
of it and worked to maintain it.  If that means updating the data onto the
newest computer format every ten years, or at least dusting it off and
patting it for reassurance, then lets do it diligently with the future in
mind and fight just as diligently to maintain the integrity of the way it
is kept.  That is something that we all need to do as a discipline - don't
do the digging unless there is a way to make the data survive.

         Dan W.
         (who has spent about 1/4 of my career in library and archive work)