|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digital preservation article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Note
- 2 Merger of digital obsolescence with digital preservation
- 3 Merge or delete?
- 4 The Digital Object issue
- 5 Deletion of External links
- 6 Digital sound preservation standards
- 7 Intellectual property laws and copy protection
- 8 FYI: a project of a site to share & collect our experience on digital preservation & curation
- 9 Introduction
- 10 conservation-restoration
- 11 Reorganization and Revision of Digital Preservation Article
- 12 Citation Issue
- 13 NISO
- 14 SPELLING: the name of this project
Merger of digital obsolescence with digital preservation
On the subject of the proposed merger of digital obsolescence with digital preservation: please keep the two issues seperate! Yes, they are linked, but digital preservation is a subject in it's own right, and millions of dollars is being invested globally to develop solutions. There's more to it than just digital obsolescence: authenticity, integrity, recordkeeping and archival issues, library considerations, metadata, curation... these are all important in digital preservation, and to consider it simply a technical issue (i.e. avoiding technological obsolescence) runs the risk of perpetuating a belief that these things aren't important when they're actually vital to a successful digital preservation strategy. —This unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) .
Having read the stub on digital obsolescence, I would disagree with the previous comment. The digital obsolescence page refers to a good motivating example of digital preservation (the BBC Domesday disks). It doesn't do much on its own, but would add something to the digital preservation page. —This unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
I too believe that the digital obsolescence page adds little on its own. The only value I can see is that some people might search for that term, and this page would then be a way to link them through to digital preservation, where more useful information can be found. —This unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) .
'This article apparently posted pre-4/4/2006.'
Merge or delete?
A number of these pages e.g. OAIS, Digital asset, OpenImaging, Representation Information, Digital curation, Digital object seemed to have been created by new editors who then seem to have got bored and moved on to other (non-wikipedia) things e.g. Contributions/Mpennock, Contributions/Dgiaretta, Contributions/TBarregren, Contributions/Simonpockley, Contributions/Jmaferreira. (At about the same time, maybe it was part of a school project?) In any case, many of the pages have received few edits, and with the loss of their original editors I'm not sure what will become of them. Unless we can find an expert to merge these pages into something useable perhaps it would be better just to delete them? Ewlyahoocom 14:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest leaving OAIS and Digital object as seperate entries since they really are not subsets of digitial preservation. I would suggest moving Digital curation into digital preservation. The other entries may be merged or deleted. fmccown 16:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a strong argument for keeping Digital Curation and Digital Preservation separate at this time. Preservation may be a subset of curation (not vice versa), but most people will probably initially come at the concepts from the preservation angle. Curation is considerably broader, embodying other practices that merge towards good data management. We at the DCC (www.dcc.ac.uk) do intend to keep an eye on both these entries and update them from time to time.
BTW it's not clear what the criteria for merging entires are!
So, because someone edited a page and moved on, their edits are somehow less valuable? How peculiar. (ref :Ewlyahoocom above). Digital obsolescence is one of the drivers for Digital Preservation, but is certainly not synonymous or even parallel, so I suggest that they remain separate. If anything, reference DigOb as a subset of DigPres.
This discussion was brought to my attention as I am one of those took the time to make a contribution and then 'moved on'. It's not a case of getting bored, it's a case of making a contribution to this project based on my area of expertise - which is, by the way, digital preservation and digital curation, as it is for most of the other people named in the list above. Ewlyahoocom's suggestion that we were part of a school project is unnecessary, some would even say a bit insulting. The entry for digital curation clearly states that the process of digital preservation is part of digital curation, but that curation encompasses more that just preservation. Both issues are worthy of their own entries. What would therefore be the benefit of merging them?
leave them, there is no strong argument for the merge above, which are usually structured as 'they are the same thing'. as these things are clearly different and people could search on these topics, and there is no space or other limit that necessitates merging. they will eventually find their audience of editors, so leave them. merge has been up since april, taking it off--Buridan 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The Digital Object issue
I (Contributions/Jmaferreira) have created the Digital object entry which is now missing from the wikipedia. BTW, I haven't move on... I just stood still to see how things evolved, but now it seems imperative for me to interfere.
Shall I recreate the "Digital Object" entry or is the general opinion that it should be dropped?
I would personally like to see it back. --Fmccown 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a definition of "Digital Object" to refer to here (and some discussion of the various subtypes - electronic record, e-publication etc.), in order to be able to sensibly discuss what it is that DP seeks to preserve. As it has a wider relevance than simply to digital preservation, it would seem to merit a separate entry. --Malpertuis 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- digital object was deleted 17 sept after having been marked with copyright violations since july. since no one responded in that time, it was deleted. to me, the lack of response is adequate reason to not recreate the page at this time.--Buridan 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have opened the 'Digital object' article. Yes, I did use a paragraph from a paper I had recently published. After the first appearence of the copyright violation notice I took some time to change that paragraph and at the same time adequately cite the paper so that no violations were in place. Nevertheless, the system recognised that paragraph as plagiarism. Not really sure what to do now. My guess is that whatever I insert in there will endup similar to something else. mferreira 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
actually it is just a human that notes the plagiarism. all you really needed to do was to cite your own paper then convey permission to resolve that. the real issue is more that the article was dropped in and not maintained. --Buridan 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Digital sound preservation standards
"Digital sound preservation standards" (a better title is: "Digital audio preservation standards") needs an update. Missing: reference to IASA TC-04 and Sound Directions: Best Practices for Audio Preservation. --Dep0570 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This topic should be removed from Digital Preservation and placed under Digital Reformatting. Conversion of information from analog to digital is typically not preservation in the conventional sense--it is often done for enhanced access. Of course, once the bits come into being (born digital or reborn) then they indeed require "digital preservation," as the article now states. Reformatting/digitization is an important and complex undertaking that should stand on its own. Too many people get confused between these separate activities. Whattheheckisthat (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Intellectual property laws and copy protection
- I'm not sure if it's necessary to include info on intellectual property in this article or not. I'm definitely leaning towards not. What is clear is that the notice at the top of the article ("This article is missing information about the impact of intellectual property laws and copy protection measures") is old, and the issue is not drawing any interest. I'm removing the template from the article as it's unnecessary and intrusive. This section on the talk page is more than enough. --Keithonearth (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Proposed Q&A site for professionals dedicated to digital curation and preservation and lay people interested in... --Imz (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The previous first two paragraphs said essentially the same thing in different words, which made the intro unclear. I would argue that continued consolidation in the intro is needed, with some of the information to be moved into a section in the article. --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Reorganization and Revision of Digital Preservation Article
Beginning in 2012, the National Digital Stewardship Alliance's Working Group on Standards and Practices initiated a project to improve Wikipedia's Digital Preservation article as well as related articles. Beyond revising the substance of these articles, one of the key goals of this initiative is to incorporate a comprehensive set of links to published standards and documentation for best practices in the area of digital preservation.
To support this effort, the Working Group has created a new Wiki:Project for Digital Preservation, where information and progress reports are being posted.
The current Digital Preservation article (as of 8/2012) is in need of significant reorganization and revision. Because this is such a large task, we have drafted a proposed outline for the revised article as a Google document and made it available for others to view and comment on at: Digital Preservation -- Libraries Perspective -- Outline. New and revised sections will be inserted into the current article to the extent feasible.
Members of the Working Group and others who may be interested will draft and circulate proposed revisions. These are currently being posted in advance of publishing to Wikipedia here: Digital Preservation -- Libraries Perspective -- Draft in Process
I happened to stumble across an issue with the very first line of this article. The opening sentence states the definition of digital preservation as "the series of managed activities necessary to ensure continued access to digital materials for as long as necessary," but that definition is taken word-for-word from an outside source. Now, that source is cited as Footnote 1, but the line is not written in quotations or with any special formatting elements to show the direct, verbatim quote as per WP:QUOTE. As this page is the main one for a WikiProject, I thought I would bring this to your attention so that the project may decide whether adding the quotes would be best or if paraphrasing might work better. Also, if someone has the time, it may be necessary to ensure that there are not other similar issues throughout the article. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do this myself at the moment. AngelKelley (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've reformatted that line as a clear quote, as per WP:QUOTE. It would perhaps be better as a paraphrase, but at least the quotation is clear now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewNJackson (talk • contribs) 11:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What about referencing the NISO framework? Also links to academic journals would help?
http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/index.php/SUNScholar/Digital_Preservation/Introduction#Journals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
SPELLING: the name of this project
On Wikipedia:WikiProject Collections Care the link to this project is labeled with the text
- WikiProject Digitial Preseravation
Oh really? That's some digital text that should not be preserved! Although I would be happy to be bold and fix it there, I can't untangle the transclusion and template structure of the page, at least while using my mobile phone as I am this moment. --Thnidu (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)