arrow4 Comments
  1. Lauren Wolf
    May 28 - 3:27 pm

    It’s an interesting question: Who gets to decide which objects to preserve and how long they get preserved for? On the surface, crowd-sourcing might seem a good idea. But I’d guess more folks would vote for soccer balls than Linus Pauling’s papers (mainly because they’d have no idea who Pauling was). Perhaps the question should be “What impact did this artifact have on society?” If the artifact is still having an impact on society 100 years later, then it likely deserves resources allotted to continue maintaining it. But then again, nothing draws a crowd like pop-culture items (take, for instance, the “Dresses of the First Ladies” exhibit at the Smithsonian).

  2. Sarah Everts
    May 28 - 3:45 pm

    Another point in favor of the pop-culture crowd-pleasers: crowds typically pay for entry (not in your Smithsonian example but in general). But obviously museums shouldn’t only focus on being money-making operations!

  3. qvxb
    May 29 - 7:20 pm

    Paper documents can be scanned and made accessible on-line. The originals can then be stored in optimum conditions. Oregon State University has scanned the notebooks of Linus Pauling.

    http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/index.html

  4. Bronwyn Dunn
    Oct 16 - 6:45 am

    Perhaps more research needs to be done into sustainable long-term preservation and the resources this preservation requires. If we can preserve objects for the long term more efficiently, using fewer resources then we wouldn’t have to make decisions about which object is more important than another.

Mobile Theme