Versions: new preservation challenges in the electronic information age

With the advent of electronic publishing of information come a scenario that was somewhat less of a problem when all information was in print form - that of the version. Print formats traditionally have controlled the process of versioning published information, but with the rapid increase in the numbers of self published books (Barbato, 1988) it is becoming increasingly difficult to preserve these materials due to the ability of the publisher to create unlimited versions of the same information, with no regulation on the specification or identification attached to any given edition (Carpenter, 2006).

As with any new technology there is a lag from the time of implementation to the time when standards and procedures are worked out, and some work to date has been done to establish standards for the versioning of purely electronic information such as the UK Joint Information Systems Committee VERSIONS system (Allsop, 2006) and the NISO/ALPSP Working Group (Carpenter, 200-6), but to date only a few tools for non-academic information publication have been created, such as Manila 9.5 blogging tool, from Userland Software Inc, which features version information embedding (Bernstein,2005), but this lack of tools poses a problem for those working to preserve information that does not contain version information.

Which version is more important?

When discussing versions it is important to note that not all versions carry the same attribution of value to all consumers. For example, some librarians feel that the authors version of a document is more valuable than the publishers version of the same document (Harris, 2007), so which version should be preserved, or should both be preserved? and why?

Knowing about the version of any given piece of information is important because it allows the researcher to know things like how the information has changed over time, who changed it, and therefore how it has been changed or updated from the original version. It also allows the consumer to better determine things like the influence of bias or the introduction of false information (Austim, 2005).

Part of the value of electronic formats for information is that they are readily accessible and they can be easily edited or created, but this also works against them when editing is done for malicious purposes. Adding bias to electronic forms of information or purposefully adding incorrect information or replacing correct information with incorrect information is easier to do with electronic forms of information (Waters, 2006) so keeping older versions and being able to identify previous versions is becoming increasingly important to preservers of information.

In the next entry I will take a closer look at the challenges to preservation of information presented by those who wish to alter information for their own purposes.


works cited:

Allsop, L. (2006). Versions of Eprint: user requirements study and investigation of the need for standards. ALISS Quarterly, 1(4), 30-.

Austin, M. (2005). The Wikipedia phenomenon. Information world review, (219), 38-.

Barbato, J. (1988). Small publishers are growing up. The publishers weekly, 234, 16-21.

Bernstein, J. (2005). Manila 9.5. EContent, 28(11), 18-20.

Carpenter, T. (2006). Standards column - toward a terminology of journal article versions: an update of the work of the joint NISO/ALPSP journal article version Working Group. Against the grain, 18(6), 79-.

Harris, S. (2007). Final versions carry little weight with librarians. Research information, (28), 13-.

Waters, R. (2006). Wikipedia stand-off in the search for online truth Written and edited by the people for the people, the ever- expanding online encyclopedia is loved around the globe. But does such egalitarian sharing of knowledge lead us towards truth or chaos? Richard Waters talks to the website. FT.com, , 24-.