Footnote.com presents itself as an online archive, geared towards helping people discover documents that one may otherwise have to visit College Park, Maryland to examine. Many of the National Archives Record Administration’s record holdings are becoming available online via Footnote, which could be a great thing to those who cannot afford to physically travel to NARA. To view such collections you can either pay a membership fee to gain access to everything, or take the free route and risk not getting access to the files you want. At first that sounds like great news for a historian. After perusing the Footnote site, however, one should be hit with the thought, why is there a fee attached to some of the record groups? Additionally, I do not recall having to pay for my NARA researchers card, so why pay to view the same files now? If this is truly about making more files readily available for historians, then they should follow the same practices as a National Archive’s facility and not charge a membership fee.
Now I know what you are thinking, some one needs to get paid to digitize the record groups from the archives on to Footnote. I would be inclined to agree, however, such an argument fails to answer why only a fee for certain records? Sure, some of the popular records groups are free, but most files related to military history are not. Considering my current topic of interesting is the First World War American Expeditionary Force, I would need to pay a fee. Who is to decide which record groups are more popular? More importantly, if this material was located on the National Archives website there would not be any membership fee whatsoever. These are the documents of America, not some company or select individuals.
What about the fact that these files are now easier to access and save you a trip to the archives? Fair enough, but the National Archives should be preserving its record groups anyway. Therefore, people should not be charged a fee for convenient access to files which should be digitally preserved for posterity. You are not charged a fee to view restored documents at the NARA, so why now? When you visit the National Archives there is not an entrance fee or a price to pay when viewing records. The only money swapping hands at the National Archives are the coins for the copiers and snack machines. Sure, you might have to pay to get reproductions of various images, but nothing like the fees being charged by Footnote. Moreover, charging an access fee prohibits financial constrained individuals from viewing the documents in person or online. Ultimately, Footnote is only offering documents to those with money.
Footnote does provide a viable alternative for those who are unable to travel to the NARA, but affixing a fee to history is immoral. Attaching a monitary value to any document is flawed, because original documents are irreplaceable and therefore invaluable. I can understand the need to get these record groups online, but that should not require a monitary transaction between the public and any institution or private company. If the Federal government carried enough about these documents, and the morality of the situation, they would not allow a viewing fee to be affixed to any file. In the end, these documents are not the property of any single entity, but the world as a whole.
Similar
- Twitter (Strong)
- Conferences and Reviews (Strong)
- Brand Spanking New (Weak)
- Class Discussion: Food or Firearms (Weak)
- Temple of Kukulkan (Weak)
19 Comments on "Footnote.com: A Paradox" | Reply ↓
Thoughts? Leave a Reply
So who is going to pay to put them online? Footnote.com is a business, and their business model is to digitize public documents and put them online for a fee. NARA has allowed this because, under their agreement with Footnote.com, “After an interval of five years, all images digitized through this agreement will be available at no charge through the National Archives web site.”
So Footnote.com makes some money off the public documents for five years. And in that time the documents are still where they have been, in the archives available to anyone who walks through the door. And at the end of the five years they are freely available online to all. See: http://archives.gov/press/press-releases/2007/nr07-41.html
The best part of the deal is that the only way for Footnote to prosper is to keep digitizing more documents, every year.
Far from immoral, I think this is a model of how private-public partnerships should work.
I understand that Footnote.com is a business, however I do not believe anyone should be making money off digitizing historical documents. NARA themselves should be digitizing their holdings and making them readily available. Granted this would cost a fair sum of money, but the funds should come from either NARA or the federal government. If NARA wishes to use Footnote, fine, but NARA funding needs to cover the incurring costs.
Before the American History Museum underwent a two year renovation, were people charge an entrance fee to off set the looming preservation/upgrade costs? No. So why should there be a fee associated with the preservation of historical documents?
Yes NARA should do this themselves and yes everything should be free and yes we should all get ice cream after dinner wether we ate our peas or not.
That said, there is no way this digitization would be happening at all without private financing. Without Footnote.com five years would pass and none of the documents would be available.
There is no need to be patronizing. I never said everything needs to be free, however, I am saying no one should be charged to view any piece of the NARA collection.
The digitization of documents could very well happen without membership fees. Government funding could at the very least get the digitization process underway.
Robert, I understand your concern about not having to pay to view these documents. Unfortunately, if we leave it to NARA it is never going to happen. Their ARC catalog is a disgrace, they haven’t written or updated finding aids in years, the adminsitration have declared that archivists will no longer be “specialists” but “generalists”, so we have seen those who did know the records running, not walking, to take an early retirement. Within five years no one is going to know where anything is.
What you should be concerned with is the “cheap and dirty” projects with Footnote. Microfilm is not an acceptable alternative to the original document. Microfilm does not pick up the different colored inks, the pencil notations, and the stampings and markings. If a document has discoloration, microfilm just blackens that portion of the document, making it unreadable. If the Archives is going to partake in these kinds of projects, they need to have high standards, and use the originals to produce high quality preservation quality images. They aren’t doing it. And the companies that would like to do it right the first time, are being turned down, in favor of digitizing bad microfilm. And if you think the images are going to be online within five years time, think again. The Archives doesn’t want to get into the server business, and if you read their digital project for the next five years, the Archives does not plan on getting into any major digital projects.
With the Lincolnarchives digital project, we offered to give them all of our scans free of charge, no strings, and they said they weren’t interested. When we submitted digital partnership proposals, we were turned down in favor of Footnote simply digitizing bad microfilm.
We charge $15 per month for full access to thousands of color digital images, all from the comfort of your home, fully searchable, and linked to related documents, photographs, maps, newspaper articles, etc. What would it cost you to physically come to Washington, D.C. or College Park? Cost of transportation and lodging? For a fraction of what it costs, you would have access from the comfort of yourhome. What about those who will never be able to come to Washington, D.C. or College Park? Compare that charge to the cost to host the terabytes of digital images at our end, the labor, the equipment, etc. I think you are getting the better deal.
Hi Karen, what you say about the NARA is disheartening. I guess I have been unrealistic in thinking the NARA was capable of digitizing their records. If what you say is correct, then there appears to be zero accountability within the NARA. To consider low quality scans as being sufficient is a disgrace. What concerns me the most, however, is that the NARA is basically downgrading both the quality of its archivists as well as its official online documents. I recall having a hell of a time trying to locate Coast Artillery Corps records, and that was with the assistance of archivists who specialized in military matters. I cannot fathom trying to locate more obscure record groups without the help of such specialists. So really, the problem is not Footnote, but rather the NARA itself. For that, I must thank you for showing me the real issue.
While I’m still not happy with the idea of having to pay for access to digitized record groups, I must admit that it is cheaper to use an online source than to travel to the Washington D.C. area. Perhaps a solution to the fees having to be paid by the “poor” grad student would be to have university libraries cover the access fees; much like article databases (i.e. JSTOR) are treated.
Hi Robert, what is even a sadder situation is that those scholars who do spend a vast amount of time becoming quite familiar with record groups and entries, take detailed notes of which boxes hold what, are in most cases going to be screaming when an archivist decides that they are going to rebox the entry. They decide to organize it another way, they do not update the new organization with the notes from previous archivists who for example would say this document is in such and such a box. No, they leave this information out, thus the scholar comes back and finds that he is basically having to start from scratch again.
When you visit the Archives, the staff is first to tell you that you must keep the records in the organized manner they are when you get the box because the Archives wants to maintain the organization of the records as they were received from the agency. Yet the Archives has no hesitation in taking an entry and deciding to reorganize it, rebox it, so that when you request those records again, the extensive notes you took to help you organize and make your time there more efficient, has just been flushed down the toilet.
One of the reasons the online resource is going to solve the problem will be easily locating that document again through a search.
The goal of our project is to make accessible the records to the millions of people who can’t afford to come to Washington, D.C. $15 per month is a reasonable amount for access to the thousands of records in their original format, from the comfort of home, thus saving him hundreds of dollars in transportation and lodging.
If you have ever visited the Archives, by the time you have searched through the finding aid, requested the records, and received the records, a good two or three hours have passed. The next step is searching through the box which contains hundreds of documents, with no index, no inventory. You can spend days, weeks, months, years, looking for that one golden document. What about finding related documents in other record groups and entries. How long would it take you to find those related documents? With a good online database, it will take a matter of seconds.
I don’t want to push the online experience over the physical experience, because there is nothing more exciting than touching that letter that Lincoln as held in his hands, but that reality is not there for the millions of folk who cannot make it to D.C.
What historians and the taxpayer should worry about is the fact that with these cheap and dirty partnerships, the Archives has every intention of removing the actual documents from access, and telling people that they can now view the document on Footnote from within the Archives building. The documents are not being reproduced in their original format and for scholars and historians this is a big concern.
The Archives has forgotten that the documents belong to the people not to them. It is their responsibility to preserve and provide access. Our historical documents are in danger. There is not enough funding for preservation, they need a larger staff. I have to send carts of documents to preservation all of the time because of their precarious condition.
Until there is a high standard for these digital partnerships, there will continue to be cheap and dirty products that create inferior images, which won’t have a shelf life of one year let alone 5. And believe me there have been projects like mine who have submitted proposals to rescan bad microfilm series and we have been turned down in favor of Footnote scanning bad microfilm. The Archives claims that it is not cost effective to redo something that has already been done. But what cost will the public incur when a natural disaster, or man made destroys the originals and all we are left with are bad microfilm or worse permanently destroyed materials.
Karen, it sounds like you are fairly upset with how the NARA is mishandling America’s archival treasures. Sadly, I don’t think the NARA will listen to anyone but themselves.
Not being from the D.C. area, it is disappointing to see how dysfunctional a government agency like the National Archives is. There is so much potential at the Archives, but I have watched them for the last 10 years, squander taxpayer dollars for poor projects like ARC, not to mention the millions of dollars embezzled by staff members at Archives II last year, and the theft of invaluable documents from the Philadelphia facility.
The partnerships with Footnote and Family Search are doing nothing to preserve our history, nor provide access to the documents in their original format to the public. The mindset is still “these are only reference copies” do nothing to help those who financially will never be able to afford to come to Washington, D.C. or College Park to view the documents. While the Library of Congress realizes the benefit of placing publication quality images online, to not only benefit the public, but to decrease the amount of email and other requests from patrons, allowing the staff time to update finding aids, produce new resources, etc., the National Archives instead chooses to place poor quality online, increasing the wear and tear of the original and creating hardship for those who end up having to hire someone to provide them with a higher quality image.
The pull times are not researcher friendly. Having no pull times between 11 a.m. and 1:30 in the afternoon and no pulls on Saturday, does not help those who have to work for a living and can only afford to come in to the Archives after work and on Saturdays.
And for the digital projects with Footnote and Family Search, there is no quality control from the Archives end, and although the contracts are non-exclusionary in nature, the Archives plans on taking those pension records out of public access, and telling patrons that they have access to those records via Footnote, or Family search online from within the Archives facilities. Not being in color presents a problem to scholars because valuable information is being lost. Since the Mormons are only interested in names and dates, the Archives is cutting out of the picture the scholarly aspect of research, with important information deleted from the black and white images, leaving an analysis of the document incomplete.
Although the Archives claims that they are preserving the documents for posterity, we are that “posterity” and if we are not able to view the originals, or quality color reproductions of the originals, who are we preserving these documents for? The next photo op with some big whig?
This is not what you and I are looking for to those who’s prime objective is to preserve and provide access.
And now the latest aspect, is the National Archives Foundation’s intention to take the Microfilm room at Archives I and turn it into a larger gift shop. They will tell you that something needs to be done to provide more space for the tourists that are lined up outside during the summer in the heat or inclement weather. It is quite apparent that those who planned during the renovation, didn’t do their homework.
This summer, the research room was full most days, to the point they were talking about limiting research time to accommodate everyone. With the renovation, they blocked off the restrooms on the second floor, and researchers must go down to the first floor to use the facilities, visit the research aid room, or the microfilm room.
Since microfilm is not used in abundance anymore, they could turn the microfilm room into the new research room, providing the needed space for new research and 21st century technology. They may get rid of the microfilm machines, but they are going to have to have computers to read the Footnote material. So where are they going to put these machines if the Foundation takes the microfilm room for their Gift Shop.
So yes, I am fairly upset with how NARA is handling our documents. We can only keep our fingers crossed that this new Archivist who comes in, will actually step outside of his office, and talk with those of us who are using the facilities every day and who care about the documents just as much or more than some of the NARA staff.
Karen, it has been a little while since I was last at College Park. I do, however, remember how much I hated the wasted time in between record pulls. I would be furious if I received a shabby and incomplete record(s) after hours of waiting. The want of NARA to increase tourist space at the expensive of research space is highly dubious. I do not of any other archive in the world that would do such a thing. Have you voiced your concerns to anyone in some position of power?
Basically I have been told that the Microfilm room will be going to the Foundation for a bigger gift shop. I am hoping that this post will be read by several people, who would think it important enough to contact someone outside of NARA in a position of power.
The staff on the research side are frustrated because they feel that the Foundation is calling all of the shots.
And I agree, no other Archives in the world would even consider replacing valuable research real estate with a gift shop that is only going to be of any significance 3 months out of the year.
It is one thing to create a Foundation that is going to provide the means to do exhibits, etc., but when they overstep their position and begin getting in the way of the mission, there needs to be someone there to put the brakes on things. And at this point in time, there isn’t.
Right now, as far as pull times go, the first pull request goes in at 10 a.m. It may be two hours before you get your first request. They will only accept one pull per hour. Maximum of two carts, and one shelf pull. At Archives II, I have seen many out of state, and out of country researchers come in, put their request in, and two or three hours later they receive a wrong pull, many times to the fault of the students pulling the records, or an archivist who does not know the records, and the researcher is simply told to submit another pull request, which forces him to wait another two hours. His day is gone, and nothing has been accomplished. There is no apology from the staff. They simply do not understand that many of the researchers are on time constraints. It is fully understood why scholars have no desire to spend much time at the Archives.
I hope that others are reading this post. If not, I’m definitely not staying quiet with my qualms with both Footnote and the NARA. I must admit, the strict record pull times is a reason why I dislike visiting the NARA. I can understand the need for order, but to waste the limited time of researchers is something that is both unacceptable and ought to be corrected.
They claim they are understaffed so need to have that time to send everyone out to lunch. They have not heard of staggered scheduling.
Perhaps if the NARA was better managed, as we have discussed, they wouldn’t have scheduling issues nor problems locating seemingly obscure record holdings. I’m definitely not looking forward to my next visit to College Park.
This is an interesting discussion.
I wonder why the Footnote.com scans are being referred to as “low quality.” I have not done extensive research at Footnote.com, but have browsed around a fair bit and everything I have seen was sharp and clear and easy to read (at least if the handwriting was good). I was also impressed by the interface at Footnote–the ability to zoom in and out of documents, to fiddle with the color balance, etc. to make things more readable.
Above all I love the crowd sourcing features. Users highlight and annotate documents and the annotations become part of the searchable database. It is similar to the Flickr/LOC partnership but without the noise.
I can understand a preference that NARA do this on their own dime rather than farming it out–I would prefer that as well–but the Footnote end of the partnership looks pretty good. What am I missing?
Larry, what Footnote claims is online when they say 66% complete is what they want to accomplish. Those who actually do extensive research at NARA have discovered that Footnote has failed to digitize 100s of reels of microfilm, their indexing is incorrect, they have failed to digitize entire index cards, thus missing important numbers necessary to pull original documents at NARA, and the vast amount of their microfilm is at a low resolution, and if enlarged produces an image that is very hard to read.
Footnote may be acceptable to the genealogist, but is not acceptable to scholars and historians. The end results also do nothing to preserve the document in its original format. 300 dpi is a minimal standard for today, but won’t have a very long shelf life.
And I don’t know what you are talking about when you are saying in color, everything I have seen in Footnote is black and white. This is not the original format of the document, and valuable information is lost because the black and white fails to bring out the pencil notations, the colored ink, which does signify specific information.
There is no quality control from NARA’s side, and there are so many mistakes and poor quality in the projects that within five years time when they get copies of the images, they will go along the wayside, just like all of the other projects that NARA starts but fails to finish.
Another thing you should worry about is that although NARA claims that these are non-exclusionary contracts, and that you can visit the facility in Washington, D.C. to see the original documents, NARA has every intention of removing these originals from public access, sending users instead to Footnote to look at poor quality copies.
Larry does have a point. The crowd sourcing does add an interesting element to the research process. But I don’t recall ever seeing anything in color. Then again, most of the records I want to examine are either not there or have a fee associated with them. Right now I still refuse to pay any access fees.
Robert, the Lincolnarchives project is not discouraging anyone from actually going to the National Archives to view the original document. We are doing this to provide access to the millions of people who unfortunately cannot come to Washington, D.C. Also take into account that everything that Ancestry has online is from the National Archives, as well as other historical societies. They are charging well over $300 per year for access, Footnote charges around $60 per year.
So you have the choice of paying airfare and lodging if you don’t live in the D.C. area which could end up costing you hundreds of dollars, or $150 for access 24/7 to color images, from the comfort of home. Whether the Archives does it or not, it does cost money to do digital projects. So taxpayers are going to pay for it one way or another. Either you can pay a reasonable fee to have access to quality images or pay for a limited time to view a few documents if you physically visit D.C.
Anthony Pitch who wrote “They have killed Papa dead” stated that it took him nine years to write his book. He said that if he had not lived in the Metro D.C. area he would not have been able to afford to stay the time necessary to spend the hours and hours of time in the National Archives to locate the documents he needed for his book.
Scholars who have limited stipends can use their resources more productively with digital projects such as this which make the job of locating documents quickly with the powerful search engines.
And when you do come to the Archives, unless you bring your own laptop, and scanner or digital camera, it is going to cost you to make copies of the documents. So everyone is paying in some way.
I understand what you are trying to say, and if you are fortunate enough to live close enough to NARA, and have retired and have a lot of time on your hands, to spend hours, days, months, years, looking through boxes of non-indexed records, you have more than the rest of the world has.:)
Perhaps I will warm-up to sites such as Footnote.com once I get in the research phase of my PhD. For now, however, I’m still apprehensive about endorsing a service that places a tag on documents that ought to belong to the people.