Digital isn't better for preservation (Score 4)

Actually, digital formats aren't necessarily better for preservation. Printed material can survive for hundreds of years, particularly if good paper is used (and academic librarians pressure publishers to use such papers). Electronic formats can become unreadable in a few years because 1) the physical medium can be unstable (e.g. magnetic tape deteriorates quite quickly), or 2) the medium or data format can become obsolete (e.g. 5.25" floppy disks). Formats can be converted, but this can be an expensive and problematic process; furthermore, if conversion isn't done in a timely manner the window of opportunity may pass. Ten years from now it is going to be damn hard to get the data off those 5.25" floppies (just like its damn hard to get data off those really old 8" floppies today.) Librarians and archivists have of course given these types of issues lots of thought. The consensus seems to be that media readable by the eye (paper, microfilm etc.) are the safest bet for long-term preservation.