Since this makes twice that I have seen the "rag paper myth"
perpetuated ("100% cotton paper" is not necessarily
"permanent") I suggest that those interested look into the more
recent literature on "paper permanence." There they will find
such important factors as "buffering" ("alkaline reserve").
They might start with the most recent issues of _Abbey
Newsletter_, and its sister publication _Alkaline Paper
Advocate_.

According to John Edward Simmons:
>
> This has been a most interesting discussion, with many good points on both
> sides, but one issue has yet to be seriously addressed, and that is the
> permanence of the data record.
>
> Museums, in general, simply MUST embrace the technology of computerization
> of databases for all the good reasons that others have mentioned.  However,
> with this advance goes an OBLIGATION to archive data in a permanent format.
> At this point in time, nothing produced electronically is as permanent as
> data written by hand, in acid-free carbon ink, on acid-free 100% cotton
> paper.  None of the commercially available cartridges or ribbons for
> printers driven by computers and duplicate this degree of permanence.  Some
> testing of printer inks and dyes is underway, I understand, but I have seen
> nothing published to indicate that any of them are equal to good carbon
> ink over the long haul.
>
> I have worked with old, hand-written catalogs that are scarcely legible.
> I have seen electronic data files not upgraded because a lack of funding
> until they can barely be rescued.  The "downside" to computerization is
> mostly financial.
>
> There are five aspects to electronic databasing:
> 1.  Data input
> 2.  Hardware
> 3.  Software
> 4.  Programming
> 5.  Upgrades
>
> Once the input (data capture) is done, present cataloging staff can usually
> keep up with growth.  Hardware and software, however, require a museum to
> commit to expending money periodically forever.  When making big hardware
> or software changes, you will then have to shell out for programming, too
> (and often this means "converting" a collection care person into a programmer)
.
> Its the upgrades, then, that you have to really watch out for.  Remember,
> there is a parallel universe out there full of 8-track tapes and IBM card
> readers and all sorts of other unusable equipment that was state-of-the
> art when purchased yesterday.
>
> Our museum, too, is facing this decision about not continuing to prepare
> catalogs by hand, but to do direct input from field notes into the database.
> Don't get me wrong, I love having the information on the database, we can
> carry out our mission so much better with it than without it.  However, and
> its a big however, are we going to be cursed in 50 or100 years because
> we were too penny-wise and pound-foolish to prepare a permanent, hand-
> written record of our data?
>
> Now, before anyone starts clammoring about "archival" this and that in the
> way of printer inks, I urge you to talk to a few conservators and find out
> just how uncertain the future of what's on the market now is.  Given the
> rather bleak economic outlook for most museums, we should apply pressure
> wherever appropriate for a truly archival printer ink...
>
> But don't give up hand-written catalogs without a LOT of thought!!
>
> John E. Simmons
> Natural History Museum
> University of Kansas
> Lawrence, Kansas
> [log in to unmask]
>