MichelB wrote:
My current job consists of scanning through government archives for the National Archive and deciding what to keep. The rules are complex but there sure is no 'representative sample' methodology. They really want to keep important things, therefore they only employ trained historians for this basically simple job. Right now I´m working on documents of the armed resistance during wwII (quite drool-inducing for a historia), and this has been declared to be saved in entirety.
David Lyon, historian (deceased), who worked at the NMM had ONE RULE, which was ........ SAVE EVERTHING, BURN NOTHING!
And this should be the rule of the PRO.
It should not be the job of historians to decide what to save. If the PRO does not want the stuff, then PLEASE... offer to institutions or bung the material back into storage, but for gods sake do not burn.
I realise that my remarks are strong, but as a past researcher and writer I have personally found that far too much material has been lost because of selective retention. Once it's gone, it's too late.
A question if I may, roughly what percentage of the material are you marking for destruction?