A short note about how the Internet has, to a degree, supplanted dead trees appeared on Dave Winer’s site on Wednesday (02/11/2004). Picked up and expanded on by Jessica Baumgart, it’s not an extensive exploration, but it does raise some interesting points, and dovetails nicely with my previous entry on the death of Webmonkey.

Read the referenced articles for more details, but a summary:

• Winer believes that CD encyclopedias (and, by extension, dead-tree references) are pretty much being taking over by online tools/references.
• Baumgart – who appears to be trained as a librarian – disagrees somewhat, pointing out the following issues with digital publications:

• Link rot – What was there yesterday to refer to may be gone today. Unless you lose/damage the book/CD, it’s probably accessible to confirm/reference.
• Links may change; books/CDs can’t – This is a strength and weakness of the Web (and all digital media, to a degree). While it’s nice to be able to go back in and fix that typo on a Web site – impossible in a published book – how does a user know what else has changed, even it there is a updated notice (which, in itself, is rare).
• What’s the source? – While the digital tools out there allow virtually anyone to publish, that doesn’t mean that everyone should or that – especially – everyone who publishes is an expert. Old media usually goes through some sort of vetting process; this is rarely the case (percentage-wise) for online publishing.

Other questions that were not addressed include the following:

• If the owner of valuable online resource (let’s use Webmonkey as the example) goes belly up, what happens to that resource? Similar to the link rot issue, it differs because it’s not just a case of an expired/changed link, it’s a case of expired/changed site. It’s as if a library of single-copy editions burned up. With old media, if some publishing company goes out of business, users still have those hard copies on their bookshelves.
• Old media has established channels for distribution; on the Web it’s mainly word of mouth. Each has merits – and this is not the time or place to compare them – but there are a lot of good/bad sites/books seen/missed because of distribution methods. I’m not weighing in on the merits of either; I’m just saying they differ and that’s a point to ponder.
• The preceding point – as brought up (obliquely) by Baumgart – leads to the issue of trust. You found a site with the information you were looking for. Can you trust this information? If it’s old media, today you have a better idea of how to answer that question. New media? Fuggetaboutit.

While I do believe that new media is getting more and more powerful and useful – and trustworthy (i.e. there are resources that can be associated with a known, fairly consistent point of view) – I don’t think this means old media is dead.

Winer writes the following in his note:

This is a dangerous statement, but at least he appends a “might be” to it all.

Did radio kill books? No.

Did radio change the perceived value of books (plus or minus)? Yes.

Did TV kill radio? No.

Did TV change the perceived value of radio (plus or minus)? Yes.

Did TV kill movies? No.

Did TV change the perceived value of movies (plus or minus)? Yes.

Did VCRs/DVDs kill movies/TV? No.

Did VCRs/DVDs change the perceived value of movies (plus or minus)? Yes.

One can make the same arguments for a plethora of media, but a medium rarely dies – its audience/marketshare changes. For example, TV and radio are different. I listen to music and NPR on the radio; on TV I watch things. Different. Books != audiobooks, even with the same content. Different experience.

One notable exception to this is the VCR: The DVD is virtually the same as a VHS tape, only so much better. So that is one media that I would gladly give up (and, for the most part, have).

So, in a strange way, there are two standards operating for every medium:

• Trust: This encompasses trust such as that given to the Oxford English Dictionary vs. mywords.com, as well as longevity (info will be available from stable source) and voice (the ACLU site and RNC sites may differ in points of view, but the first will be left-wing; the latter right-wing so when I read I understand the implied bias).
• Delivery: Web: Search engines/use sites that find a lot of, frankly, questionable links but allow keyword searches around the world; highly targeted products (books/CDs/newspapers) that lack some of the flexibility but are highly vetted and usually well-written.

This is a tough subject to nail; more later.