Government proposal to digitise wills (and destroy originals after 25 years)

[GrahamH]

The point I am making is that if you leave a paper will sitting on a shelf for 100 or 200 years, and come back, you will still be able to read it. You leave a digital record alone for 50 years and come back, I guarantee you won't be able to read it.

In my days working in Data Protection and FoI, I had occasion to read many old paper records or, I should say, try to read them - and that was records about 20 or 30 years old maximum, not 100 or 200.

I have found it frustrating, on more than one occasion over the years to be told by an archive "The documents are listed in the index but they have gone missing at some time in the past".

The point has already been made that storage has to be controlled (both environmental and security aspects) for physical documents to ensure that they are still around in the future. That is logically the same as properly maintaining digital records. Neither can be just left alone.

[Wexflyer]

The point I am making is that if you leave a paper will sitting on a shelf for 100 or 200 years, and come back, you will still be able to read it. You leave a digital record alone for 50 years and come back, I guarantee you won't be able to read it.

In my days working in Data Protection and FoI, I had occasion to read many old paper records or, I should say, try to read them - and that was records about 20 or 30 years old maximum, not 100 or 200.

I have found it frustrating, on more than one occasion over the years to be told by an archive "The documents are listed in the index but they have gone missing at some time in the past".

The point has already been made that storage has to be controlled (both environmental and security aspects) for physical documents to ensure that they are still around in the future. That is logically the same as properly maintaining digital records. Neither can be just left alone.

And these missing documents were wills? I think not somehow.

But again, no one is arguing against making digital copies. The argument is against DESTROYING THE ORIGINALS.

[GrahamSimons]

But again, no one is arguing against making digital copies. The argument is against DESTROYING THE ORIGINALS.

My point is that the value of this set of documents is not the physical documents, but the information contained within them. The paper and ink have no research value that I can discern.

Therefore policy should look at the value of the information and how that can best be safeguarded and made available to researchers. I can see that policymakers could consider the present and potential readership - if for genealogy or for inheritance disputes, I would think that the costs should be borne by the researchers rather than the public purse; if for academic research (perhaps history, perhaps economics or medical, it should be borne by taxpayers in general. We need to balance the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the records, whether electronic or paper, against their value to taxpayers as a whole.

[arthurk]

Realistically, of course, genealogists rarely get to see and touch the original (post 1858) wills. If we order one from the outsourced HMCTS service, we just get a scanned or digital photograph of the document.

Or not. Has the horse already bolted?

I've just ordered a copy of a will proved in 1901, but what they sent me was a pdf of a certified copy of the original document - all neatly handwritten, probably when probate was applied for, but obviously not with the testator's own signature. So where's the original will? Has it already been destroyed? Since the pdf is perfectly legible, then as long as there are sufficient backup copies in multiple locations, what would be the point of keeping this paper copy?

Graham's comment seems particularly apt, if we're already not able to get copies of the originals:

But again, no one is arguing against making digital copies. The argument is against DESTROYING THE ORIGINALS.

My point is that the value of this set of documents is not the physical documents, but the information contained within them. The paper and ink have no research value that I can discern.

[jc26red]

There is now open consultation where you can air your views if you wish. Link curtesy of the National Archives

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/storage-and-retention-of-original-will-documents

[Wexflyer]

My point is that the value of this set of documents is not the physical documents, but the information contained within them. The paper and ink have no research value that I can discern.

One can only admire your faith in the durability and sustainability of digital data.

The value of the paper and ink originals is that they are known to be both durable, and sustainable.

There is no similar assurance for the digital versions, rather the reverse.

Data formats, digital storage media and the entire digital infrastructure become obsolete at pace. As I already pointed out, it is pretty certain that you won't be able to read current data in 50 years, let alone 200. The data will have to be constantly "curated" over the years, so I very much doubt that this saves money in the long run.

[GrahamH]

And these missing documents were wills? I think not somehow.

Than you think wrongly I am afraid.

But again, no one is arguing against making digital copies. The argument is against DESTROYING THE ORIGINALS.

The argument is whether the cost to the public purse of keeping them is worth it or whether, given that alternative methods of retaining the information now exist, the money would be better spent in other ways.

[Drayke]

The value of the paper and ink originals is that they are known to be both durable, and sustainable.

This is not true in the slightest. There are millions of documents that have been destroyed simply due to time. A mere look at parish records should show that ink fades and pages rot after a mere 200 years. Then there is simply the fact that a will (or any document) folded will eventually tear and that piece will be missing.

This is also the reason why probate and wills were copied into volumes separate to their originals so as to preserve the information due to the originals not being durable. PCC and all the Registers of wills recorded in every county are examples of this copying, many wills of which are no longer to be found in their original state and only exist now in probate and will registers - albeit distorted as they are transcribed over and over with errors, something a digital image wont have.

As to sustainability, I'm not sure about this one either. Whilst not only wills at this location but the UK National Archives has over 200 kilometres of shelving with over 1 kilometre of shelving being added every year. That doesn't sound very sustainable to me, not to mention the money it takes to conserve, store and secure documents, etc. Money that can be better spent in other areas.

There is no similar assurance for the digital versions, rather the reverse.

Actually digital versions are highly durable as their storage has a light footprint and can be preserved in multiple locations. It is a snapshot in time of the document in its known best condition and can be saved on multiple servers so if one is destroyed there is always many many backups.

I am sure I am not alone in wishing that in 1731 digitalisation was possible to save the Dorset Records that were destroyed due to the fire of Blandford Forum, or more recently the Irish records in 1922 of which most genealogical Irish records have been destroyed, including near all wills. Not to mention the countless documents destroyed during war, etc.

Data formats, digital storage media and the entire digital infrastructure become obsolete at pace. As I already pointed out, it is pretty certain that you won't be able to read current data in 50 years, let alone 200. The data will have to be constantly "curated" over the years, so I very much doubt that this saves money in the long run.

History is against you in this argument.

The LDS started microfilming genealogy records (parish registers etc) as early as 1939 - 84 years ago. All of those records are still accessible as microfiche, still readable, and far better off that the documents they preserved, many of which the originals are now lost or destroyed - including many wills.

In addition, such records are easily transferred to other newer mediums with very little curation required. The LDS for example have begun transferring microfilm to digital of which they expected to take 100 years to do and did it in 15 and through this process ensure that it is readable as time goes on in whatever format changes may take.

We also have the technology now to not only take a duplicate copy, but infra-red and even see details hidden by the naked eye. Preserving such documents digitally FAR out ways the negatives, including the destruction of the documents.

Sure a physical copy is nice. To see that original ink or know you are holding a piece of history that your ancestors may have held, but space is limited especially in our growing world and if a sacrifice is to be made, I'm glad they are talking about digitalisation and not simply destroying them like so many other countries do.

[GrahamSimons]

Data formats, digital storage media and the entire digital infrastructure become obsolete at pace. As I already pointed out, it is pretty certain that you won't be able to read current data in 50 years, let alone 200. The data will have to be constantly "curated" over the years, so I very much doubt that this saves money in the long run.

It's worth having a look at the various blog posts about this on the TNA site. Data formats do become obsolete; the archivists' task is to ensure that, as formats become obsolete, they remain readable by the archivists' software. TNA is also retaining and storing a great deal of data that is native-digital and has never seen paper or parchment, for example the contents of the .gov.uk website.