Talk:Library and Archives Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Governments of Canada
This article is part of the Governments of Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

The article does not do justice to the former National Archives of Canada which has a much longer history than the National Library of Canada.--BrentS 22:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Brent, you're right. More work does need to be done. I never noticed that there is no mention of Arthur Doughty, the first national archivist or any mention of how the archives was developed in the late 19th C. I might be able to do some editing on this on the weekend. CWood 22:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The maximum fine for not obeying legal deposit is defined by Section 735 of the Canadian Criminal Code as $100,000.

The referenced section specifies maximum fines, but nowhere does it say that failing to perform a legal deposit is a criminal offence. - Montréalais 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic external links

Skeezix1000's edit is clearly explained:

  • (cur) (last) 12:53, 20 February 2008 User:Skeezix1000 (Talk | contribs) (4,751 bytes) ('→External links: the external links should pertain to the article subject) (undo)

The subject of the article is Canada's national library; and the conservation and perservation functions of the library's collections are not the central focus. Yes, clearly Skeezix1000's point is well taken. As I see it, the only question is whether these questioned links to other national libraries will fail to assist the reader in better understanding and appreciating the on-going work of the Gatineau Preservation Centre. Do these links actually distract, or is it that the rationale for their inclusion has been poorly presented?

If these links do, in fact, diminish the value and effectiveness of the article, then they must be removed; but I wonder if there is some alternative which can be worked out? --Tenmei (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:EXT requires that external links be on-topic and should be kept to a minimum. A random selection of links to other archival and library sites in different countries does little to "assist the reader in understanding and appreciating the on-going work" of LAC -- although perhaps a link to some sort of comparative analysis would accomplish that task. These links pertain to organizations that are unrelated to LAC, and the links accomplish nothing that Category:National archives and Category:National libraries (not to mention Category:Libraries by country and Category:Archives by country) do not already do better. While the links might be relevant to an article on preservation, they are off-topic here. Further, the selection of the proposed external links gives rise to WP:NPOV and WP:OR concerns -- if the goal was to provide some sort of comparative materials, why were U.K., Australian, NZ and American institutions only chosen? Are only institutions in English-language countries relevant? What about other English-speaking countries? Why only richer First World nations? Given that LAC is a federal institution, what is the justification for the exclusion of francophone archives? And so on, and so on, and so on.... Short of listing dozens of other archives and libraries worldwide, this is a quagmire we should not be touching with a ten-foot pole. The reader of this article is only a click away from lists to other libraries and archives worldwide -- a random list of off-topic external lists does not add anything to the article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Aha. Thank you for clarifying. More to the point, thanks for the time you invested in explaining a range of ways these links were unhelpful. I was blind to some of the implications you perceived. In this context, it becomes clear that I need to re-think some of my views about the plausible value of such tenuous external links. I suppose the part I most need to ponder is the following:
... perhaps a link to some sort of comparative analysis would accomplish that task .... While the links might be relevant to an article on preservation, they are off-topic here. Further, the selection of the proposed external links gives rise to WP:NPOV and WP:OR concerns ....
Et encore, merci --Tenmei (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In this context, I see the following citation as plausibly relevant to an improved LAC article:
The need for national entities like the National Preservation Office (NPO) in the British Library has been documented in surveys conducted by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Section on Preservation & Conservation and by the Ligue Internationale des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherches. Other than the United Kingdom, at least seven other countries have set up an entity similar to the NPO, including Canada and New Zealand.[1]
Nevertheless, Skeezix1000 has convinced me that adding off-topic external links was an unworkable gesture. Maybe there is still some way to build on misplaced good intentions ...? Skeezix1000's critical analysis pointed out unintended implications which seem valid and entirely unwanted. Maybe the thing to do is to let this rest a while, and then I'll re-visit the LAC in a few weeks. Tentatively, I'm guessing that Skeezix1000 is on to something when he suggests creating another article about library and archive preservation issues ... with internal links to and from NLA? We'll see .... --Tenmei (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Certainly, your proposed text does not give rise to the concerns I had indicated earlier with the external links. It strikes me that your proposed text has a lot more to do with the British Library's NPO than it does the LAC, however, and neither the text (nor the source provided) contain much information on efforts by LAC to set up a central preservation office. Again, I would have though this would be more relevant to a general preservation article (Preservation (library and archival science)), or even Archives, than here. However, that's more of a subjective judgment call, rather than a policy issue, so I will leave it to you and others to determine where it best fits, and beyond this comment I don't really have any objections. Good luck. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)