Archives and digital editions are just two of several categories used to describe DH projects. Although one can be turned into the other, they are two separate categories for a reason. When saying that one can be turned into the other, I am referring to the fact that an archive can be transferred to a digital edition. A huge, more obvious advantage to going through this process is that it allows for the viewing of an archive by more people; not everyone is able to travel long distances in order to view and examine a certain archive. Another advantage of digitizing things is that at times, it can make the archive more legible. Many times, archives are in a condition that prohibits them from being touched and physically examined. In such cases, digitizing the archive provides a possible solution. I say possible because some archives are too delicate to be messed with at all. Many times, archives have been around for centuries. Therefore, the paper they are on is many times crumbled and/or torn and starting to disintegrate. Whether it is a map, a journal entry, and a letter to someone else, digitizing an archive provides many advantages to researchers and others who want to view them.
Although digitizing an archive seems as if it is the best thing to do to an archive, there are still advantages leaving it in its original format, which serve as disadvantages to digitizing it. Yes, digitizing an archive saves time and effort, but what it does not save is the experience. Dealing with an archive first-hand provides a much more surreal experience then simply pulling it up on a laptop or other device. When dealing with a digitized archive verses an original archive, one is completely missing the feeling and as previously stated, experience, of dealing with the archive. To say that one is better than the other, is personal preference really. It completely depends on the situation and on what the individual is looking to get out of it.
