Leaving the context of the broader, uh, twitflow (?!) for a second, should ALA be trying to capture the live tweeting from our own meetings? It seems like something that might have some added value both for people who did and did not attend, and something that's probably pretty easy to capture, although perhaps not in a sustainable way that would make sense over time given the relative lack of structure of the data.

When does a tweet cross the thin line from "ephemera" to "documentation"? Putting on my archivist hat (the one I took off almost immediately after finishing my archives concentration in library school), I'd view the overwhelming majority of tweets as having no lasting value -- the equivalent of the "wish you were here" postcards from summer vacation and grocery lists of some person whose papers are deposited in an archive. In processing, this sort of thing is weeded out (unless the individual was famous for postcards from vacation spots, or was a noted chef). Some tweets from Iran in recent weeks, or around the time of other recent historic events, may have more significance. Which is which? Only time and the perspective that comes with its passing will make the distinction clear.

Good point, Ken, and that's exactly what makes me nervous -- if Tweets disappear in only a matter of weeks, historical perspective barely gets a chance. But I'll be writing more on this issue in upcoming posts, and there are some things afoot that might at least offer opportunities for libraries to selectively collect such "ephemera".