Much of the popular technology literature characterizes the web and traditional print as opposing forces, emphasizing the premise that print will eventually disappear as the web dominates all communications. This prediction is incorrectly based on the myth that communication modalities tightly compete with -- and eventually replace -- each other.

The emergence of television did not end radio. New communication modalities do not replace prior ones, although they do affect the character of each one. For example, radio abandoned drama series and focused primarily on music and call-in shows.

More broadly, language development researchers have broadly refuted the myth of communication competition.

Instead of viewing the web as a threat to traditional publication, scholarship will be better served through an understanding of the settings best served by each modality.

The web is better for:

• Emerging ideas that are incomplete and still undergoing development
• Ephemeral information, such as breaking news or daily financial information
• Secondary resources, that not cost-effective for traditional publication
• Reference resources where the major interest is the rapid retrieval of specific items.

Traditional publication is better for:

• Archival storage of information
• Contemplative analysis of long or complex ideas
• Narrative prose that is best read in a linear fashion

Furthermore, the two are often complementary. Consider, for example, the recent Federal court decision in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. The court released its judgement in both print and on-line formats -- the on-line for rapid dissemination and the print for archival study.

The complementary uses of electronic and print publication can be particularly important for scholarly communication. Studies from the pre-web era demonstrate that scholarship moves through many stages over a span of a decade or more between the initial concept and its inclusion in college textbooks. Can the web facilitate this process?