Replacement or supplement?

Did anyone else get the vibe that Rosenzweig is pushing the Internet as a replacement for more “traditional” methods of accessing and collecting research (at least in the domain of History)?  That archives and non-digital sources are only really valuable once they’ve been digitized?

I’ve pulled out the following citations with our DH as replacement or supplement argument in mind:

“Like journalism, Wikipedia offers a first draft of history, but unlike journalism’s draft, that history is subject to continuous revision.  Wikipedia’s ease of revision not only makes it more up-to-date than a traditional encyclopedia, it also gives it (like the Web itself) a self-healing quality since defects that are criticized can by quickly remedied and alternative perspectives can be instantly added” (Rosenzweig 70).

“In contrast to paper media, the Internet seems ideally suited for this kind of vibrant, daily exchange [like e-mails, blogs, instant messaging, etc.]” (Rosenzweig 124).

“Using the Internet will likely supplement or complement older, more time-consuming and costly methods such as this [those methods involved in collecting oral history, like interviews and transcriptions]” (Rosenzweig 127-8).

And the final sentence of Chapter 8:

“Using the Internet to collect history shares this vision:  it is undoubtedly a more democratic form of history than found in selective physical archives or nicely smoothed historical narratives, and it shares democracy’s messiness, contradictions, and disorganization — as well as its inclusiveness, myriad viewpoints, and vibrant popular spirit” (Rosenzweig 150-1).

What I’m wondering:  For those historians who aren’t currently relying on the Internet as a research tool, does Rosenzweig’s approach encourage these historians to “get with the times” — or does it build resistance?