MW usually asks for all evidence included that might identify the first publication and to differentiate it from subsequent printings. Dating of ownership marks can be significant. The use of an edition in cultural history relies on its usage marks. The ability to comprehend a text depends upon its physical form. Reading, MW said, is hardly the only use of books.
Books are definitely cultural objects.
Preservation techniques destroying publication history do serve other uses, notably prolonging the life of the original text of the item. But if it is bad for the original publication to be utterly destroyed by microfilming, it is worse if the process not only obliterates that one copy but, through distribution of the microfilm, leads other repositories to destroy their own originals. Bibliographers, arguably the ultimate lovers of books, may also cause damage to them through their study. Tanselle's view that every copy of every book is a rare one and worthy of retention is impractical due to the numbers and the need for usage, which then becomes part of the book's history. As an example of the difficulty in finding physical evidence of known publications, MW cited his own dissertation, the goal of which was to examine as many copies as possible of the publications of Ticknor and Fields in 1856.