21–30 of 34 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the slight correction that it's "ergo LoC should probably try to archive the web before it tries to archive twitter". But yeah, that's the gist of it. But so what? That doesn't mean it's an invalid argument. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with it.
If they had a good process for archiving blogs on the open web, then I wouldn't have a problem with extending that to Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss the note? http://scripting.com/stories/2012/07/17/whyTheLocArchivingTw... "(Note: I mean bloggers. The equivalent content that's on Twitter, but not in a corporate blogging silo.)"
Did you miss the last word of his quote?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss the last word of his quote?
No I didn't. But I also noted it was the last word. :-)
The mission of the International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) is to acquire, preserve and make accessible knowledge and information from the Internet for future generations everywhere, promoting global exchange and international relations.
They've got a working group working on smart crawlers right now. If you've got some good ideas for making it easier to archive blogs, perhaps you should consider contributing.
LoC archives Twitter because only LoC can archive Twitter. Other projects, notably the Internet Archive, already archive open web sites including blogs. But IA doesn't have a hope of archiving Twitter. LoC arranged this because if they didn't, no one would have a Twitter archive.
LoC is actually relatively forward-thinking when it comes to digital archiving. For example, for a while now they've been encouraging people to digitize archives of their own personal data: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/personalarchiving/
Finally, Twitter does have a corporate API, isn't most of it accessible through the open web any way? Any user's profile can be accessed through the website unless they've specifically restricted it.
And generally, I don't see the point in NOT archiving something if you can. Sure it's fine to argue that other things should be archived first, but if someone is going to archive something, why stop them? We only gain by having a more complete and accurate historical record.
99.9999% of what comes through twitter is wasted bits. I still see value in archiving it all to guarantee capturing a real time log of an historic election, the death of a notable person, the announcement of a major discovery, or the day to day thoughts during a protest or revolution.
We have 19th century diaries detailing a rector's daily meals for his entire adult life while we have recovered nearly nothing regarding the poor living in slums in London, except through the distant scornful commentary of the gentry.
The LoC shouldn't be endorsing Twitter as a company, but the users of Twitter have endorsed it by logging the course of human events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I didn't. But I also noted it was the last word. :-)
So your complaint is not that they don't archive blogs, but that they don't list it first among that which they archive?
LoC archives Twitter because only LoC can archive Twitter. Other projects, notably the Internet Archive, already archive open web sites including blogs. But IA doesn't have a hope of archiving Twitter. LoC arranged this because if they didn't, no one would have a Twitter archive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there certainly is a business advantage. Or why would Twitter have done it, and done a big rollout of the deal (I believe it was at SXSW). It was a huge publicity bonanza, the message was that Twitter is Historic. Don't believe us, believe the Library of Congress. They didn't do it out of altruism, they did it because it was excellent publicity. (Probably the LOC did it for that reason too.) And we have a say in…
Well there certainly is a business advantage. Or why would Twitter have done it, and done a big rollout of the deal You cannot assume companies always act logically. In this case they could have agreed to it just because it was "cool". They didn't do it out of altruism, they did it because it was excellent publicity. This is probably accurate, but it doesn't give them a long term advantage. It probably gave them a sm…
And people object to it constantly.