251–260 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds plausible, but I sure would like a citation for that claim.
They exclude Snopes and I think Salon from archiving.
Link rot has convinced me that the web is not good for its ostensible purpose. I used to roll my eyes reading how academic researchers and librarians would discourage using webpages as resources. Many years later, it's obvious that the web is pretty bad for anything that isn't ephemeral.
We have deposit libraries in the U.K., such as The British library and Oxford University's Bodleian. When you publish a book in the U.K. you are supposed to offer a copy to these institutions. If we had legal deposit web archiving institutions, then academics, and others, could create an archive snapshot of some resource and then reference the URI to that (either with or without the original URI), so as to ensure per…
I agree that this is what should be done more often for durable content. This is another reason why social media sites are bad: the users technically have automatic copyright to their contributions, but they often also agree to grant licenses to the content website for things like their photos. The US Copyright Office is releasing a new application format intended for blog posts and other short form content that will hopefully be more straightforward to use.
I wish I had done this 15 years ago for a small project/website. Nowadays, my website is there, with all of its content, but most of the awesome references which I had linked to are unavailable. I wrote "most", but it is close to all of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They exclude Snopes and I think Salon from archiving.
Do you have any source on that? Sites can request archive.org to stop archiving them and to delete what is currently archived. They can do it for any reason; concealing changes of article contents might be one of them.
> Sorry.
> This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
They also do not exclude the archive.org bot in https://www.snopes.com/robots.txt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any source on that? Sites can request archive.org to stop archiving them and to delete what is currently archived. They can do it for any reason; concealing changes of article contents might be one of them.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/snopes.com > Sorry. > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. They also do not exclude the archive.org bot in https://www.snopes.com/robots.txt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Is it unacceptable for an artist to throw her art away after it has finished its museum tour? Should a parent hang on to every drawing their child has ever made? If you are a software developer - is all of the code you've ever written still accessible online, for free? (To the legal extent that you are able, of course.) Have you written a blog before, or did you have a MySpace? Have you taken care to make su…
> Is it unacceptable for an artist to throw her art away after it has finished its museum tour? Should a parent hang on to every drawing their child has ever made? This boils down to the public domain, IMO. We have made a long practice of rescuing art from private caches and trash bins to make them publicly available after the artists' passing (the copyright expiring); regardless of their views on what should happen…
This thread stems from the second; about whether a site owner is justified in deleting or rearranging old pages/information on their website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I certainly don't know about legal rights, but I think the ethical thing is to make sure that any writings published as freely accessible should remain so forever. What would people think if an author went into every library in the world to yank out one of their books they no longer want to be seen? I do think the author is wrong to immediately post links to archived versions of sources. At the least, he could link t…
Why is that the most ethical thing to do? As a motivating example, I wrote some stuff on my MySpace page as a teenager that I'm very glad is no longer available. They were published as "freely accessible" and indeed, I wanted people to see it. But when I read it back 15 years later, I was more than a little embarrassed about it, and I deleted it - despite it also having comments from my friends at the time, or being…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After all, they did change their search to accommodate AMP. Changing it to take WebArchive into account is a) peanuts and b) is actually better for the web
There's a business idea in there somewhere. Some kind of CDN-edge-archive hybrid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But for my personal site, for example, I'd much rather you link to me directly rather than content in WayBackMachine. That would make sense if users were archiving your site for your benefit, but they're probably not. If I were to archive your site, it's because I want my own bookmarks/backups/etc to be more reliable than just a link, not because I'm looking out to preserve your website. Otherwise, I'm just gamblin…
The issue is that if this becomes widespread then we're going to get into copyright claims against the wayback machine. When I write content it is mine. I don't even let Facebook crawlers index it because I don't want it appearing on their platform. I'm happy to have wayback machine archive it, but that's with the understanding that it is a backup, not an authoritative or primary source. Ideally, links would be able…
I feel similarly to you: I want to own and control what I create. However I'm also realistic about the consequences of publishing it, so I don't publish anything I create beyond personally showing stuff to people who are close to me, and preferably from my own equipment directly. Unless you're doing the same, you don't actually control your content.
This may seem like a neurotic approach, but if you actually care about your content, it's not. It's not difficult to find cases of content being stolen and reused without the creator knowing; e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ZQoN6UrEw