6 ms·

Wait, archive.org has scanned books?? I guess I'm only familiar with the archive's "Wayback Machine" -- I wasn't aware of their other offerings. This is interes

Wait, archive.org has scanned books?? I guess I'm only familiar with the archive's "Wayback Machine" -- I wasn't aware of their other offerings. This is interesting and has a pretty good interface for browsing. Even seems to use OCR to support search!

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
They’ve archived software, too.
- bane 6y ago
  Not just archived, but made probably hundreds of thousands of pieces of software playable...in your browser.
mannycalavera42 6y ago
I've recently moved my support donations from wikipedia to archive.org after finding it out. Amazing content and the history of web deserves more
- SlickyPedia 6y ago
  Wikipedia has more money than they can use; they still ask for donations even though they're more than relatively loaded with cash. I'd support the Internet Archive; as they're not really as over-grabby as "others." Every dollar you send to IA would buy them some hard drives or something; or whatever else they need. Internet Archive is the thing bros; Wikipedia is great and all but the Internet Archive is worth supporting with your dollars.
  - throwaway5752 6y ago
    That isn't true, and the Wikimedia Foundation has made it extremely easy to look up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Final https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_... . They use all there money and it's well spent. Internet Archive is a great cause, too, and they are also well run https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943... Support them both.
    - kick 6y ago
      They use all [their] money and it's well spent. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Revenue: $ 120,067,266 Expenses: $ 91,414,010
      - bostonpete 6y ago
        Is it possible that some of that difference is due to amortization of hardware and other assets? I'm not a finance person, but I thought that those sorts of expenses show up incrementally on the books over the course of the amortization period even though they're typically paid for up front... (?)
    - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
      "They use all the money" Yes, exactly why you should move your money to internet archive. Despite earning more than ever and providing relatively the same service wikipedia still 'use up' your money and ask for more in the form of an obtrusive banner. Therefore you can see that it's probaly not "well spent" see an agregate link below of wikipedia critics explaining and sourcing this. http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html
      - kick 6y ago
        I'm not pro-Wikimedia here (see other comment), but you're not being fair exactly; I'd go as far as to say your comment is wrong in everything except that the banner is obtrusive and that your funds would be better directed at the IA. The scale and scope of Wikimedia has been constantly expanding, and outside of a few terrible bets, it's generally been for the better. It hasn't been recklessly overspending and it's definitely not "providing relatively the same service."
        Out_of_Characte 6y ago
        A year ago I read a very well written article linked trough HN that broke down wikipedia's total est traffic and active data and made several cost analysis that aired on the side of caution. It didn't match wikimedia's allocation at all. However I cannot for the life of me find the article on ddg or google. It comes down to this, Wikipedia being mostly text based means that the size of their library isn't as big as you'd think. Compressed, their english articles amount to 16GB. You can download the entire thing on your laptop and see for yourself, its all there. even adding all history and languages on top, you're not exactly reaching petabytes just yet. most of their costs come from traffic. but the website is still text. I tried finding good bandwidth estimates but dont have time. I want to give wikipedia the benefit of doubt but they are just wastefull. Last point I want to make, Internet Archive has a complete copy of wikipedia. ( though not fully up to date ofc) if wikipedia fails due to incompetence or bad leadership, Internet archive will be first in line to pick up the hot potato of the approximate human knowledge register. https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c... Links to help yo on your way https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
- VerDeTerre 6y ago
  I've donated in the past, but with the recent copyright debacle, I'm less inclined to—not so much because I think they're clearly on the wrong side of the law (though I do believe so), but more because it seems like such an obvious and potentially catastrophic misjudgment. I'm fine with information activism, even if I'm not totally on board with the full program, but not at the expense of endangering the core mission. I don't think their actions will yield a valuable test case, so I'd prefer to see them instead work towards copyright reform in a more measured manner. I'll probably continue to support them because it's such an amazing resource and so many people are doing great work, but the leadership does not, at this time, have my confidence.
  - badsectoracula 6y ago
    What recent copyright debacle?
    - jmiskovic 6y ago
      Claiming they are library, they launched "National Emergency Library" initiative which made 1.4M works (of which some are copyrighted) freely available online worldwide. They have ended the program since. http://blog.archive.org/national-emergency-library/ http://blog.archive.org/national-emergency-library/
AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
I guess you haven't been following that whole legal saga during COVID where Archive was letting people check out digital library books?
troughway 6y ago
You know how back in the 90s you used to get those CD-ROMs of games in cereal boxes you bought, or the AOL installation discs you'd use as cup coasters? Or just about any freeware CD-ROM from the 90s that you might have come across, period? Archive has all that, and more.
zozbot234 6y ago
Archive.org has so many scanned books that they're being sued by publishers calling it a pirate site. The EFF legal team is getting involved to defend the lawsuit.
bane 6y ago
Welcome to an entire universe of amazing material. The Internet Archive is a shining jewel of the Internet and the Wayback Machine may be one of the least interesting of their projects.
sp332 6y ago
They have tens of millions of scanned books available, some millions of which they have scanned themselves. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244760075828428801 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244760075828428801 They have a huge amount of music available, some of which they worked with George Blood company to rip from 78 RPM shellac records. http://great78.archive.org/preservation/ http://great78.archive.org/preservation/
walrus01 6y ago
archive.org has most historical Byte magazines scanned, which are great fun to read.
simonblack 6y ago
Books, magazines, software, equipment manuals, even audio stuff. Don't go there. I won't be responsible for the months you spend in there, getting stuff like the August 1978 issue of BYTE, or Sophie Tucker singing songs from the 1920s.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

They’ve archived software, too.

bane 6y ago
Not just archived, but made probably hundreds of thousands of pieces of software playable...in your browser.

mannycalavera42 6y ago

I've recently moved my support donations from wikipedia to archive.org after finding it out. Amazing content and the history of web deserves more

SlickyPedia 6y ago
Wikipedia has more money than they can use; they still ask for donations even though they're more than relatively loaded with cash. I'd support the Internet Archive; as they're not really as over-grabby as "others." Every dollar you send to IA would buy them some hard drives or something; or whatever else they need. Internet Archive is the thing bros; Wikipedia is great and all but the Internet Archive is worth supporting with your dollars.
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  That isn't true, and the Wikimedia Foundation has made it extremely easy to look up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Final https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_... . They use all there money and it's well spent. Internet Archive is a great cause, too, and they are also well run https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943... Support them both.
  - kick 6y ago
    They use all [their] money and it's well spent. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Revenue: $ 120,067,266 Expenses: $ 91,414,010
    - bostonpete 6y ago
      Is it possible that some of that difference is due to amortization of hardware and other assets? I'm not a finance person, but I thought that those sorts of expenses show up incrementally on the books over the course of the amortization period even though they're typically paid for up front... (?)
  - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
    "They use all the money" Yes, exactly why you should move your money to internet archive. Despite earning more than ever and providing relatively the same service wikipedia still 'use up' your money and ask for more in the form of an obtrusive banner. Therefore you can see that it's probaly not "well spent" see an agregate link below of wikipedia critics explaining and sourcing this. http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_to_Wikipedia.html
    - kick 6y ago
      I'm not pro-Wikimedia here (see other comment), but you're not being fair exactly; I'd go as far as to say your comment is wrong in everything except that the banner is obtrusive and that your funds would be better directed at the IA. The scale and scope of Wikimedia has been constantly expanding, and outside of a few terrible bets, it's generally been for the better. It hasn't been recklessly overspending and it's definitely not "providing relatively the same service."
      - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
        A year ago I read a very well written article linked trough HN that broke down wikipedia's total est traffic and active data and made several cost analysis that aired on the side of caution. It didn't match wikimedia's allocation at all. However I cannot for the life of me find the article on ddg or google. It comes down to this, Wikipedia being mostly text based means that the size of their library isn't as big as you'd think. Compressed, their english articles amount to 16GB. You can download the entire thing on your laptop and see for yourself, its all there. even adding all history and languages on top, you're not exactly reaching petabytes just yet. most of their costs come from traffic. but the website is still text. I tried finding good bandwidth estimates but dont have time. I want to give wikipedia the benefit of doubt but they are just wastefull. Last point I want to make, Internet Archive has a complete copy of wikipedia. ( though not fully up to date ofc) if wikipedia fails due to incompetence or bad leadership, Internet archive will be first in line to pick up the hot potato of the approximate human knowledge register. https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c... Links to help yo on your way https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
VerDeTerre 6y ago
I've donated in the past, but with the recent copyright debacle, I'm less inclined to—not so much because I think they're clearly on the wrong side of the law (though I do believe so), but more because it seems like such an obvious and potentially catastrophic misjudgment. I'm fine with information activism, even if I'm not totally on board with the full program, but not at the expense of endangering the core mission. I don't think their actions will yield a valuable test case, so I'd prefer to see them instead work towards copyright reform in a more measured manner. I'll probably continue to support them because it's such an amazing resource and so many people are doing great work, but the leadership does not, at this time, have my confidence.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  What recent copyright debacle?
  - jmiskovic 6y ago
    Claiming they are library, they launched "National Emergency Library" initiative which made 1.4M works (of which some are copyrighted) freely available online worldwide. They have ended the program since. http://blog.archive.org/national-emergency-library/ http://blog.archive.org/national-emergency-library/

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago

I guess you haven't been following that whole legal saga during COVID where Archive was letting people check out digital library books?

troughway 6y ago

You know how back in the 90s you used to get those CD-ROMs of games in cereal boxes you bought, or the AOL installation discs you'd use as cup coasters? Or just about any freeware CD-ROM from the 90s that you might have come across, period? Archive has all that, and more.

zozbot234 6y ago

Archive.org has so many scanned books that they're being sued by publishers calling it a pirate site. The EFF legal team is getting involved to defend the lawsuit.

bane 6y ago

Welcome to an entire universe of amazing material. The Internet Archive is a shining jewel of the Internet and the Wayback Machine may be one of the least interesting of their projects.

sp332 6y ago

They have tens of millions of scanned books available, some millions of which they have scanned themselves. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244760075828428801 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244760075828428801 They have a huge amount of music available, some of which they worked with George Blood company to rip from 78 RPM shellac records. http://great78.archive.org/preservation/ http://great78.archive.org/preservation/

walrus01 6y ago

archive.org has most historical Byte magazines scanned, which are great fun to read.

simonblack 6y ago

Books, magazines, software, equipment manuals, even audio stuff. Don't go there. I won't be responsible for the months you spend in there, getting stuff like the August 1978 issue of BYTE, or Sophie Tucker singing songs from the 1920s.