4 ms·

I think it's about time that some government or billionaire throws a few millions at an internet archive project. The Internet Archive is nice but more regular

by ugh 15y ago

I think it's about time that some government or billionaire throws a few millions at an internet archive project. The Internet Archive is nice but more regular snapshots with a wider coverage would be something I'm certain future historians would love to get their hands on (and they will hate us if we don't do it).

tokenadult 15y ago
I think it's about time that some government or billionaire throws a few millions at an internet archive project. It may be that one or two governments have already done that. You are, of course, referring to a publicly accessible Internet archive. As for what a benevolent millionaire (it wouldn't have to be a full billionaire for this to start up) could fund, pg has suggested, "There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica." http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html It's interesting that pg thought then that Wikipedia's problem is excessive deletionism, while I (after being a registered Wikipedian and working on various articles) think that Wikipedia's problem is lack of thorough research to prepare article content. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strate... Whatever one's opinion of what's wrong with Wikipedia, the best way to prompt improvement in Wikipedia (or replace it, if you prefer that) is to build another site that does some of what Wikipedia does but does it better somehow. That's not easy, not easy at all, but it's not terribly expensive. I have looked at the Wikimedia Foundation financial reports, and building a strong competitor to Wikipedia is a project that is well within the grasp of several individual millionaires, and within the grasp of quite a few nonprofit charitable organizations. A business corporation that can find out a way to monetize a Wikipedia competitor might have a great business opportunity.
- tmarthal 15y ago
  Fitting, in regards to the original pinboard.in story, is that in the CRM section of the http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (number 7.) links to an article http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/29/business/fiw-octopart29 http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/29/business/fiw-octopar... that has rotted and is now a link to a generic not-found(w/HTTP 200) latimes.com page.
- neilk 15y ago
  > It's interesting that pg thought then that Wikipedia's problem is excessive deletionism, while I (after being a registered Wikipedian and working on various articles) think that Wikipedia's problem is lack of thorough research to prepare article content. Yep, that's the usual distinction. Non-Wikipedians believe that Wikipedia should be a compendium of any information that could be useful, however unverifiable or incomplete. Wikipedians want there to be higher standards, but pg makes the common mistake of thinking this is because they are all OCD.[1] The Wikipedia system relies on group verifiability. Low quality info imposes long-term costs on the administrators. The article will be flagged more frequently than others. So pruning low quality info is a matter of administrator self-defence, even if you ignore the ideals of achieving a trustworthy encyclopedia. A Wikipedia successor would have to abandon trustworthiness (or figure out some way to indicate that certain pages were untrustworthy). Or figure out how not to impose the costs of maintaining unverifiable information on administrators. One way might be to connect the info with the community that cares about it in a more direct and intimate way. Wikipedia fails REALLY badly at the latter, to the point where the wiki-insiders sometimes have more control than the audience for a topic. > That's not easy, not easy at all, but it's not terribly expensive. In terms of software and services, it would be no problem at all. But you are overlooking the cost of creating a new Wikipedia in a world where Wikipedia already exists. Wikipedia content is also famously intractable to reuse in any system other than MediaWiki. We hope to begin alleviating that this year with the big parser redesign. A side effect should be to enable competitors to try different things with our content. [1] They are, but this is not the primary reason. ;)
idlewords 15y ago
A big problem with the Internet Archive is how easy it is to opt out of it, either by robots.txt or explicit request. I understand why they do it, but it seriously damages their mission.
- _delirium 15y ago
  The fact that you can retroactively opt out of it also makes it particularly odd, compared to previous media. If you change your mind about publishing a book, you can't unpublish existing copies, and chances are that some library will still have a copy that they continue to make available to the public (a handful of people in history have succeeded in suppressing already-published books, but it's hard). But if you decide you want to unpublish a webpage, you can actually get it excised from all the archives available to the public as well, erasing it from the historical record, even if it had been available for years and read by thousands--- because, unlike with books, typically none of those thousands of readers will have a copy that they can claim ownership to.
  - carussell 15y ago
    Even worse is that others can retroactively opt out on another's behalf. If someone owned the domain with no exclusion, then their content seemingly disappeared in 2003 because they lost ownership/stopped caring about the domain, and the new owner puts up a robots.txt, the original owner's content will not be publicly accessible. At least that was the case a few years ago. I know the Wayback Machine has seen some changes in the last year.
sbierwagen 15y ago
And yet HN explodes with hate whenever Archive Team does something.
- GoodIntentions 15y ago
  AT telling the world they will rip any content they want regardless of owner's wishes, and then trolling about it probably soured most of us on your 'team'. Have you considered that if you're despised by many, it might be for a reason?
- sp332 15y ago
  There's a big difference between the way the Archive Team operates and the way the Internet Archive operates. IA is professional and polite, AT is brutish.

by ugh 15y ago

tokenadult 15y ago

I think it's about time that some government or billionaire throws a few millions at an internet archive project. It may be that one or two governments have already done that. You are, of course, referring to a publicly accessible Internet archive. As for what a benevolent millionaire (it wouldn't have to be a full billionaire for this to start up) could fund, pg has suggested, "There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica." http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html It's interesting that pg thought then that Wikipedia's problem is excessive deletionism, while I (after being a registered Wikipedian and working on various articles) think that Wikipedia's problem is lack of thorough research to prepare article content. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strate... Whatever one's opinion of what's wrong with Wikipedia, the best way to prompt improvement in Wikipedia (or replace it, if you prefer that) is to build another site that does some of what Wikipedia does but does it better somehow. That's not easy, not easy at all, but it's not terribly expensive. I have looked at the Wikimedia Foundation financial reports, and building a strong competitor to Wikipedia is a project that is well within the grasp of several individual millionaires, and within the grasp of quite a few nonprofit charitable organizations. A business corporation that can find out a way to monetize a Wikipedia competitor might have a great business opportunity.

tmarthal 15y ago
Fitting, in regards to the original pinboard.in story, is that in the CRM section of the http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (number 7.) links to an article http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/29/business/fiw-octopart29 http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/29/business/fiw-octopar... that has rotted and is now a link to a generic not-found(w/HTTP 200) latimes.com page.
neilk 15y ago
> It's interesting that pg thought then that Wikipedia's problem is excessive deletionism, while I (after being a registered Wikipedian and working on various articles) think that Wikipedia's problem is lack of thorough research to prepare article content. Yep, that's the usual distinction. Non-Wikipedians believe that Wikipedia should be a compendium of any information that could be useful, however unverifiable or incomplete. Wikipedians want there to be higher standards, but pg makes the common mistake of thinking this is because they are all OCD.[1] The Wikipedia system relies on group verifiability. Low quality info imposes long-term costs on the administrators. The article will be flagged more frequently than others. So pruning low quality info is a matter of administrator self-defence, even if you ignore the ideals of achieving a trustworthy encyclopedia. A Wikipedia successor would have to abandon trustworthiness (or figure out some way to indicate that certain pages were untrustworthy). Or figure out how not to impose the costs of maintaining unverifiable information on administrators. One way might be to connect the info with the community that cares about it in a more direct and intimate way. Wikipedia fails REALLY badly at the latter, to the point where the wiki-insiders sometimes have more control than the audience for a topic. > That's not easy, not easy at all, but it's not terribly expensive. In terms of software and services, it would be no problem at all. But you are overlooking the cost of creating a new Wikipedia in a world where Wikipedia already exists. Wikipedia content is also famously intractable to reuse in any system other than MediaWiki. We hope to begin alleviating that this year with the big parser redesign. A side effect should be to enable competitors to try different things with our content. [1] They are, but this is not the primary reason. ;)

idlewords 15y ago

A big problem with the Internet Archive is how easy it is to opt out of it, either by robots.txt or explicit request. I understand why they do it, but it seriously damages their mission.

_delirium 15y ago
The fact that you can retroactively opt out of it also makes it particularly odd, compared to previous media. If you change your mind about publishing a book, you can't unpublish existing copies, and chances are that some library will still have a copy that they continue to make available to the public (a handful of people in history have succeeded in suppressing already-published books, but it's hard). But if you decide you want to unpublish a webpage, you can actually get it excised from all the archives available to the public as well, erasing it from the historical record, even if it had been available for years and read by thousands--- because, unlike with books, typically none of those thousands of readers will have a copy that they can claim ownership to.
- carussell 15y ago
  Even worse is that others can retroactively opt out on another's behalf. If someone owned the domain with no exclusion, then their content seemingly disappeared in 2003 because they lost ownership/stopped caring about the domain, and the new owner puts up a robots.txt, the original owner's content will not be publicly accessible. At least that was the case a few years ago. I know the Wayback Machine has seen some changes in the last year.

sbierwagen 15y ago

And yet HN explodes with hate whenever Archive Team does something.

GoodIntentions 15y ago
AT telling the world they will rip any content they want regardless of owner's wishes, and then trolling about it probably soured most of us on your 'team'. Have you considered that if you're despised by many, it might be for a reason?
sp332 15y ago
There's a big difference between the way the Archive Team operates and the way the Internet Archive operates. IA is professional and polite, AT is brutish.