3 ms·

The "ADL files" controversy from the 90s has been progressively de-emphasized on wikipedia. 1993 NYTimes article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/24/u

The "ADL files" controversy from the 90s has been progressively de-emphasized on wikipedia. 1993 NYTimes article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/24/us/anti-defamation-league-accused-of-spying.html https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/24/us/anti-defamation-league... 2018: 1000+ words about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=840243910#ADL_files_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_L... 2019: about 400 words. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=897596133#Spying_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_L... 2020: less than 100 words. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=949326113#Arab_American_and_African_American_lawsuit_against_ADL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_L... Present: less than 100 words, and no longer given it's own subtitled section but buried in the middle of a summary of a decade (not mentioned in the 'Controversies' section): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#1990s

kodah 4y ago
The history is preserved through the archive though, no? Wouldn't compaction be the logical result over time? In my head I'm thinking that old events probably used to have surpluses of books and editorials written about them that now occupy the chapter of a history book that you might read twice.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > Wouldn't compaction be the logical result over time? I don't think what's happening on that article is organic history compaction. For one, the controversy is about 30 years old but has been 'compacted' by an order of magnitude in about 4 years. I would expect organic history compaction to fairly linear and continuous (as the passage of time is.) Secondly, the controversies section on that article still has several paragraphs about less substantial stuff which happened almost 50 years ago.
  - kodah 4y ago
    ah, that's fair. I generally have no sense of what constitutes organic vs deliberate or if there's even standards for this stuff.
  - amazon_illegal 4y ago

kodah 4y ago

The history is preserved through the archive though, no? Wouldn't compaction be the logical result over time? In my head I'm thinking that old events probably used to have surpluses of books and editorials written about them that now occupy the chapter of a history book that you might read twice.

LarryMullins 4y ago
> Wouldn't compaction be the logical result over time? I don't think what's happening on that article is organic history compaction. For one, the controversy is about 30 years old but has been 'compacted' by an order of magnitude in about 4 years. I would expect organic history compaction to fairly linear and continuous (as the passage of time is.) Secondly, the controversies section on that article still has several paragraphs about less substantial stuff which happened almost 50 years ago.
- kodah 4y ago
  ah, that's fair. I generally have no sense of what constitutes organic vs deliberate or if there's even standards for this stuff.
- amazon_illegal 4y ago