3 ms·
I used to agree. But—Part of what they’re working towards is a demonstration that librarians are gonna do stuff like this, and shouldn’t have to do defensive or
by brians 2y ago
I used to agree. But—Part of what they’re working towards is a demonstration that librarians are gonna do stuff like this, and shouldn’t have to do defensive organizational engineering about their archival projects.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWhat does this mean? Credibility doesn’t fall from the sky… it has to actually be earned by someone or groups of someones. Usually in the course of their decisions and activities. Librarians don’t magically start off with an unlimited amount of it, such that they can completely ignore these considerations, and experience no consequences. Even if they truly are all the most amazing, wonderful, honorable people on Earth, their credibility would still be depleteable.
- card_zero 2y agoIt means, archivists are gonna archive stuff. What does what you said mean? "Credibility"? Is that some kind of apologetics for lawyers hunting for copyright infringements?
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWho gets to define ‘archivist’? Clearly not pseudonymous accounts on HN, nor can it be self declared otherwise 8 billion people can declare themselves to be ‘archivists’.
- antisthenes 2y ago> nor can it be self declared otherwise 8 billion people can declare themselves to be ‘archivists’. And why not? As far as I know, there is no barrier to entry to archiving things for your personal use from publically available websites. Or are we talking about people who archive for public use?
- MichaelZuo 2y agoI'm referring to the type that does receive additional privileges.