Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Treating the Web As an Archive

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-forget-to-backup-your-data dept.

An anonymous reader sends a link to a blog post by David Eaves discussing how the ease of finding information on the web affects how we analyze history. "... nothing is different per se — the same old research methods will be used — but what if it is 10 times easier to do, 100 times faster and contains a million times the quantity of information? With the archives of newspapers, blogs and other websites readily available to be searched, the types of research once reserved for only the most diligent and patient might be more broadly accessible." As an example, he points to an almost 10-year-old article detailing the events surrounding the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which some believe was a significant contributing factor to the current financial crisis.

7 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This History... It's Iffy by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    True, but looking back at verifiable events can give us some real insight.

    Try looking at the Slashdot archives on September 11th, 2001. I was in middle school when the attacks happened, and I wasn't a Slashdot reader. Even more than the articles, the comments are very interesting. Panic. First hand accounts. Anger (We're going to bomb them into oblivion, we'll have Osama in a week, etc.)

    While you can't trust old information on the internet, it does have a wide variety of verifiable information that is more accessible digitally than it ever has been before.

  2. Re:Huh by Knave75 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Also from the article

    I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota.

    That is almost spooky. We need this guy to be running the country.

  3. The web is NOT an archive by line-bundle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The web fails in so many ways.

    1. It's to easy to rewrite history. Because articles are (generally) on one website they can be changed. This is unlike a newspaper archive where it would be costly to destroy all copies of the paper.

    2. The web is biased. If aliens connect to the internet they would think all the human race ever does is porn and bashing MS (maybe not exactly that, but you get the idea)

    3. The web becomes unreadable faster than paper archives. Protocol changes and what-not.

    4. The web is too easy to control. A private company can censor the web via lawsuits.
    .
    .
    .
    I'm tired

    1. Re:The web is NOT an archive by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I would double your point #3 as very important. Look what happened to tables in HTML. Once they were central to web design, now they are gradually being deprecated. As despicable as the BLINK tag is/was, it's a classic example. In the future,BLINK won't even work, and then a website won't be understood in all of its "glory". Now BLINK is ugly and stupid, but TABLES are not. When will CSS be deprecated, then what?

      Your point #3 is endemic to all digital data, and it is why I think our culture, unlike many before, will simply disappear from history completely.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  4. There is also the Memory Hole Problem by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Back when the Bush Junta decided to invade Iraq, the article on Time MAgazine's website by George HW Bush as to why deposing Saddam would be a Really Bad Idea disappeared. As far as I know it still isn't there.

    I think Archive.org is a good online archive, but its actual mission is impossible: it would automatically require a doubling of the size of the interweb thingie.

    So, combine that with the Memory Hole problem, and you have a precarious situation: not a good formula for notions of an archive, where consistency, completeneess, and reliability are paramount.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  5. Re:Huh by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article (Nov 1999): said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. ''There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive.''

    But I thought the Republicans were to blame for this economy... That is what the media said. You mean we can't trust our politicians and the media?

  6. Re:Huh by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who held the majority in Congress in 1999?

    There's plenty of blame to go around.