Treating the Web As an Archive

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.

Comments

Re:This History... It's Iffy

[Coopjust]

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.

Huh

[paazin]

From the article (Nov 1999):

The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system.

Yep and no one forsaw this financial crisis, indeed.

Re:Huh

[Knave75]

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.

Re:Huh

[Trepidity]

There's bipartisan blame for that bill, but it was primarily pushed by Republicans.

The act itself was named Gramm-Leach-Bliley after its three Republican drafters and promoters. The first version of the act passed both Houses with mainly Republican support, especially in the Senate. In the House, it passed 343-86, with a 205-16 tally for the Republicans, and 138-70 for the Democrats (counting Sanders as a D for the moment). In the Senate, it passed 54-44, with a 53-0 tally for the Republicans, and a 1-44 tally for the Democrats. Schumer actually voted against that version of the bill (Fritz Hollings was the lone Democrat in favor).

After reconciliation between the House and Senate versions failed, a new version was drafted that gave some concessions to Democrats, mainly in the form of strengthened anti-redlining provisions and strengthened medical and financial privacy regulations. The sweetened bill passed by large margins, though still with the Democrats (now reduced to only a smaller core) being the primary opposition. In the House, 57 still voted no, including 52 Democrats and only 5 Republicans. In the Senate, there were 8 nays, comprised of 7 Democrats and 1 Republican. Clinton (a Democrat) signed the bill.

Re:Huh

[Vellmont]

But I thought the Republicans were to blame for this economy

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of many pieces of de-regulation that lead to this mess. The loudest voices I hear championing the call for less regulation, smaller government, etc is the republican party. If you read the article the vast majority of the opposition came from the Democrats (with only 1 Republican Senator voting no). It was pretty weak opposition to be sure.

So sure, Democrats can share a lot of the blame here. But don't ignore the fact that Republicans are largely the ones pushing for de-regulation (many still want even MORE).

Anyway, I think the thing to take home from all this is not one party over another, but rather one set of ideas as being wrong. I always hear the main argument against regulation being "unintended consequences", like it's some kind of magical argument to wave over everything. What people seem to forget is that ANYTHING can have "unintended consequences", including doing nothing.

10, 100, 1M times more crap

[wjh31]

Yes theres alot of information on the internet, its easy and fast to find it. But its also easy and fast to find a great deal of crap on the internet that isnt actually of any use to you. Filtering the wheat from the chaff can often take as much or more effort as finding the information in the first place. How many times have you had to re-word your search phrase, try several search results, and use ctrl-f to actually select the usefull information from all the extra crap.

Re:10, 100, 1M times more crap

[ResidntGeek]

Man, have you ever _been_ to a university library? The sheer amount of information available in those places can have a comparable effect to the Total Perspective Vortex, if you stop and think about it too much. It's also the most beautiful thing on earth.

So, you should go sometime. Wander around a good university library (I recommend Perkins Library at Duke, if you're anywhere near there) sometime, just marveling at the sheer amount of information available - open a few books and skin them, go to the official documents section and look at random UN subcommittee reports from 1978, check out the journal archives and read organic chemistry papers from 1932... then go home and try to still feel powerful and informed while you wrestle with Google and the Wayback Machine trying to get a newspaper article from 2007 that isn't on the website anymore.

Re:This History... It's Iffy

[Z00L00K]

No, you can't believe everything, but if you check the sources you can classify it as being acceptably reliable or not.

The web contains a great deal of information but you still need a search engine to deal with it - like Google. Unfortunately - or luckily - Google does filter out some pages with insecure and/or inappropriate content. This is of course negative for some researchers but positive for most people on the net.

And it's never wrong to double-check the information provided. It may be correct, but there may be opposite views too.

There is also the Memory Hole Problem

[Ralph Spoilsport]

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