Slashdot Mirror
New York Times Wipes Journalist's Online Corpus
thefickler writes "Reading about Peter Wayner and his problems with book piracy reminded me of another writer, Thomas Crampton, who has the opposite problem — a lot of his work has been wiped from the Internet. Thomas Crampton has worked for the New York Times (NYT) and the International Herald Tribune (IHT) for about a decade, but when the websites of the two newspapers were merged two months ago, a lot of Crampton's work disappeared into the ether. Links to the old stories are simply hitting generic pages. Crampton wrote a letter to Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the NYT, pleading for his work to be put back online. The hilarious part: according to one analysis, the NYT is throwing away at least $100,000 for every month that the links remain broken."
Groovy baby.
CNN's website doesn't have as many broken links.
Articles over a decade old still work!
Whoever designed theirs deserves a lot of credit.
And it's got unlimited space. Strangely enough, some people are adamant about keeping their works out of this library. And I say they have the right to insure the internet forgets about them when they die. This poor soul seems to understand what's going on.
My work here is dung.
I was interested in reading the analysis that led to the $100,000/month loss per month the guy's work was offline. So doing what you do, I clicked on the link and found it grandly hilarious to receive a 500 error stating: "Error establishing a database connection". Oh, the irony.
Whenever I redesign my site, I try hard to avoid changing and URLs. But if I do have to change a URL, I always make sure that there is a redirect (preferably a HTTP/301 permanent redirect) that points from the old URL to the new URL. Updating links is not enough, because you will always have links that come from external sites that you don't control, user bookmarks, links found in "Hey, check this article out" e-mails, etc.
This is one of those basic principles of the web that the W3C (and for those who don't pay attention to them, you can substitute that with "plain old common sense" here) strongly recommends.
It means that users can always find and view content. It means that you still retain your ad revenue. It means that you still keep your PageRank for external sites that link. It means less bitrot and a more useful web...
Pay me $100,000 per month and I'll dishonestly clap my hands right now.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
In the digital age, wiping out thousands of volumes of material takes mere seconds. Permanently. Gone. Poof.
We have books, printed books, which go back hundreds and hundreds of years (well, written material; the printing press is a fairly recent invention).
We don't even have a record of some newspaper articles that came out 5 years ago. We're LOSING our history, not retaining it, because we lack sufficient "printing" to always keep a copy in circulation. Witness the Avism.com debacle and hundreds of other cases where this has happened.
Until we can have a hard-copy of digital media which can NOT be changed, edited, altered or redacted... we're lost.
When we all have "Kindle DX2" devices in the classroom for digital copies of our textbooks... what is stopping them from "gently changing" some of the wording over time, over a few years, to permanently alter the way our youth views the history of times they never lived through?
How can you compare one version of a website today, with the one that was there last week? Was anything changed? Was article content "censored" in any subtle way?
We're heading down a very slippery slope, when digital information can't remain static enough to hold through the years, and be validated and verified to be unchanged, with sufficient copies in enough hands, to ensure survivability. The Internet is not the place to "store" things you want to keep for years and decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms_Fnd_in_a_Lbry
...I'll gladly clap my hands 40 hours a week in whatever venue you deem most appropriate.
Well now, that depends on what you're willing to have in between your hands while clapping, and how soft your hands are...
Sigs are for losers