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."

1 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. And THIS, dear-readers, is why paper will win by hacker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.