[HN Gopher] A stroll through the archives of Editor & Publisher
___________________________________________________________________
A stroll through the archives of Editor & Publisher
Author : samclemens
Score : 429 points
Date : 2021-02-06 18:41 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.niemanlab.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.niemanlab.org)
| orblivion wrote:
| There was a recent news story about a 150 year old town hall in
| New Hampshire burning down. As of the writing of the article they
| weren't sure if any of the old town records were destroyed but it
| seemed likely. Towns should probably be digitizing all of these
| things now, and archive.org seems like a great place for them.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| I highly recommend everyone go back and read the headlines (and
| articles) from a year ago from multiple news sources frequently.
| It gives great perspective on the narratives at the time with
| hindsight as to how those narratives changed and if the
| predictions made were substantiated.
| kube-system wrote:
| Do you have any interesting examples?
| bitexploder wrote:
| Almost anything in politics is viewed completely differently
| after a year. Just look at any news story you followed last
| year. Around the election. Impeachment. EU/Brexit, etc.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Not exactly an article, but John Oliver's concerns over the
| security of voting machines in the US (November, 2019):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0
|
| Personally I had not seen anything from him stating he
| believed the security holes were fixed on a broad scale, or
| on any scale. But his recent video in November 2020 suggests
| he no longer had any substantial concerns regarding voting
| machine security:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMz_sTgoydQ&t=521s
| tenpies wrote:
| Two easy ones: COVID coverage from January to March, and
| Kamala Harris coverage from Democratic Debates to VP
| nomination.
|
| For COVID, back then, it was "tech bros are afraid of the flu
| (and maybe also racist)" and then "go hug a Chinese person",
| and then "closing flights from Wuhan is racist (even though
| China itself was doing it domestically)". It was funny to see
| the escalating tsunami of wrongness coming at the media, but
| of course, they would never admit wrong-doing.
|
| For Kamala Harris, well she was (is?) hugely unpopular. She
| has terrible political baggage, has been personally
| responsible for terrible systemic racism, and the news
| coverage reflected that quite accurately up to a very
| specific point. Tulsi torpedoed her early on in the debates
| by bringing all this up.
|
| However, when Biden said his VP choice would be a woman of
| color, there was an immediately 180 in coverage and
| retroactive editing to make it look like she was an
| exceptional candidate who has always championed racial issues
| and is a regular everyday person just like all of us.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Not sure what you're reading but I wouldn't call those wide
| spread takes from a year ago even if they existed.
|
| That said, when you drop out of a race or an election
| completes, the oppo stops. That's not really a surprising
| change.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| > closing flights from Wuhan is racist (even though China
| itself was doing it domestically)
|
| This is a myth. Wuhan Tianhe International Airport was
| completely shut down. Domestic and international flights
| stopped at the same time.
|
| Niall Ferguson of the Hoover Institution falsely claimed
| that China kept allowing international flights to keep
| taking off after it stopped domestic flights, and his claim
| has since gone viral. Even Trump has repeated it several
| times on national television.
|
| The irony is that the airport was shut down so quickly that
| foreign governments didn't have time to get their citizens
| out of Wuhan. They had to negotiate with the Chinese
| government to allow specially chartered evacuation flights
| to take off from the city. But Niall Ferguson looked at a
| flight tracker that showed _scheduled_ (not actual)
| flights, and concluded that international flights were
| still taking off from Wuhan, and then wrote an Op-Ed about
| it. The myth has never died, despite repeated debunking.
| neartheplain wrote:
| Beyond headlines, news outlets also silently edit old stories,
| sometimes years after the fact.
|
| The Washington Post was recently caught scrubbing an
| unflattering quote from a 2019 profile of Kamala Harris:
|
| https://reason.com/2021/01/22/the-washington-post-memory-hol...
| ttctciyf wrote:
| Wasn't a huge quantity of images of newspaper articles accessible
| via google news search, by setting a pre-Internet date range, at
| one time?
|
| Is that material still available anywhere? It was really
| extensive IIRC.
| philipkglass wrote:
| Are you thinking of this?
|
| https://news.google.com/newspapers
|
| It's fun to browse but I'm sad that the project seemed to just
| sputter out. At one time I thought it would grow to make
| historical newspapers searchable with coverage comparable to
| the books searchable through Google Books.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| An0mammall wrote:
| Internet Archive forever!
| drawkbox wrote:
| Wikipedia and Archive.org are doing what the internet was made
| for at least on the history side of things, but also culture,
| information and education. If you can, donate.
| [deleted]
| neolog wrote:
| Wikimedia's financial reports are at [1]
|
| At a first glance, they seem reasonable.
|
| - 43% Direct support to websites. Keeping the Wikimedia
| websites online is about more than just servers. It also
| includes ongoing engineering improvements, product development,
| design and research, and legal support.
|
| - 32% Direct support to communities. The Wikimedia projects
| exist thanks to the communities that create and maintain them.
| We strengthen these communities through grants, projects,
| trainings, tools to augment contributor capacity, and support
| for the legal defense of editors.
|
| - 32% Direct support to communities The Wikimedia projects
| exist thanks to the communities that create and maintain them.
| We strengthen these communities through grants, projects,
| trainings, tools to augment contributor capacity, and support
| for the legal defense of editors.
|
| - 13% Administration and governance. We manage funds and
| resources responsibly to recruit and support skilled,
| passionate staff who advance our communities and values.
|
| - 12% Fundraising. Wikimedia is sustained by donations.
| Millions of remarkable individuals and institutions ensure that
| we have the necessary resources to continue our global mission.
|
| [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-
| goe...
| Arainach wrote:
| Why, so I can give a few more dollars to book publishers when
| they take Archive for all of its assets after its reckless
| "library" tactics last year?
|
| I like them, but they seriously need a change in management.
| nostromo wrote:
| It's unpopular here, but that stunt really made me wonder
| about their management.
|
| They opened themselves up to millions of dollars (if not
| billions of dollars) of liability for no good reason. (Covid
| doesn't give you a pass to give away someone else's property
| without permission.)
|
| Similar to you, I'm not going to donate to an org that is so
| reckless with donations. If they would admit it was an error
| in judgement and come to a quick settlement I might become a
| donor again.
|
| Even still, the damage has been done -- it'll take a long
| time for publishers to trust the Internet Archive again.
| ddingus wrote:
| Archive.org and Eff.org are my two do not question donations.
|
| Well said, agreed! I should add Wikipedia.
| breck wrote:
| Agreed. These are probably my two most regular donations.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| I would suggest against donating to them. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028644
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028531
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029978 for wikipedia.
|
| As for archive.org they offer basically no transparency as to
| which sites are excluded from their archiving (and as far as
| I know they will remove all the content of a site once the
| owner asks them to).
| crazypython wrote:
| I wonder if the Wikipedia community generally supports the
| Wikimedia foundation (if WMF does a generally good job), or
| if they'd like it replaced.
| unionpivo wrote:
| I don't get why people are so upset that Wikipedia spends
| more money on personnel then on hosting.
|
| Most internet organizations do that (free, charity or
| commercial). Good people are expensive. You need sysadmins,
| programmers, some graphics artist, probably more than a few
| lawyers etc.
|
| And I wouldn't want them to use the cheapest, possible
| people that they can find for those roles. And asking good
| people to work for free or cheap, is just as shitty.
|
| And a lot of free software and opensource foundation spend
| most of the money organizing conferences, so that people
| can meet in person and have presentations and working
| groups etc.. But when Wikipedia does the same its somehow
| wrong ?
| h_anna_h wrote:
| > And asking good people to work for free or cheap, is
| just as shitty.
|
| They already do that with their editors.
|
| > And a lot of free software and opensource foundation
| spend most of the money organizing conferences
|
| I would avoid donating to any such organisation myself.
| unionpivo wrote:
| > They already do that with their editors.
|
| They are volunteers. They do as much works as they want
| or don't want to do. Once you are the size of the
| Wikipedia there are tasks that need to be done, and you
| can't really relay on volunteers to do it in their free
| time.
|
| > I would avoid donating to any such organisation myself.
|
| Its your money.
|
| I am just saying that its normal and expected in free and
| opensource communities to do that sort of things.
| Organize conferences, meetups, public awareness, handle
| the legal stuff and hire the core stuff that makes sure
| thing are running 24/7.
| Blahah wrote:
| You cited one of few small ways the organisation is able
| to something back to wikipedians as the problem.
|
| Are you now pivoting to saying Wikipedia doesn't spend
| enough rewarding contributors, from having previously
| complained about having a celebration with contributors
| in Accra?
|
| I strongly encourage you to go to one of the events run
| by the kind of organisation you're complaining about. I'm
| not exaggerating when I say Mozfest is life changing for
| many people. Open Knowledge Foundation events have been
| career-defining for me and many people I've mentored in
| the UK, Kenya and South Africa. I've never been to a
| Wikipedia event but I know about them and I think you're
| imagining something vastly different than what happens.
| These are events that are about building communities,
| networks, and opportunities for open collaboration. If
| you don't like how these organisations do it, sorry,
| because they are the ones doing it successfully.
| Blahah wrote:
| This is not helpful. Wikipedia is a community project, and
| managing that community takes a lot of the resources,
| obviously.
|
| The Internet Archive has proved itself so many times over,
| and is so underfunded, that it deserves all the money it
| can possibly raise - which will allow them to solve more of
| the problems they face.
| [deleted]
| h_anna_h wrote:
| I believe that it is helpful because if I knew about that
| a few years back I would never bother donating nor
| contributing to them.
|
| > and managing that community takes a lot of the
| resources, obviously
|
| I do not think that parties in Accra using donation funds
| is an integral part of "managing that community".
|
| The Internet Archive has proved that they are not to be
| trusted multiple times. Such as when they decided to not
| be transparent, to retroactively remove content if asked
| by the site owner or if robots.txt started banning
| crawlers, when they started "lending" e-books with DRM,
| or when they decided to do the whole "National Emergency
| Library" thing and publishers sue it over it (the lawers
| and possibly said publishers if they win the ruling -
| which is likely - will be paid via the donation money).
| dleslie wrote:
| You've never attended an office party, or a company-
| hosted partner event, or any sort of enjoyable
| relationship building event?
|
| Parties serve a purpose. We are social mammals.
| jrumbut wrote:
| Even if they aren't, I don't see why the people doing
| good things in the world can't have something enjoyable.
|
| If everyone who works for a charity has to work for at
| most minimum wage, then I don't think sites like
| Wikipedia or the Internet Archive would be as high
| quality as they are.
| nostromo wrote:
| I think it's because a lot of people with limited means
| apparently donate to Wikimedia thinking it's a small non-
| profit on the verge of bankruptcy. And in no small part
| because they imply this every year during their fund
| drives.
|
| I doubt they'd do as well fundraising if your average
| donator knew that Wikimedia was pulling in $100m a year,
| is paying it's directors and above $200-400k a year, and
| the vast majority of their dollars are not spent on
| "servers and power" like their ads imply.
|
| Personally, I'm fine with their budget, but I do wonder
| if their fundraisers are as ethical as they could be.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| This is my main issue. The minimum wage in Greece, where
| I a from, is less than 10k/year, some people who I know
| (including me) donated to them a few years back in hopes
| of helping because they make themselves seem like they
| are in the brick of collapse every time they fund-raise,
| only to learn that they give huge wages to their higher
| ups and waste the donations on things irrelevant to
| Wikipedia.
| Blahah wrote:
| But Wikipedia doesn't, and couldn't run from Greece. It
| runs from San Francisco, because that's where they can be
| the most efficient at getting the most billionaires to
| help. In San Fran employees would probably worrying about
| money at $120k, and would be homeless way before they got
| to $10k. Also, WMP aren't hiring people at average wage -
| you're comparing the average job in Greece to running one
| of the most important organisations in the world from San
| Francisco. That's not a reasonable comparison. Of course
| WMP has to have brilliant, motivated, connected,
| experienced people at the top. They pay them far below
| average wage for people in that market.
|
| Honestly you should compare what WMP pays with other
| similar sized global organisations.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| That is totally fine! But if people don't want to donate
| for them, they should know so they can make that choice,
| and not be swindled by Wikipedia's donation request
| banners that make it sound like the public good is
| perpetually on the verge of insolvency.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Thank you for informing me. I did not know about such
| parties.
| f430 wrote:
| Not only that but the execs and many pay themselves a
| nice fat salary with all the benefits and perks of course
| that most small to medium enterprises would be appalled
| at for a "struggling non-profit" that we have of their
| image.
|
| From the banners one might conclude that they are facing
| imminent shut down and getting by in an unheated offices.
|
| no way I'm giving them money especially after reading the
| threads here and people attack h_anna for exposing the
| truth.
| [deleted]
| Blahah wrote:
| What actually happens is that the organisation needs
| certain skills and networks and hires the right people to
| bring them in. The salaries are small compared to what
| the people getting them could get paid at other
| organisations. I know good people who turned down much
| bigger salaries to work at WMF.
|
| Nobody has exposed anything, these are all public facts
| published and actively publicised by Wikipedia itself.
| They literally actively try to expand participation in
| local groups, and small parties for the people who gave
| their time is a gesture of thanks to those people, not
| some ostentatious overspend.
| f430 wrote:
| > The salaries are small compared to what the people
| getting them could get paid at other organisations.
|
| six digit salaries is small to you?
| dleslie wrote:
| Depends on the market rate for their skills. In this
| case, yes, depending on where they will be expected to
| live a barely six digit salary could be low.
| Blahah wrote:
| Not to me - as you can see from the sentence you quoted -
| but for the people being hired and in context of the
| other organisations that are offering them jobs.
|
| For the people running an organisation the size and
| importance of wikipedia? 6 figures is a laughable
| minimum. The legal and social responsibility, the vast
| and varied expertise required, the personal social
| networks you put on the line. We need the best people in
| those jobs to keep that organisation existing at all, let
| alone functioning at the level is has and does.
| Recruiting those people is competing against the rest of
| the world to hire them, and they are already taking a
| huge cut in remuneration because they want to do good.
| Blahah wrote:
| > I do not think that parties in Accra using donation
| funds is an integral part of "managing that community".
|
| Well, that's why the opinion is unhelpful.
|
| Wikipedia runs the largest decentralised and communal
| knowledge curation project in history. Making it and
| keeping it great takes a lot of free labour, all over the
| world. They have to organise communities at many many
| different levels, and often that involves getting a bunch
| of people in a room together - people who aren't getting
| paid - for a few days to make a ton of decisions and
| design and implement things. It involves recruiting new
| people to help and teaching them the organisational
| processes and skills, and nurturing new people up through
| the organisation, and resolving comflicts. All of that is
| absolutely necessary to make something like wikipedia
| work and barely scratches the surface.
|
| A party for the people who worked their asses off for
| free is really an incredibly cheap way to reward people.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| You think that it is unhelpful and this is fine, you are
| free to ignore my comment and donate to wikipedia if you
| want. My post is meant to inform people so that they can
| make an informed decision and not feel like they have
| been scammed.
|
| As for whether parties are important for wikipedia,
| anyone interested in this topic can read the links that I
| posted earlier. There was a debate whether they are
| helpful or not if I remember correctly.
| Blahah wrote:
| Wikipedia is good at running wikipedia. They produce
| something incredible. If you want to exercise moral
| control over people who do jobs you don't understand, by
| all means keep your money. But it's not helpful for you
| to encourage others to do that.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| > Wikipedia is good at running wikipedia
|
| Many wikipedians will disagree with you.
|
| > They produce something incredible
|
| The volunteers do.
|
| > But it's not helpful for you to encourage others to do
| that.
|
| Again, my desire was to inform people as to not regret
| their decision to donate, unlike me.
| gojomo wrote:
| It's interesting that one of your criticisms is that the
| Internet Archive is too lawsuit-averse - that it takes
| things down, after requests from apparent rightsholders,
| too quickly & opaquely. But your other criticism is that
| the Archive hasn't been lawsuit-averse enough - that
| during a once-in-a-century emergency with the nations'
| libraries closed, they took too much of a risk in
| offering extra digitized book loans, against the wishes
| of rightsholders.
|
| As a former Internet Archive employee, but not speaking
| for them here:
|
| That's inconsistent. If the Archive were as meek about
| deferring to traditional-rightsholder supremacy as you
| want with regard to the "Emergency Library" of digital
| books, the web archive might not exist at all, or could
| only include material with explicit prior permissions -
| shrinking it to a tiny fraction of its size.
|
| When the Archive started crawling & storing websites,
| there was no clear legal right to do so. (The 1996 DMCA,
| which if read a certain way, immunizes some such
| activities as "caching", wasn't even law when the IA
| started in 1995 - but its immunity also requires the
| prompt retroactive removals you find objectionable!)
|
| There was, from the start, a colorable argument, based on
| 'fair use' & the historical role & respect given
| libraries by our law & culture, that this _should_ be
| legal, and _could_ be legal if the facts were interpreted
| a certain way.
|
| But on the letter-of-the-law, there was an immense risk
| rightsholders could sue - like the publishers have now
| with regard to pandemic book-lending.
|
| It was only by demonstrating the immense value of such an
| archive, & repeatedly making the case for its legitimacy
| via such demonstration and reasoning in courts &
| legislatures & culture, that the right of such an archive
| to exist has now been firmly established. The fact that
| lawyers & courts themselves have found it so essential
| has been part of the success. And, now that it is a
| _familiar_ activity, it continues to gain reinforcement
| by being assumed-as-legitimate when new laws /policies
| are drafted, because those now avoid language that could
| be inadvertently interpreted to prohibit something
| obviously good & existing.
|
| Still, having an automated exclusion procedure (via
| 'robots.txt'), and generally respecting credible
| rightsholder takedown requests, is essential to capping
| the legal risks of such a large archive.
|
| And the Archive's approach on book-lending, including
| during the "Emergency Library" program, has been broadly
| similar. An urgent need & technological opportunity arose
| before laws & explicit "ask first" processes could
| accommodate the situation. Culture & precedent suggested
| extraordinary, but temporary, adaptation could plausibly
| be legal & would be net-beneficial for society. (Which is
| better: no access to library-loaned physical books while
| in 'lockdown', or tracked time-limited access to
| temporarily-created digital copies, smaller-in-number
| than the count locked in closed libraries? Does
| technological format-shifting in response to an
| emergency, with minimal impact on rightsholders'
| revenues, fit 'fair use'?)
|
| Still, the legal risks were capped by setting the program
| to be of limited duration, & having a policy of
| respecting any explicit book-exclusion requests from
| rightsholders.
|
| If you're really so afraid of rightsholder damages
| judgements, sure, the Archive isn't your best donation
| target. (I think the risks to the Internet Archive from
| the latest lawsuit are limited to having a bad precedent
| established, not bankruptcy.) But know that every
| historical website you can access is there because the
| Archive was willing to take some risks establishing new
| rights/precedents, & your preferred policy of fewer-
| exclusions would mean yet more legal risks. And lots of
| people donate to good causes specifically so that they
| can defend themselves, legally, or push new cases,
| legally, for broader benefits.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| Re-reading my older post I realize that I was unclear. I
| a bothered by the combination of lack of transparency,
| retroactive removal, and exclusion. I would not be
| bothered if they had a clear transparency policy. Such as
| a list of sites that were retroactively removed, sites
| that are excluded from future archival, and a warning
| that data has been removed (along with the reason) when
| you try to visit an excluded site via archive.org. Sadly
| for some reason this seems to not be a thing.
|
| > Still, having an automated exclusion procedure (via
| 'robots.txt')
|
| I am talking about retroactive removal, not exclusion.
| That being said I heard that they recently stopped doing
| that.
|
| > If the Archive were as meek about deferring to
| traditional-rightsholder supremacy as you want with
| regard to the "Emergency Library" of digital books
|
| Another organization could be created for this. By having
| IA do this it sets at risk the rest of the archive (as
| well as the donations given to it).
|
| > Which is better
|
| Not supporting DRM is.
| DanBC wrote:
| You're mentioning "parties" and "Accra" in a weird way.
| What's your problem with local Wikimedia groups holding
| events in Ghana?
|
| These are the events you're talking about. They hardly
| seem to be lavish events.
|
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_20/Events/OFWA
|
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_20/Events/Ghana
|
| These are people working to enhance the encyclopedia.
| Here's one example: https://twitter.com/NanaYawBotar/stat
| us/1356678087560343567?...
| h_anna_h wrote:
| I only mentioned Accra because it was the first mentioned
| in the post that I linked. Feel free to replace it with
| "Berlin" or "Chandigarh".
| cecja wrote:
| Thanks, I'll still donate to both.
| johnjj257 wrote:
| Those threads don't show anything interesting, some just
| bash the org for spending any of the money they receive in
| a way someone doesn't like from years and years ago. This
| is silly
| h_anna_h wrote:
| They show something interesting, that "Hosting wikipedia
| accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses",
| something that someone donating might not know.
|
| "years and years ago", this was in 2019
| dufufudd wrote:
| Can confirm, didn't know and glad I do. Won't be donating
| again in the future.
| f430 wrote:
| yeah same here, HN can downvote us all they want but they
| certainly will no longer be getting my money. I will
| redirect that funds to other non-profits where I know
| they will be frugal with my money.
| mrzimmerman wrote:
| I do think it's relevant to know how funding is spent,
| but I'm not sure why hosting being only 2% of expenses
| would have you advocate AGAINST donating to Wikipedia.
|
| The running one of the biggest technical and community
| concerns on the planet takes a lot more then serving
| content from a computer somewhere. Salaries, community
| management, improvements to the wiki software--these
| things cost money too and are no less important then
| responding to HTTP requests.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Community is arguably a bigger part of why Wikipedia
| works the way it does, vs hosting which is a commoditized
| concern and only thinks of the bare minimum to keep the
| lights on.
|
| But lighting up an empty building doesn't turn into
| Wikipedia.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| The community rarely benefits from the actions of the
| organization. In fact there is kind of a hostile
| relationship between them. Most people contributing to
| wikipedia have never been to one of the parties for
| example.
| A12-B wrote:
| Personally I donate to keep wikipedia independent so they
| don't get bought up by an entity. I don't care what agendas
| they have and there are no better alternatives (and never
| will be).
| f430 wrote:
| Thank you h_anna_h, I know you are getting downvoted but HN
| just isn't the same as it used to be. People get easily
| offended now and will downvote you if you dont agree with
| them. It's pathetic and sad.
|
| Thanks for bringing up that thread. I have a lot of
| reservations about giving money away to such "non-profit"
| organizations before but I get an idea of whats going on
| behind the scenes now.
|
| I certainly will no longer be donating to the EFF and Wiki
| organizations knowing non-profit organizations possibly
| funding parties and luxurious corporate life styles. I want
| the money I give them to stretch as much as possible. I'm
| not against parties either but when you spend millions
| citing conferences and travel (even some large for-profits
| dont spend this type of money) citing you are non-profit to
| mismanage my money then I simply won't stand for it.
|
| My trust in local non-profit organizations were already
| pretty shaky but I somehow trusted these large
| organizations because I thought they would be more frugal
| and we would have more transparency. I was _clearly_ wrong.
|
| You simply have no idea how the money is being spent and
| its very difficult to dictate how they should better
| allocate resources either.
|
| Apparently most people think that frugality would be the
| default in these organizations but once you give them a
| credit card, they won't think twice about over spending on
| stuff that has marginal benefits like luxury company cars,
| chartered planes, expensive dinners etc.
|
| I will still donate to causes I believe in but I am going
| to now ask for receipts and will enforce strict frugality.
| Parties should be limited to the office with a dozen
| Dominos pizzas and everybody should bring their own soft
| drinks & cups from now on.
| [deleted]
| galuggus wrote:
| Does anyone know of a similar resource for UK newspapers?
| okareaman wrote:
| Interesting question. I wonder if history will view the years
| prior to 2000 as mostly American since we have such a passion
| for digitizing everything and got on the internet early.
| VinLucero wrote:
| Link to the tool:
|
| https://archive.org/details/pub_editor-publisher
| ignoramous wrote:
| An interesting fact about archive.org and the Wayback Machine
| especially is Amazon's involvement in initially donating (and
| continuing to?) Alexa crawl data to it:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/01/18/the-int...
|
| Alexa APIs, incidentally, were one of the first AWS products
| along with ECS (e-commerce service) and SQS in 2004.
| balozi wrote:
| History isn't what it used to be. Recent events suggest that
| Internet Archive too will cease to be as soon as it's content
| becomes politically or ideologically unpalatable. Enjoy it while
| you have it, don't count on it being around forever (in any
| useful state anyway).
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think our odds actually just went up since we got rid of a
| President who was clearly aiming to be a dictator.
| vidarh wrote:
| In case you're similarly misled by this headline as I was, this
| is about making the archive specifically of "Editor & Publisher"
| available, not about some larger archive of the contents of
| American newspapers.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we'll switch to the subtitle above, which makes that
| clearer.
| Mindless2112 wrote:
| https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ -- "Search America's
| historic newspaper pages from 1777-1963"
| vidarh wrote:
| That's fantastic, though this too appears to have quite
| limited scope, going by the about page. Certainly a great
| resource though, and since I'm currently doing some genealogy
| research on two separate branches of my family that emigrated
| to the US I'll definitively use it.
| etrabroline wrote:
| Almost every major American periodical in the public domain is
| available here: https://www.unz.com/print/All/
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Almost every major American periodical in the public domain
| is available here_
|
| According to the site, it specifically avoids "major"
| periodicals:
|
| "A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial
| Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream
| Media."
| Kye wrote:
| etrabroline did say "in the public domain." I consider
| Isaac Asimov's inclusion major, for example. I've even
| heard of a lot of the periodicals he's listed in.
| guidoism wrote:
| I'm disappointed.
|
| Google actually scanned a huge number of newspaper microfilm
| and microfiche back in 2010-11:
| https://news.google.com/newspapers
|
| It's an amazing resource, but it's hidden away and researchers
| within Google have trouble accessing it even if they knew it
| existed. I spent months with lawyers to get access to the
| original files for research and at one point they told me they
| were going to delete it! Whaaaaa!?!
|
| It was something like 6 PB, which seriously, to Google isn't
| much, but the team that "owned" the data wasn't using it and to
| them it was just an expense. Ugh. People don't care about
| history.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Google doesn't want to make the web and the world searchable
| any longer like their original set values set, now they just
| want to put up just good enough service to get all your
| private information and then aim ads at you. Gone are those
| heady days of some streak of altruism in their mission as a
| corporation.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| Which is infuriating because people would happily pay even
| a fairly premium price I suspect for good access to that
| archive, but of course Google can't just sell a good
| product for a reasonable price, it has to be FREE******.
|
| (Each * here representing some unknown third party getting
| access to your email address, phone number, blood type and
| sexual preferences.)
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It is very frustrating.
|
| New York State funded an effort to scan, but not digitize
| historical newspapers, and while the microfilm is stored in
| the state archives, the online versions are hosted by an
| eccentric guy who digitizes the microfilm as a hobby. The guy
| puts everything online, but makes it difficult to work with
| in a variety of ways.
| xero_pointer wrote:
| This is amazing. I wonder how log it will take until it turns up
| as a cleaned text dataset.
|
| As a side note, I'm loving the 90s tabloid layouts.
| breck wrote:
| I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/New-York-
| Times-Page-One/dp/1578660882
|
| It's a century's worth of NYTimes front pages. An amazing long
| term dataset that is fun to flip through to answer infinite
| questions you might have about both how the last 100 years really
| went down and also about the evolution of presenting information
| to readers.
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| I have a giant coffee table version of this, and its awesome. I
| should find more like it. Talk about a conversation starter.
| breck wrote:
| Me too! I got it used for $17 iirc. One of my best purchases.
|
| If you do find more, please let me know.
|
| I was hoping scientific American or wsj etc would have them
| but couldn't find any.
| m463 wrote:
| You can also fetch: https://static01.nyt.com/im
| ages/<year>/<month>/<day>/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
|
| seems to go back about 10 years
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-07 23:00 UTC)