This stuff makes me REALLY nervous. Its one thing to have a discussion about the here and now and debate what is true or not. There are plenty of very good fact checkers to help with this.
Wayback though is now going back and promoting a chosen context. History should be preserved for its integrity. If someone said something false let it stand on its own feet. Let individuals look at the content and context and decide on their own if it is true.
They say that victors write history, but that shouldn't be the goal.
> Let individuals look at the content and context and decide on their own if it is true
That is literally what they are doing. They are literally linking to context and other articles.
People can make up their own minds about Wayback Machine's content. They added even more information to help make up your mind on content that expresses a contentious opinion. That super helpful since I want to see as many sides as possible! Why would you want to censor that context unless you want to manipulate people into believe blatantly false misinformation?
Adding context and giving suggestions for additional material is something librarians and museum curators have done probably since the dawn of the profession, and it’s all I can see happening here. I’m really struggling with your take that this is somehow a new or bad development.
Have you ever been to a library and asked for help finding something and received a suggestion that if you are looking to read X, you might also want to read Y? Have you ever been to a museum and seen a placard next to an object describing its historical significance? How is this somehow different? Because it’s “on the internet”?
IA is not compelling anyone to click on the link to PolitiFact, or the link to the report on foreign interference, or the link to the Medium content policy. They aren’t deleting or rewriting the content of the page. They’re attaching a link.
Do you think that a book or a documentary destroys the “integrity” of the original material by adding a non-destructive narration or voice over that offers extra context?
How could someone can even do what you want, to “look at the content and context”, if IA doesn’t provide any context?
The lesson of the past ten years should be that most people are incapable of looking at the content and context and deciding on their own if it is true, and additionally are being subjected to a constant barrage of paid-for (whether by advertisers, corporate interests, or state actors) psychologically manipulative content.
I'm unsure about this and I don't know the answer -- but it's definitely not Present All Things As If They Were Equally Valid.
It seems that the leadership of archive.org is completely broken. First was the stupid stunt of saying they were a library and lending out unlimited digital copies, when it was pretty obvious that doing that would lead to huge copyright issues. Now it is this, moving them from being just an archiver of information to a commenter on information as well as an archiver and jumping headfirst into the culture wars.
I don’t want archive.org to be an exciting organization. I want it to be a boring organization that just archives as much of the internet as they can plausibly can.
It seems that current leadership is not content with being that.
In between now and that end point, it is neither one beast nor another. It is a partially flag corpus in which some articles are meta labelled for fact checking and some aren't.
Who gets to choose which articles are scrutinised and which aren't?
[+] [-] dgrin91|5 years ago|reply
Wayback though is now going back and promoting a chosen context. History should be preserved for its integrity. If someone said something false let it stand on its own feet. Let individuals look at the content and context and decide on their own if it is true.
They say that victors write history, but that shouldn't be the goal.
[+] [-] taxicab|5 years ago|reply
That is literally what they are doing. They are literally linking to context and other articles.
People can make up their own minds about Wayback Machine's content. They added even more information to help make up your mind on content that expresses a contentious opinion. That super helpful since I want to see as many sides as possible! Why would you want to censor that context unless you want to manipulate people into believe blatantly false misinformation?
[+] [-] csnover|5 years ago|reply
Have you ever been to a library and asked for help finding something and received a suggestion that if you are looking to read X, you might also want to read Y? Have you ever been to a museum and seen a placard next to an object describing its historical significance? How is this somehow different? Because it’s “on the internet”?
IA is not compelling anyone to click on the link to PolitiFact, or the link to the report on foreign interference, or the link to the Medium content policy. They aren’t deleting or rewriting the content of the page. They’re attaching a link.
Do you think that a book or a documentary destroys the “integrity” of the original material by adding a non-destructive narration or voice over that offers extra context?
How could someone can even do what you want, to “look at the content and context”, if IA doesn’t provide any context?
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zorpner|5 years ago|reply
I'm unsure about this and I don't know the answer -- but it's definitely not Present All Things As If They Were Equally Valid.
[+] [-] guidovranken|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vorpalhex|5 years ago|reply
https://archivebox.io/
[+] [-] drummer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|5 years ago|reply
I don’t want archive.org to be an exciting organization. I want it to be a boring organization that just archives as much of the internet as they can plausibly can.
It seems that current leadership is not content with being that.
[+] [-] drummer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ffpip|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wombatmobile|5 years ago|reply
Who gets to choose which articles are scrutinised and which aren't?
[+] [-] Von_Lipwig|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Duwensatzaj|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glerk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] octoberfranklin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thysultan|5 years ago|reply