Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The saddest part of the story:

"At the time Stokes began recording, television stations had been deleting archives for decades"

For-profit corporations can not be trusted to archive history.




I don't think there was an ulterior motive at the time.

Archiving used to be hoarding. It was phenominally expensive and in the end, nobody would make use the stuff.

But now we're entering the era of cheap inexhaustible storage, so the economics have changed.

And ironically, now corporations DO delete data due to pressure from lawyers (except for consumer data, which is valuable)


Government bureaucracy isn't noticably better. Everyone was writing over their tape archives back then, including the BBC (see: Doctor Who lost episodes) and, uh, NASA (the moon landings).


Governments might not be perfect, but they have a far, far better track record than for-profit corporations. The Library of Congress is one prominent example of archiving excellence. Many other public libraries and archives offer other examples.


I used to work on the Digital Archives at the Library of Congress.

It's not that they're exceptionally better at it. In fact, the Library has warehouses of materials that they still haven't cataloged, let alone organized or (better) digitized. Their primary focus has been the "sexy" projects like spool recordings, wax cylinders, etc that make for cool stories and mitigate decay (aka destruction) over modern material.

The big problem is that of collection. While in theory, anything that is a registered copyright in the US should be on file, most people don't take the time to register, let alone send off a copy.

The Library & National Archives aren't "better" at it.. it's that it's their primary purpose so the fact that they do it puts it above most other groups.


What I find telling of the US National Archives is that the unit of measurment for the collections (particularly the uncatalogued backlog) is millions of cubic feet.

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2008/summer/b...


Sure- if you choose to fund an archive! It's when you don't that you get things like the BBC taping over old episodes to save money. Without an actual dedicated archive (and $$$ to fund it) both corporations and governments will let stuff fall into the memory hole.

Some companies do choose to keep archives:

https://americanarchivist.org/doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.45.3.l25...


Even if you get funding for new media (why the BBC recording over things), someone has to be believe that material is important because reusing media is still cheaper and they'll use that budget elsewhere.

* Former Library of Congress contractor here


Another great example is that huge warehouse where they stored the Ark of the Covenant at the end of Indiana Jones.


Honestly, pirates tend to have the best archival and preservation results.


> For-profit corporations can not be trusted to archive history.

NASA lost a lot of their material on the Apollo missions.


Sure, cost had a lot to do with it. For profit it not, archiving footage back then was expensive. And even those that did Dave forage ran the risk of having it burn up or simply degrade. There are lota of cases were someone tried to save records, only to have them rot, get eaten, get lost, etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: