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

> references section with links to about 100 websites.

Books deserve a github repo with PDF web archives of referenced links, the same way that Wikipedia mirrors the content of cited links.




But wouldn't that be a big waste if everyone who references the same thing is then keeping a copy of it.


> big waste

Storage cost has fallen exponentially for decades, https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-price-of-comput...


Redundancy isn't really a waste.


Better many copies than none. References usually mean written text and maybe some figures, cost of storage is going down, we can afford the duplication.


> everyone who references the same thing is then keeping a copy of it.

... and it would serve as a form of redundancy, imitating the fungible nature of physical media: In order to cite the latest, copied, manuscript (for example) you needed to own a physical copy. They existence of these has enabled survival of works that would otherwise have been lost, or even reconstruction through ecdotics.-


One person’s waste is another person’s resilience.


There are all kinds of publisher and legal issues. Trust me, I did my best.


Could Wikipedia or Archive.org offer references-as-a-service to book publishers for a small fee? They already have the infrastructure and legal cover.


certainly not GitHub


What would you recommend instead?


Copyright permitting, big QR code containing the plain text.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: