To preserve their work journalists take archiving into their own hands

Re:To preserve their work journalists take archiving into th... by SirMaster on Sunday August 04, 2024 @12:06PM (#41154401)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To preserve their work journalists take archiving into th... by progbits on Sunday August 04, 2024 @12:14PM (#41154450)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To preserve their work journalists take archiving into th... by throwup238 on Sunday August 04, 2024 @12:28PM (#41154554)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To preserve their work journalists take archiving into th... by walterbell on Sunday August 04, 2024 @12:45PM (#41154703)

> big waste

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To preserve their work journalists take archiving into th... by Bluestein on Sunday August 04, 2024 @05:29PM (#41156469)

> 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.-

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To preserve their work journalists take archiving into th... by JohnFen on Monday August 05, 2024 @12:50PM (#41163028)

Redundancy isn't really a waste.

[ Parent | on HN ]