• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes. And wikis, too.
      We (people in general) have a tendency to share stuff in forums, like Lemmy. That’s fine in the short term, but in the long term this stuff should be sorted, organised, and preferably mirrored. Wikis are perfect for that, while the internet archive is more like “bulk” storage.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        This is why Discord is poison to our shared pool of knowledge, it’s such a black hole for many games and software (especially ironically enough open source projects) in lieu of decent docs.

        • Agrivar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Ugh!

          The worst part is, after wasting a bunch of time tracking down the correct Discord server to ask a question about a piece of software, you generally get lambasted by the “regulars” of that server to “just use the search feature, that’s what it’s for!”

          Yeah, no. I don’t want to wade through a reverse chronology of a bunch of conflicting back-and-forth conversations - just gimme a FAQ or some actual documentation!!!

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Thanks for giving me another bone to pick against Discord ¬¬
          Seriously. Fuck Discord.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Wikis are not really a defense against this issue, they are by nature a secondary or (occasionally by policy) a tertiary source of information. Once the source they are recording dies so does the value of that page on the wiki. From the OP:

        54% of Wikipedia pages contain at least one link in their “References” section that points to a page that no longer exists.

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          There’s nothing intrinsically non-primary in the format. At the end of the day they’re collaborative writing projects, split into pages with internal and external links; it’s just that the biggest one out there happens to be tertiary.

          And I believe that they could help a lot with this issue if people migrated/copied meaningful info from forums (like Lemmy) to wikis. Forums are good for discussion, but they tend to accumulate a lot of trash; having the good content sieved and sorted in a wiki makes it more accessible for everyone.

  • anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    This content has been moving from free accessible internet into the walled gardens of social media. we did it ourselves. blogs and forums disappeared, copycat farms and SEO made it so maintaining blog or a community forum a waste of time, everyone is just tiktoking and looking to monetise every bit of content they put on the internet.

  • Jode@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    The biggest crime against shared knowledge ever committed is photobucket fucking off with the pictures in every “how to fix this car problem” forum post.

  • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The internet is dying. Everyone knows it. Capitalists ruined it and now AI is propping up a decaying corpse.

  • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    In most cases, this is because an individual page was deleted or removed on an otherwise functional website.

    How is this news? I bet a lot of pages were also added in the same time frame, very likely orders of magnitude more.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ve heard the early Internet age referred to as the future dark ages. When all the work, information and content is digitized, it’s prone to being lost to history forever.

    • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because those pages had information that wasn’t on the new pages?

      Just from my own experience, WotC migrated the Magic the Gathering site to a new one, and while some articles were brought over there were a whole lot of stories, strategies and event coverage that were lost or are only available thanks to Archive.org

      • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes. The whole post is a trick with statistics. Web pages have a limited lifespan. You can do the aame trick with human life spans.

        “50 % of humans that lived 60 years ago are now dead”. You would tweak the numbers to be factual but something like that makes sense to me.

        If you only keep the samples you started out with, of course it’s going to decline over time. The data is guaranteed to not grow since nothing is ever added.

  • mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I believe it’s often because nobody does their own website anymore but instead uses managed services, e.g. Medium. Or bits of information, that would’ve been worth a blog post some while ago, end up on sites like StackOverflow, Reddit, etc… And once these services want to monetise these contents, they usually start with limiting public access.

    And OTOH TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts are doing everything they can to further limit people’s attention spans and get them addicted to those services. So the people capable of and/or interested in producing proper “content” are dwindling, too.

  • schmorp@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yeah, just like most material that was ever printed or carved into a clay tablet. It’s the way of things.

    • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The difference is that most of that content lasted for at least a few decades, if not centuries before being lost to time. As content on the internet is ‘destroyed’ if no one hosts it any more, a lot of valuable content is being lost in just a few years after being created. Archiving needs to be more widespread and better supported if the resources and culture of the internet as it has evolved over time are to be preserved for posterity.

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It is more important to archive things you like if you got the space. Even if you don’t plan on using it for a long time.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’ve often wondered what the implications of the internet will be for future historians. On the one hand, there is now an enormous body of writings from not just the educated elite as in the past but from all sorts of ordinary people, which is something that has never really existed before.

    On the other hand, how and for how long will these writings be retained? If we stop writing things on paper, will these digital writings become completely inaccessible at some point? Could we have a situation where there are almost no writings from a certain period down the road? That would be unfortunate.