> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Nomad ofNorad -- David C Hall
> > I know archive.org won't be carrying on my sites. I had to
> > threaten them with a copyright lawsuit to get them to takemy
> > domain down. The point was that I don't want obsolete
> > information being posted.
> You know, it's interesting. I watched a documentary series inthe early
> to mid 90s about Charlie Chaplin, talking about his ownhistory and the
> history of his films, how he want about making them, and soon.
> At one point, they mentioned that they'd found this privatecollection
> of all these films of his, ...
> This was something he'd wanted to keep hidden away from hisaudience,
> his film fans, because he didn't want anyone to know *how*he'd gone
> about crafting his films... but the unused footage had allbeen
> preserved nonetheless.
> Now, I'm sure Charlie Chaplin didn't want people having "theoutdated
> versions of" his films (the older, unused footage), and had infact said
> as much. A bit like a magician not wanting anyone to actuallyknow how
> his illusions really work. And yet he'd kept all this footagein his
> personal collection, and decades after his death, filmhistorians and
> the like discovered this cache of films and found it allabsolutely
> invaluable in understanding not only the craft of his makingthe movies,
> but also what kind of person he was in making them. And itwould have
> been a *ginormous* loss to the history and understanding offilm had he
> in fact burned all those reels of raw footage. It would havecheated
> the world, and future historians, out of something preciousand
> irreplacable, because no one would ever have known HOW he madethese
> films, HOW his creative process actually worked, and
> civilization would have been at a loss for that.
Let's say he just made films for his own hobby and kept them to
himself for his whole life with no intention of anyone ever
seeing them. It's only because of his fame that anyone takes
any interest at all, and whether his works are of any value is
really subjective. Nothing against Charlie Chaplin, but things
like this are really only of interest to a small select group.
> You stated that you demanded that archive.org's WaybackMachine delete
> all copies of your website, "[because] I don't want obsoleteinformation
> being posted." You misunderstand the fundamental purposebehind the
> Wayback Machine. ...
No, I understand it's purpose. Once in a blue moon it does
serve a purpose to look up a site or article that no longer
exists elsewhere. I'm not hiding anything, just trying to
control the quality of the information that is out there.
> Okay, so someone sees what your language page looked like in,say, 1999
> (assuming it went back that far). Anyone that's interested instudying
> your language *for* *its* *own* *sake*, by definition, isgoing to want
> to look at the most recent *copy* of it. If one day, you die,and stop
> updating the site, and then the site goes byebye because ofcourse you
> stopped paying for the domain to be kept up... thelast-updated-copy of
> your site would still appear in Wayback for them to look at,and to
> follow archived links from other sites to. Only those thatwanted to
> study the *evolution* of your language, study the *creative**process*
> you actually went through in creating it (separate anddistinct from the
> *implied* history of the development of the language as it issaid to
> have existed within the conworld you've created) -- directlyanalogous
> to those film historians studying the proverbial "lostfootage" of
> Charlie Chaplin's dailies -- would still find it an invaluablething for
> those interested in the craft of creating conlangs and thelike, or of
> understanding how *your* creative processes worked, assumingyou ever
> became as important to literary history as Chaplin did tomotion picture
> history, or even if you didn't but had had *some* impact onit, if ever
> so slight....
If I feel the evolution of my languages is of any importance,
I'll publish those specifics myself. In fact the evolution of
Sasxsek is fairly well documented by checking the Yahoo group
where I post announcements of any changes, and sometimes solicit
reactions to ideas that I have before making changes.
> I think the likelihood of "outdated copies of" your sitecontinuing to
> exist at Wayback has a snowball's chance in the Sahara ofactually
> causing harm to the language, simply because *by**definition*, Wayback
> is designed to keep everything *up* *to* *and* *including* thelast
> updated copy of the page, and anyone that finds a link to yourpage on
> an existing site, but finds the site has now gone, is morethan likely
> only going to WANT to look whatever the last (most recent)complete
> version was, and will therefore select whatever the last datewas, and
> only work his way backwards if the last (most recent)preserved copy of
> the page turns out to be a cybersquatter page or a "We'vemoved" page or
> something, at which point he'll work his way backwards toFIND the
> last, actually complete copy of the page.
Yes, the outdated copies do create a problem which is why I
asked to have them removed. They were showing up in search
engine results. When I remove information from my site, it's
because it's no longer something that I want in distribution,
generally because it's been superceded by something else.
> The only thing you'd want to be concerned about was if someone*else*
> MANUALLY made a public, mirror copy of your site at somepoint and THEN
> stopped *updating* *it*. Wayback, by definition, ISN'T goingto do
> that, because they're *automated* and *by* *definition* willcontinue
> making updated mirrors of your site until *they* *cease* *to**exist*
> (which means, by definition, your page goes byebye along with
> *everything* that Wayback has preserved) or until doomsdayarrives,
> whichever comes first.
Wayback only takes periodic snapshots anyway, so if there is an
evolution to follow it will probably have gaps bigger than
> In short, I think you've got blinders on, and really should
> rethink your stance on this.
I'm not looking for immortality so what happens after my demise
has no relevance to me. If my works are so important then
people should be thankful that I've gone to the time and trouble
of publishing anything at all. If it's not important, then
nobody will care, nor will they likely notice it.
I've since switched to publishing most of my stuff in PDF format
anyway. People can still download the PDF's and pass them
around long afterward if there really is any interest. I figure
if it's that important to someone, they will save it to their
hard drive. That's what I do when I encounter material on the
web that I find valuable, and the main reason is that I don't
know if it will be there tomorrow. The other reason is that I
can file it somewhere where it fits into the organizational
schema I have for saving my files.