Flood göndermek, insanların floodlarını okumak ve diğer insanlarla bağlantı kurmak için sosyal Floodlar ve Flood Yanıtları Motorumuza kaydolun.

Oturum aç

Flood göndermek, insanların floodlarını okumak ve diğer insanlarla bağlantı kurmak için sosyal Floodlar ve Flood Yanıtları Motorumuza giriş yapın.

Şifremi hatırlamıyorum

Şifreni mi unuttun? Lütfen e-mail adresinizi giriniz. Bir bağlantı alacaksınız ve e-posta yoluyla yeni bir şifre oluşturacaksınız.

3 ve kadim dostu 1 olan sj'yi rakamla giriniz. ( 31 )

Üzgünüz, Flood yazma yetkiniz yok, Flood girmek için giriş yapmalısınız.

Lütfen bu Floodun neden bildirilmesi gerektiğini düşündüğünüzü kısaca açıklayın.

Lütfen bu cevabın neden bildirilmesi gerektiğini kısaca açıklayın.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

The Internet Archive starts adding banners on some Wayback Machine pages with contextual info from fact-checking orgs

The Internet Archive starts adding banners on some Wayback Machine pages with contextual info from fact-checking orgs

Benzer Yazılar

Yorum eklemek için giriş yapmalısınız.

25 Yorumları

  1. “Those who control the past control the future”. — George Orwell’

  2. I’m disappointed by this move. But realistically, if yellow banners are the height of their “fact-checking” antics, I think it’s *okay*. It’s more concerning if/when fact-checked content starts to disappear.

  3. And who is checking the fact checkers?

    Their track record is not exactly stellar.

  4. If fact checking is enough to be considered a “political agenda” then maybe you should examine why your views seem so fragile.

    I defy any of you to tell me what’s wrong with this. If you’re a respactable researcher you should fact check these sources yourself anyway. This change will just make that slightly more convenient.

  5. The word “fact check” has been so perverted by politics and media bias it’s hard to see anything good about this.

  6. I see the crackdown on wrongspeak is continuing as planned.

  7. Good. They’re not directly editing the page, but it is important to provide context that what a user is seeing may misrepresent the truth.

  8. I’m fine with this – but *not* that the Internet Archive is doing it.

    I would much prefer that the IA’s partners in this project host their own ‘annotated IA’ elsewhere. They could even reasonably support the IA financially for use of their API.

    In fact, I would very much *love* to see a proliferation of ‘annotated IA’ sites.

    What I don’t want is for the IA to editorialize itself.

    Yes, museums editorialize in the form of the supplementary info, e.g. museum labels, they provide in their exhibits and displays. But – in my experience anyways – libraries do *not* do this. When I search a library’s catalog or read or browse their collections, I’m *not* subjected to some kind of ‘context’ about those books (items).

    In my opinion, a ‘library’ or ‘archive’ – as opposed to a ‘museum’ (or ‘art gallery’ or ‘political demonstration’) – is particularly useful (important) because the info it provides is (mostly or significantly more) *raw*. In a very real sense, *the entire library* (or even *every* library or archive in the world) is context for anything and everything else in particular.

    There’s no ‘right’ amount of context for anything – in general. If the IA insists on these banners, they should put the same static banner on every page. If they insist on hosting details of particular contextual info, they should add a ‘context’ page for every item (e.g. page version) and link to it in the generic banner.

  9. Oh I get it, they’ve created a ministry of truth for the way back machine. Great.

  10. Very disappointing. They’re no longer objective or neutral. Doesn’t matter how much you agree with each individual piece of context, this is a huge departure from the Internet Archive’s cherished identity and purpose.

  11. I don’t know how can anyone convice the younger generations in tech, that there was a time when Internet was a bliss of freedom and fun. Now everything seems serious, political and curated. They were born with Internet. they don’t know otherwise. I remember when Life was mostly real interactions and a little bit of Internet, so you could learn to have your own critical view , and no need of someone to tell you what’s right or wrong. Humans wil lose that ability and will have spoonfed truths in their particular bubbles.

  12. Damn, sure are a lot of babies in this subreddit today.

    Edit: lmao some of the people here literally post in conspiracy subreddits.

  13. Here we go… Let me guess, only a select few preferred “fact checkers” will be “fact checking” Internet Archive Wayback Machine archived webpages. Only a hidden few in Internet Archive will be determining what is factual and what isn’t. How is this not editorializing? How is this not subverting the entire pure archival intent of the Wayback Machine? How long until certain pages or websites pose such a “risk” to the preferred “truth” or “facts” that they need to be removed entirely? You know, for the good of the people, who will have been assumed to be too stupid, ignorant, or wrong-thinking to determine things for themselves. What a trash gatekeeping move.

  14. Context matters. All historians know without [Context](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-historical-context-1857069) events and stories do not carry their full weight and meaning

  15. Just what the internet needs, to be more politicized, filled with “fact checking” which is clearly infallible and could never be corrupted. /s Can we just leave the fact checking to people? Teach critical thinking, let people reach their own conclusions.

    Edit: Looks like there’s a lot of people out here who love fact checkers. What about when these fact checkers themselves spread disinformation? Trying to objectively call anything a source of facts and truth is a horrific idea. But you’ll find that out in time anyways.

  16. Uggh, don’t you hate it if you go into a museum and there is a little card with optional context next to something?

  17. Simple uBlock filter:


  18. Does anyone know a good way to download all archive.org files from a particular domain name?

  19. Don’t worry. Surely politifact will have no political bias in their politifacts.

  20. “Sorry sweaty, this article claimed 68% were criminals, our fact checkers can show it was actually 67.78%. FACT CHECK: FALSE”

    phew, thanks politifact i was worried for a second there

  21. And the Internet archive has gone political. We don’t care what you fucking think about a particular archived article. Using a biased supposed fact checker destroys your credibility. My god why do these people ruin everything.

  22. Fuck that. Doesn’t even look like you can hide the annoying yellow banner.