> > > As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> > > is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> > > when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
> > > gave fits that cir***stance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
> > > web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> > > distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> > > all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
> > > only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> > > specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
> >
> > What really concerns me is what would be the consequence of there
> > being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
> > of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
> > just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
> > different management.
>
> As someone who has had to manually recover many years worth of
> emails from a heavily trafficked mail list, because RootsWeb decided
> the list wasn't supposed to have archives if it was a private list,
> I can easily see that point. Anything can be turned into free
> electrons, but if there are multiple systems containing the same
> material, there's an improved chance at preserving the data in an
> accessible format.
>
> So, the answer is: there are a good many reasons why duplication on
> the web is a good thing. Those who don't like or appreciate that
> duplication are primarily having a problem with the way the web
> works. If it's a problem (I think it isn't) it's not one that is
> obviously remediable.
>
> "Q" <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Howevre, copies should NOT surplant the original when the original
is still available. That's the problem: wikis often do.
|
