Talk:Arabtino

RFV discussion: November 2020–January 2021
Mentioned but rarely used. Not in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 06:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, between Vox Sciurorum and myself we now appear to have three durable uses:
 * All preserved at the Internet Archive, with the thesis also published on a University of Michigan server via DOI. Is this enough? --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it meets our durability rules, since we haven't blessed archive.org as durable, but I'm convinced it is a "real" word, if rare. I noted "unpublished Ph.D. thesis" in the use I added to make it clear that it was not as well archived as a regular book.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this, but it seems odd to me that Usenet messages, which did not even reside on a central server originally and, according to the manpage for the Linux  utility are “notoriously easy to forge” are considered “durably archived” because some are archived by Google, a company that will unceremoniously shut down services millions of people use (Google Reader, etc.)  I'm seeing in old conversations linked to from the CFI talk page that some people appeared to have the misunderstanding that when a robots.txt file on a domain adds instructions like ""...the Wayback Machine archives are actually deleted, but I don't believe this has ever been the case: this is treated as a request to not publish the archives (presumably, to wait until the material falls into the public domain.) See for example this U.S. legal case, in which a judge ordered that a web site owner temporarily remove the robots.txt instructions, whereupon the archives were published again and the defendant in the case retrieved the archived pages that were needed.  Before 2017, the robots.txt instructions were also treated as a request for   to discontinue crawling the web site and saving the archives in the first place; but since 2017 crawls the site anyways.  Another objection I'm seeing in discussions is that the Internet Archive might disappear at any moment; but note that not only is it pretty much an international institution at this point with all sorts of academic and government affiliations (and is evidently making a new foray into specialized archiving of open access academic journals), since 2006 it has offered the commercial Archive-It service patronized by hundreds of large companies and institutions.  So as a non-profit, it doesn't just rely on donations and grants, but on self-managed revenue streams derived from its work and expertise.  So,, Wiktionary ought to regard web page archives and other media maintained by the Internet Archive as at least as durably archived as Usenet messages on Google Groups, if not more so. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have it backward. Usenet is durably archived for our purposes precisely because it doesn't reside on a central server. Google provides access to it, but they don't host it or control it- nobody does. It's so decentralized that it's simply impossible to completely get rid of anything on it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not my recollection... in days of yore when I used a variety of newsreaders and connected to various news servers, I remember constantly having the problem that I would read one message which quoted another message, but could not for the life of me find the original message the quote was from in full. You're telling me that if I dug up some of these messages from decades ago I'd saved off to text files, you would unquestionably be able to find in full any message I could find a fragment of? Even the ones from the servers of my tiny home-market ISP in my little New England state back in the nineteen-hundreds?  I mean, what you're saying would seem to mean that Usenet basically solved the problems with multi-master replication of databases, for free, years before any commercial vendor did. Which any company I worked for back then would've been quite interested to know about, so I'd think I'd have heard about it.  And if this were true, wouldn't someone be using Usenet as a backup solution? It's long since the point when anything and everything that's stored can be easily serialized to text. So, if it were really “impossible to completely get rid of anything on it”, I'd think you'd have people taking any records or backups they need to be certain to save and just dumping them onto Usenet. I never got into the file-sharing aspects that I guess developed later on but is it true that a pirated album, for example, just gets added once and then it's there forever, in the messages with the original dates and times where it was added?  This also doesn't address Google's willingness to shut down projects. If, as you are saying, Google's just providing a front end and the content is hosted (presumably on news servers?) elsewhere, I'd expect there to be mirrors hosted by other organizations providing access to the same content.  But Usenet mentions a DejaNews “database” of archived content and Google (edit: which bought the DejaNews archive at the end of the last century) “archiving Usenet posts”, rather than saying anything about them providing a front-end to live news servers. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this, but it seems odd to me that Usenet messages, which did not even reside on a central server originally and, according to the manpage for the Linux  utility are “notoriously easy to forge” are considered “durably archived” because some are archived by Google, a company that will unceremoniously shut down services millions of people use (Google Reader, etc.)  I'm seeing in old conversations linked to from the CFI talk page that some people appeared to have the misunderstanding that when a robots.txt file on a domain adds instructions like ""...the Wayback Machine archives are actually deleted, but I don't believe this has ever been the case: this is treated as a request to not publish the archives (presumably, to wait until the material falls into the public domain.) See for example this U.S. legal case, in which a judge ordered that a web site owner temporarily remove the robots.txt instructions, whereupon the archives were published again and the defendant in the case retrieved the archived pages that were needed.  Before 2017, the robots.txt instructions were also treated as a request for   to discontinue crawling the web site and saving the archives in the first place; but since 2017 crawls the site anyways.  Another objection I'm seeing in discussions is that the Internet Archive might disappear at any moment; but note that not only is it pretty much an international institution at this point with all sorts of academic and government affiliations (and is evidently making a new foray into specialized archiving of open access academic journals), since 2006 it has offered the commercial Archive-It service patronized by hundreds of large companies and institutions.  So as a non-profit, it doesn't just rely on donations and grants, but on self-managed revenue streams derived from its work and expertise.  So,, Wiktionary ought to regard web page archives and other media maintained by the Internet Archive as at least as durably archived as Usenet messages on Google Groups, if not more so. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have it backward. Usenet is durably archived for our purposes precisely because it doesn't reside on a central server. Google provides access to it, but they don't host it or control it- nobody does. It's so decentralized that it's simply impossible to completely get rid of anything on it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not my recollection... in days of yore when I used a variety of newsreaders and connected to various news servers, I remember constantly having the problem that I would read one message which quoted another message, but could not for the life of me find the original message the quote was from in full. You're telling me that if I dug up some of these messages from decades ago I'd saved off to text files, you would unquestionably be able to find in full any message I could find a fragment of? Even the ones from the servers of my tiny home-market ISP in my little New England state back in the nineteen-hundreds?  I mean, what you're saying would seem to mean that Usenet basically solved the problems with multi-master replication of databases, for free, years before any commercial vendor did. Which any company I worked for back then would've been quite interested to know about, so I'd think I'd have heard about it.  And if this were true, wouldn't someone be using Usenet as a backup solution? It's long since the point when anything and everything that's stored can be easily serialized to text. So, if it were really “impossible to completely get rid of anything on it”, I'd think you'd have people taking any records or backups they need to be certain to save and just dumping them onto Usenet. I never got into the file-sharing aspects that I guess developed later on but is it true that a pirated album, for example, just gets added once and then it's there forever, in the messages with the original dates and times where it was added?  This also doesn't address Google's willingness to shut down projects. If, as you are saying, Google's just providing a front end and the content is hosted (presumably on news servers?) elsewhere, I'd expect there to be mirrors hosted by other organizations providing access to the same content.  But Usenet mentions a DejaNews “database” of archived content and Google (edit: which bought the DejaNews archive at the end of the last century) “archiving Usenet posts”, rather than saying anything about them providing a front-end to live news servers. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)