Difference between revisions of "Creating a toolkit/process for collaborative, grassroots archiving of significant, small BC websites using DIY tools"

Revision as of 22:56, 28 November 2013

The pitch - "Creating a toolkit/process for collaborative, grassroots self-archiving of significant, small BC websites using DIY tools"

The problem - Small site approaches us; we have developed a collection of resources of signifigance to people doing aboriginal law in BC. Our lead person is retiring. We will not be running the service any longer, have no more budget, but we would like the files on our small website to remain available?

Possible Solutions

• leave the site where it is. Pros - urls work, already indexed and known. Cons - cost to maintain server & domain name.
• rely on the internet archive. Pros - no cost Cons - the default wayback machine provides inconsistent coverage and may not have archived the whole site. Not found at original URL.

So....

Is there a case for self-service archiving of small but significant websites in BC?

archive team central tracker of requests, distributed harvesting

Watershed questions is the internal structure important yes - harvesting no - publishing / zipping contents

wget with warc

WAIL Web Archiving Integration Layer - creation tool is a chrome plugin

archiveit

index warc files andy jackson, british library has mandate to archive the web

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/personalarchiving/

lockss box - distributed file storage sfu working on locksamatic can be web proxy

http://www.mementoweb.org/tools/

http://www.lockss.org/

http://anthologize.org/

Links & Resources

   http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=The_WARC_Ecosystem
   http://netpreserve.org/web-archiving/tools-and-software
   https://archive-it.org/