Difference between revisions of "Creating a toolkit/process for collaborative, grassroots archiving of significant, small BC websites using DIY tools"
|Line 49:||Line 49:|
Revision as of 22:57, 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?
- 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.
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
index warc files andy jackson, british library has mandate to archive the web
lockss box - distributed file storage sfu working on locksamatic can be web proxy
Links & Resources