Comment by DANmode
8 days ago
I simply don’t see JSTOR outlasting (as an organization, or a technology/archive) individual contributors and torrent trackers.
Solution which does not require millions of people =]
8 days ago
I simply don’t see JSTOR outlasting (as an organization, or a technology/archive) individual contributors and torrent trackers.
Solution which does not require millions of people =]
At present I don’t see individual contributors making any significant contribution towards scanning old academic journals. Why would this change in the future? There was at least a decade where the technology to enable this existed, and where most older issues of most journals were not available online, and yet the army of volunteer scanners failed to materialize. Now that there is already a non-profit doing this archival work at very high quality and with economies of scale, it seems even less likely that such a volunteer effort will materialize. But if you want to prove me wrong, get off HN and go scan some old journal articles!
Probably just going to keep reading the news ones,
and if I want to synthesize information from old ones, I’ll query a robot.
This is still research we’re talking about, right? Not a first-edition of famous literature?
'Research' includes subjects such as history, where old documents are important for obvious reasons. Besides such cases, I gave a concrete example above of a paper from the 90s that's available online because JSTOR scanned it. Hardly ancient history.
>I’ll query a robot.
Which has read all the old papers that JSTOR has scanned. That's why it's able to synthesise them for you!
2 replies →