Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:25:57 -0600
From: John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com>
Subject: Re: S100 archive?
At 03:06 PM 3/17/2008, M H Stein wrote:
>It's comments like yours that make some people
ask why the hell they
>bother; I hope you don't have to grit your teeth one day and retrieve some
>elusive boot disk or manual from his site...
I didn't criticize it, and neither did Kelly as far
as I saw.
I wanted to point it out to the group and determine whether it
was indeed a new trove or not. The site itself doesn't tell me
whether it's copied from elsewhere or not. That would make it
more useful and descriptive, wouldn't it?
My mistake then; "Seems like a case of 'My archive is bigger than your
archive.'
and "I see stuff in here from a lot of different archives and personal web
sites."
struck me as critical and dismissive. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I'd have thought something like, "Hey folks, I just ran across a site, etc. with
lots of stuff, although some of it looks like unattributed copies from other sites;
anybody know anything about it?" would express what you say above a little
better. FWIW, it's been around for a few years and if this were the kind of
bragging that "mine's bigger than yours" implies, I'd have thought
it'd be better
known by now.
I couldn't care less whether he puts my name on the stuff I've scanned or copied
and sent to him as long as it's out there and easy to find (and I'm a little
PO'd
about stuff I've sent to folks who promised to make it publicly available but never
did AFAIK), and I don't see the need to put up yet another Web site of my own and
fragment the resource even more. It might be different if I had a site and he copied
it without my knowledge, but that'd be between him and me.
If having their name mentioned is important to someone, let him or her send him an
email. I don't see how attribution makes it any more useful or descriptive though;
does it matter to you whether he scanned something or I did? The only attribution
that matters to me is the "real" attribution, i.e. the name of the original
company or
publisher.
Since some of the sites he copied from probably copied it from another site
themselves, tracking down who actually "did the work" could be a lot of fun and
extra work.
The "World's Largest Ball of Saved Twine
Bits" approach doesn't tell me much.
If you take something from elsewhere, why not attribute? If you made
something yourself, why not tell me it's unique?
- John
Guess I just don't get why it's so important to *you* where it came from as long
as
you can find it, unless it's material that you copied or scanned yourself.
If pigs ever fly and someone actually wanted to thank the person who did the work
after downloading something, they'd probably often have to sift through the various
sites with identical copies anyway.
Having said all that, although it'd be much extra work for thousands of files
attribution
would indeed be a courtesy and is the custom in this community; if it keeps you
awake at night why not send Marcus an email instead of kvetching about it here,
behind his back as it were.
And thanks for the reminder; playing Al Y's "Biggest Ball of Twine in
Minnesota"
on my iTunes as I write...
m