On 19/05/2020 20:12, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:14:18PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
On 29/04/2020 13:43, Kake wrote:
On Wed 29 Apr 2020, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
Neither cambridge, london or oxford are being actively used or maintained by anyone, as far as I know, for many years, so it's probably time I (not-so?)-gracefully turn them all off.
I have a feeling I’ve made this plea here before, but speaking as a local historian, I don’t think these websites should just be deleted.
Did you know that the British Library has a programme for archiving websites? Provided that they are primarily original-content-driven then they want to archive even personal sites (they're archiving my cricket blog https://larvalstageumpire.sport.blog/, for example), so Openguides sites would certainly qualify. They may already be aware of the OG sites, but if not they're happy to take nominations from the public for sites to archive. See here: https://www.bl.uk/collection-guides/uk-web-archive
This is very interesting, although it didn't strike me as being the most accessible set of sites (quite a lot of clicking around to find content that was actually available to the public). I was going to suggest the archive.org as being good enough.
Most of their archived web content is deliberately only available in their reading rooms. archive.org is also a good choice, although I wouldn't trust them to keep content for hundreds of years as much as I would trust the BL. It trades longevity and permanence for accessibility.