When (or slightly before) Obama became President, his people broke millions of links to historical transcripts and videos, removing them from the White House web site. For example, this link to President Bush's so-called "Mission Accomplished" speech. It's just gone.
This sort of loss is intolerable. It matters. And yes, I know you can still find the content in various archives. But maintaining the links themselves are crucial. These are the footnotes and bibliography of much of the Bush years.
What should happen is simple: first, Obama's people should a new whitehouse.gov hierarchy for historical documents, perhaps ordered by year, perhaps by President's name, whatever. So for example, http://www.whitehouse.gov/bush-43/news/releases/. Put all of Obama's content in a similar location, http://www.whitehouse.gov/obama-44/news/releases/. Then all of the Bush content should be restored to that locations. Next, all existing URLs to /news/releases/.. should be automatically redirected to the Bush archives. Do the same for Clinton if necessary. And when Obama is gone, his replacement won't have to do anything to keep those historical records alive: they will remain in that location.
This really is important.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 29, 2009 11:52 AM | Email ThisSo often it documents how things they love don't work (like communism) or that sometimes the people the left attacks hardest turn out to be right (like Winston Churchill in the 30's) or that war sometimes IS the right answer (also see Winston Churchill in the 30's.)
It can sometimes really be embarassing, like how the left loves to talk about the dark days of McCarthyism and how we should never ever question whether our artists and media people might not have our best national interests at heart.
(When that damned history gets involved, you discover that accoring to russian KGB files released after the cold war, that there really was a major effort to turn the media and hollywood against the U.S. and that the effort by McCarthy to uncover it was actually thwarted by a newsman named E.R. Murrow - You know the same one that is now has his name on the most coveted award given by newsmedia people to other media people.)
Yup, "Who Cares" about history.
Posted by: Johnny on April 29, 2009 01:23 PMhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/obama-44/sans_teleprompter/gaffes/
Posted by: Rick D. on April 29, 2009 01:42 PMLet's just hope they stop at rewriting the written word, and not go after those who carry dissent in their minds and actions. I'm still worried about Obama's comments about a civilian security force as large and well-funded as the military.
Posted by: Reality on April 29, 2009 01:57 PMAlso, I do not have a "not."
gop in exile: I don't care about Specter. His defection changes absolutely nothing, and has no meaning to me. It won't change the Senate leadership, it won't change the vote tallies on any bills ... it just doesn't matter.
Don't you mean THOUSANDS OF LINKS? Or perhaps even HUNDREDS OF LINKS? How many links does Barack Obama presently have on the White House website for his own content?
When George W. Bush was President, how many links did the White House website contain to the Bill Clinton presidency content?
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 29, 2009 02:17 PMMILLIONS OF LINKS?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
George W. Bush gave MILLIONS of speeches when he was President?
No.
Don't you mean THOUSANDS OF LINKS?
No.
Or perhaps even HUNDREDS OF LINKS?
No.
How many links does Barack Obama presently have on the White House website for his own content?
I don't know, and I don't care.
When George W. Bush was President, how many links did the White House website contain to the Bill Clinton presidency content?
I don't know, and I don't care.
If so, perhaps this is a structural problem where each presidency's digital material gets shifted over to the Library of Congress for example and the links are preserved there.
I presume Pudge when you say do "do the same for Clinton if necessary" you mean that because you didn't spend the time to see if his presidency's material was still linked - as opposed to having any sort of political meaning in that statement.
I'd rather see the materials moved to a non-partisan location than maintained by each administration where items have the possibility of disappearing for political reasons, or even simply because those managing the site are not trained archivists.
Posted by: BA on April 29, 2009 02:59 PMI presume Pudge when you say do "do the same for Clinton if necessary" you mean that because you didn't spend the time to see if his presidency's material was still linked - as opposed to having any sort of political meaning in that statement.
Hm. I have no idea what political meaning could possibly be found in that statement.
I'd rather see the materials moved to a non-partisan location than maintained by each administration where items have the possibility of disappearing for political reasons, or even simply because those managing the site are not trained archivists.
That doesn't change what I am saying, though: there should still be canonical unchanging URLs. If you want to redirect those URLs to another box, that's fine.
I don't have access to my children right now for a translation...I grew up without computers.
Posted by: BA on April 29, 2009 03:16 PMJust like a forwarding phone number, except that it never has to expire.
Posted by: pudge on April 29, 2009 03:39 PMHere we are stuck in two wars, the economy is in a power-out dive, we're facing a global pandemic of swine flu., and you're whining about some missing links on a White House web page?
Incredible!
Arrogance consumes this administration.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 29, 2009 03:44 PMYou're joking, right? We always have large problems. That doesn't excuse ignoring everything else. Maybe to YOU it does, which would explain a lot.
Posted by: pudge on April 29, 2009 03:45 PMNo different than physical information.
I certainly agree access to the full record should be maintained.
Of Course I am assuming we ever get to vote again.
After all when you elect someone from another land he certainly is not going to govern like he is from this land.
go Kenya!
Are we going to have tribal wars soon?
Is that what ACORN is for?
Wait at the end of the day, martial law or not, OGODMA is going to learn that America is a much bigger idea than he is.
Have you considered just posting an email to whitehouse.gov with your suggestion?
Witz: I'm normally with you, but your post here just strikes me as knee-jerk snark directed at a reasonable concern.
My guess is that the White House probably employs dedicated staff to maintain its website in the public interest -- you know, web geeks who aren't busy fighting wars, directing anti-pandemic measures, or working on economic recovery.
Posted by: scottd on April 29, 2009 03:55 PMEspecially the "knee-jerk" part.
But ya' gotta admit this is a pretty minor gripe about a pretty minor policy issue: i.e. what the White House web page links to.
And in Pudge's case, this petty gripe is purely partisan.
When the Bush White House failed to archive hundreds of thousands of internal e-mail as required by law, he never said a word about it.
Funny how nit-picky things like that only come up when the other guys are doing.it.
But ya' gotta admit this is a pretty minor gripe about a pretty minor policy issue: i.e. what the White House web page links to.
It is not about what the White House web page links to. It is about the millions of broken links TO the White House web site. And it is not (or should not be) about "policy" at all, in the sense it is usually used in politics.
And in Pudge's case, this petty gripe is purely partisan.
No, in fact, it is not. Nothing I said about this is remotely partisan.
When the Bush White House failed to archive hundreds of thousands of internal e-mail as required by law, he never said a word about it.
As usual, you're a liar.
This morning. At my own site. And I will probably have a little more to say about it in the next week or so, if I find the time.
(In general, I post on national and international topics on my own site, on local topics on this site, and on both sites when there is a local connection to a national or international issue.)
And, of course, I should mention that your comment was another example of Ignoratio Elenchi. Thank you for conceding Pudge's point.
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 29, 2009 04:34 PMYou are talking over the heads of these morons. I admire your tenacity, but sometimes bricks are thick and dense and nothing penetrates them.
Posted by: pbj on April 29, 2009 05:41 PMBTW, anyone know whatever happened with that 3rd-party cookie use on the whitehouse.gov website? Apparently sites like youtube.com (Google) could track your access to certain web pages on whitehouse.gov, when you click on video links.
On another note, ain't this just peachy...
http://www.theolympian.com/stategovernment/story/835058.html
Posted by: Smoley on April 29, 2009 05:50 PM"To be honest, I would think."
Alert the media.
Posted by: Hinton on April 29, 2009 06:33 PMFirst, did you have a comment on the actual topic here?
Second, is the word "Rethugs" -- and the rest of your post, which follows the same tone -- an example of speaking in a "tactful manner," or of "arrogance and holier-than-thou attitude"? Just curious.
I have already accessed the new page today and it is truly a breath of fresh air reading the first blog on the briefing room page.
Why do the vanquished complain so damn much?
Posted by: gop in exile on April 29, 2009 09:12 PMYou can also access Clinton's at http://clinton1.nara.gov/. But somehow I doubt you care.
Note: When GW Bush became president he did the same to Clinton's site. Worked in the online world for years .. this type of stuff happens. And not just in government .. get over it and find the link you need and replace it. Then move on.
Posted by: stop your complaining on April 30, 2009 08:12 AMRight, I don't, because it is beside the point. As I wrote, which you obviously missed, "And yes, I know you can still find the content in various archives. But maintaining the links themselves are crucial."
Note: When GW Bush became president he did the same to Clinton's site.
Tu quoque fallacy.
Worked in the online world for years
And I've "worked in the online world" for a long time myself. I am somewhat of an expert. Your point?
this type of stuff happens.
And it shouldn't happen in this case. You have no point here.
get over it and find the link you need and replace it.
MILLIONS of links are broken, and the fix is SIMPLE AND EASY on Obama's end. You have no point here.
You forgot to call him a liar!!!!!
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 30, 2009 06:23 PMChangeTracker is an experimental project that "watches pages on whitehouse.gov, recovery.gov and financialstability.gov so you don't have to. When the White House adds or deletes anything -- say a blog post, or executive order -- Change Tracker will let you know. Each change links to a page (courtesy of a service called Versionista) that shows the different versions side-by-side. Text highlighted in red means it was removed, green means it was added." ProPublica is "an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. We strive to foster change through exposing exploitation of the weak by the strong and the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them."
Posted by: AudacityWatch.com on May 1, 2009 02:40 AMAs a web developer and administrator, I flat out disagree with your stance on this one. The web is not cast in stone where no link can ever change. The web is a living and changing document. Links come and go over time. So in regards to the links themselves, it is up to web administrators of the web content pointing to the previous links to update their links.
That being stated, I haven't checked out the specific links to see what the HTTP error code is. By your write-up, it appears that the pages throw a 404 (Page not found) error. If this is the case, then it is poor web administration practice, especially on important content. What they should have done is a URL rewrite/redirect to a page that gives an explanation of where the information could be found. Ideally, they should create an archives site and have a URL rewrite rule (301 Permanently Moved HTTP Response Header) to redirect to the archive site.
I do want to reiterate, however, that it is understood in the web world that old content will be removed and that links will change over time.
Posted by: tc on May 1, 2009 02:30 PMAs a web developer and administrator, I flat out disagree with your stance on this one.
As a guy who posts political stuff on a web site, I say you're wrong.
The web is not cast in stone where no link can ever change.
Irrelevant to my point, but thanks.
That being stated, I haven't checked out the specific links to see what the HTTP error code is.
Oh, don't even get me started there. It's a 301, which is the WORST thing for it to do, because then clients can think the new location -- which is a generic location -- is the permanent new location for the given content. Which it is not. Some clients will actually update links when hit with a 301, which means a database of links to old White House could be totally destroyed, if it relies on the HTTP spec (which granted, it would be foolish to do, since so many web servers return broken HTTP headers like this).
What they should have done is a URL rewrite/redirect to a page that gives an explanation of where the information could be found.
No, it should do a redirect TO where the information can be found, as you say below. And this would be VERY EASY to do. There's no serious reason to not do it.
Ideally, they should create an archives site and have a URL rewrite rule (301 Permanently Moved HTTP Response Header) to redirect to the archive site.
Yes, which is what I said. So you're not "flat out" disagreeing with me at all. You're actually agreeing with me. And you're undermining your claim that it is only the responsibility of the linker, not the linkee.
Maybe the problem you have is with my suggesting the hierarchy, but the problem is that without that, you can have some future administration reusing the old hierarchy, breaking the redirects. If Obama were to use "/news/releases/" for his content, then redirects for that content wouldn't work (well, I am being oversimplistic here, because in this case it could, as Bush's web site used dates as part of the hierarchy, but that wouldn't necessarily hold true for all information on the site).
But that is just a suggestion for how to accomplish the goal: my main point was redirecting to the old content, which you are expressing agreement with.
« Obama cracks down on off-shore tax havens, businesses call it tax hike, big fight looms | Main | Vice President Joe Buden survives visit to Wilimington Amtrak station »
Obama official Kareem Dale confirms White House's love for MSNBC
For some inexplicable reason having to do with who knows what, a widespread impression has grown among many politics fans that MSNBC and its crowd of talkers -- including Chris "Thrill Up My Leg" Matthews, Norah "The GOP Is Doomed to Die" O'Donnell and Ed "It's Time to Grind Them Into the Ground" Schultz -- are somewhat in favor of President Obama.
Well, actually in complete love with the Great Change Agent.
Now, thanks to the ubiquitous cameras of C-SPAN, comes official videoed word from Kareem Dale, special assistant to the president for arts and culture and a key White House advisor on disability policy.
At the 1:51 mark of this video, Dale candidly reveals the new administration's reciprocal feelings. Hint: Apparently the new White House has a popular internal saying involving the words "love" and "MSNBC."
Posted by: KS on May 4, 2009 05:55 PM
« Obama cracks down on off-shore tax havens, businesses call it tax hike, big fight looms | Main | Vice President Joe Buden survives visit to Wilimington Amtrak station »
Obama official Kareem Dale confirms White House's love for MSNBC
For some inexplicable reason having to do with who knows what, a widespread impression has grown among many politics fans that MSNBC and its crowd of talkers -- including Chris "Thrill Up My Leg" Matthews, Norah "The GOP Is Doomed to Die" O'Donnell and Ed "It's Time to Grind Them Into the Ground" Schultz -- are somewhat in favor of President Obama.
Well, actually in complete love with the Great Change Agent.
Now, thanks to the ubiquitous cameras of C-SPAN, comes official videoed word from Kareem Dale, special assistant to the president for arts and culture and a key White House advisor on disability policy.
At the 1:51 mark of this video, Dale candidly reveals the new administration's reciprocal feelings. Hint: Apparently the new White House has a popular internal saying involving the words "love" and "MSNBC."
Posted by: KS on May 4, 2009 05:55 PM