There's a difference between an archive and a backup it's true. If this really is intended to be archival they need to come up with a plan with the Library of Congress, the US Archives, or a similar institution. There are archivists in the world and they should come up with a plan for this that's written and will outlast all the people in the room.
back
3 comments
Not certain how well LOCKSS has done over time as Internet Archive seems to get all the press, but it seemed to be a solid concept with some level of implmentation:
Taking its name (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe) from the idea that a file is more likely to survive if it has multiple copies stored in multiple places, LOCKSS software allows libraries to create preserved digital collections out of materials that would otherwise be accessible only through a licensed academic subscription. LOCKSS has agreements with academic publishers to permit libraries to store local copies of content that is usually only accessible through web-based subscriptions, enabling post-cancellation content access.
https://coptr.digipres.org/index.php/LOCKSS_(Lots_of_Copies_...
LOCKSS is a technology and I could imagine it being part of a plan - but archivists still need to consider what entity owns the data and has rights to give access to it, what jurisdiction governs the data, how to transfer ownership/rights, which combination of tools should be used to achieve the goals, and also what goal there is for the data.
At present (especially for PBS), it would be wise to use an archive service that receives zero U.S. federal dollars and is not subject to the executive branch’s efforts to rewrite history to fit their preferred narrative.
I'm surprised libraries haven't taken a similar route to universities and store local data and backups for neighboring libraries.
Libraries were the archives for newspapers and local public information.
I doubt many libraries have the budget for it. Libraries aren't a popular service and are perennial targets for conservative "cost cutting."