Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> references section with links to about 100 websites.

Books deserve a github repo with PDF web archives of referenced links, the same way that Wikipedia mirrors the content of cited links.



But wouldn't that be a big waste if everyone who references the same thing is then keeping a copy of it.


> big waste

Storage cost has fallen exponentially for decades, https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-price-of-comput...


Redundancy isn't really a waste.


Better many copies than none. References usually mean written text and maybe some figures, cost of storage is going down, we can afford the duplication.


> everyone who references the same thing is then keeping a copy of it.

... and it would serve as a form of redundancy, imitating the fungible nature of physical media: In order to cite the latest, copied, manuscript (for example) you needed to own a physical copy. They existence of these has enabled survival of works that would otherwise have been lost, or even reconstruction through ecdotics.-


One person’s waste is another person’s resilience.


There are all kinds of publisher and legal issues. Trust me, I did my best.


Could Wikipedia or Archive.org offer references-as-a-service to book publishers for a small fee? They already have the infrastructure and legal cover.


certainly not GitHub


What would you recommend instead?


Copyright permitting, big QR code containing the plain text.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: