Talk:Rhizome (organization)

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. New York City This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hf1842.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this article was relying on depreciated links as references. This article needs to be sited better to establish fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried to clean up for bias and pov issues. I have also reported your edits to admin for review. JB04580 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guydebordgame You're over-citing text, and also request citations for areas covered by existing citations. To assess a citation, one should read it first. JB04580 (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Unclear request

I currently work with Webrecorder (the org run by Ilya Kreymer) to develop web archiving tools. I am not directly being paid to edit this article or propose changes... Though I do have a good deal of direct involvement and first-hand knowledge of the organization and its history.

• What I think should be changed: Some details in the Webrecorder and Conifer sections are not as fleshed out as they could be, others use wording such as "Webrecorder is targeted towards archiving social media..." which — while that is still something that Webrecorder the organization does — is out of date in this context as it is referencing a tool previously known as "Webrecorder" that is not related to the present org also run by the lead developer of the previous tool.
• Why it should be changed: Webrecorder has become a seperate commercial entity. The tool formerly known as "Webrecorder" should be described as such, related to Conifer accordingly, and noted to have become a seperate project. Webrecorder has also taken over maintnance of OldWeb.Today. I have directly seen that this messy description of of tool naming and org splitting has caused a reasonable deal of confusion in the digital preservation community, and I believe that ammending this article with some minor fixes to clarify the differences between the tool and the org would go a long way to helping clear that up!
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Shrinks99 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please provide what you'd like the content to be changed to. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Apologies, I generally try to make edits that don't require talk page discussion and I'm not the most familliar with Wikipedia's tooling! I've already written up this edit and have used the diff script to display my proposed changes here. Hopefully this provides enough details. There's a few formatting fixes and reference additions mixed in there... Sorry if it's a bit lengthy.

Line 31:	Line 31:
=== Web archiving ===	=== Web archiving ===
In response to the needs of the ArtBase—as well as to the increasing number of artists creating works on social media platforms and as interactive websites—in 2014 Rhizome began a program to develop open source web archiving tools that could both serve its mission and a broader community of users.<ref name="artnews.com1" /> Rhizome launched the social media archiving tool Colloq in 2014, which works by replicating the interface of social media platforms.<ref name="Dazed">{{Cite news|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/22272/1/new-rhizome-tool-preserves-net-art-for-future-generations|title=New Rhizome tool preserves net art for future generations|last=Dazed|date=2014-10-23|newspaper=Dazed|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> [[Amalia Ulman|Amalia Ulman's]] instagram project "Excellences and Perfections" (2014) was the first social media artwork archived with Colloq.<ref name="Dazed"/> Colloq pays special attention to the way a user interacts with the social media interface at the time of creation, using a technique called "web capturing" to store website behaviors.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/culture/art-code/168469-colloq-amalia-ulman-tech|title=Preserving Instagram's #perfect troll|newspaper=Hopes&Fears|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> The tool was developed by [[Ilya Kremer]] and Rhizome's Digital Conservator [[Dragan Espenschied|Dragan Espenscheid]]. In 2015, Rhizome unveiled its archive of the influential art blog [http://webenact.rhizome.org/vvork/20141006184357/http://www.vvork.com/ VVORK], marking the first time Colloq was used to archive an entire website.<ref name="rhizome.org">{{Cite news|url=http://rhizome.org/editorial/2015/feb/9/archiving-vvork/|title=After VVORK: How (and why) we archived a contemporary art blog|newspaper=Rhizome|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> Archiving VVORK allowed Rhizome to tackle the challenge of archiving embedded video content, which is often hosted on a third-party site.<ref name="rhizome.org"/> The website had been previously archived by [[Internet Archive]],<ref name="internetarchivevvork">[https://web.archive.org/web/20160311225852/http://www.vvork.com/ "VVORK on Archive.org"]</ref> but this recording did not include embedded media like videos that Colloq was built to capture.<ref name="rhizome.org"/> Of the tool, Jon Ippolito, professor of new media at the University of Maine, said: it makes archives "as close as possible, you’re going to get the experience of interacting with the actual site."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Goel|first1=Vindu|title=A Dynamic New Tool to Preserve the Friendsters of the Future|url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/a-new-tool-to-preserve-moments-on-the-internet/?_r=0|access-date=3 November 2016|work=New York Times|date=19 October 2014}}</ref>	In response to the needs of the ArtBase—as well as to the increasing number of artists creating works on social media platforms and as interactive websites—in 2014 Rhizome began a program to develop open source web archiving tools that could both serve its mission and a broader community of users.<ref name="artnews.com1" /> Rhizome launched the social media archiving tool Colloq in 2014, which works by replicating the interface of social media platforms.<ref name="Dazed">{{Cite news|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/22272/1/new-rhizome-tool-preserves-net-art-for-future-generations|title=New Rhizome tool preserves net art for future generations|last=Dazed|date=2014-10-23|newspaper=Dazed|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> [[Amalia Ulman|Amalia Ulman's]] instagram project "Excellences and Perfections" (2014) was the first social media artwork archived with Colloq.<ref name="Dazed"/> Colloq pays special attention to the way a user interacts with the social media interface at the time of creation, using a technique called "web capturing" to store website behaviors.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/culture/art-code/168469-colloq-amalia-ulman-tech|title=Preserving Instagram's #perfect troll|newspaper=Hopes&Fears|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> The tool was developed by [[Ilya Kremer]] and Rhizome's Digital Conservator [[Dragan Espenschied|Dragan Espenscheid]]. In 2015, Rhizome unveiled its archive of the influential art blog [http://webenact.rhizome.org/vvork/20141006184357/http://www.vvork.com/ VVORK], marking the first time Colloq was used to archive an entire website.<ref name="rhizome.org">{{Cite news|url=http://rhizome.org/editorial/2015/feb/9/archiving-vvork/|title=After VVORK: How (and why) we archived a contemporary art blog|newspaper=Rhizome|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> Archiving VVORK allowed Rhizome to tackle the challenge of archiving embedded video content, which is often hosted on a third-party site.<ref name="rhizome.org"/> The website had been previously archived by [[Internet Archive]],<ref name="internetarchivevvork">[https://web.archive.org/web/20160311225852/http://www.vvork.com/ "VVORK on Archive.org"]</ref> but this recording did not include embedded media like videos that Colloq was built to capture.<ref name="rhizome.org"/> Of the tool, Jon Ippolito, professor of new media at the University of Maine, said: it makes archives "as close as possible, you’re going to get the experience of interacting with the actual site."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Goel|first1=Vindu|title=A Dynamic New Tool to Preserve the Friendsters of the Future|url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/a-new-tool-to-preserve-moments-on-the-internet/?_r=0|access-date=3 November 2016|work=New York Times|date=19 October 2014}}</ref>
	==== Webrecorder ====
In 2015, Rhizome folded the Colloq project into a more expansive Webrecorder initiative.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Connor|first1=Michael|title=WORKING TO CREATE A DIGITAL SOCIAL MEMORY FOR ALL|url=http://www.knightfoundation.org/articles/working-create-digital-social-memory-all|website=Knight Foundation|access-date=6 November 2016}}</ref> In August 2016, the organization launched the public release of a more fully realized [https://webrecorder.net/ Webrecorder] tool, which is a free [[web archiving]] tool that allows users to create their own archives of the dynamic web.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://rhizome.org/editorial/2016/aug/09/rhizome-releases-first-public-version-of-webrecorder/|title=Rhizome Releases First Public Version of Webrecorder|newspaper=Rhizome|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Webrecorder is targeted towards archiving [[social media]], video content, and other dynamic content, rather than static webpages. Webrecorder is an attempt to place web archiving tools in the hands of individual users and communities. It uses a "symmetrical web archiving" approach, meaning the same software is used to record and play back the website.<ref name="ndsr.nycdigital.org">{{Cite web|url=http://ndsr.nycdigital.org/symmetrical-web-archiving-with-webrecorder-a-browser-based-tool-for-digital-social-memory-an-interview-with-ilya-kreymer/|title=Symmetrical Web Archiving with Webrecorder, a Browser-based Tool for Digital Social Memory. An Interview with Ilya Kreymer {{!}} NDSR – NY|website=ndsr.nycdigital.org|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> While other web archiving tools run a [[web crawler]] to capture sites, Webrecorder takes a different method, actually recording a user browsing the site to capture its interactive features.	In 2015, Rhizome folded the Colloq project into a more expansive Webrecorder initiative.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Connor|first1=Michael|title=WORKING TO CREATE A DIGITAL SOCIAL MEMORY FOR ALL|url=http://www.knightfoundation.org/articles/working-create-digital-social-memory-all|website=Knight Foundation|access-date=6 November 2016}}</ref> In August 2016, the organization launched the public release of a more fully realized . tool, which a free [[web archiving]] tool that users to create their own archives of the dynamic web.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://rhizome.org/editorial/2016/aug/09/rhizome-releases-first-public-version-of-webrecorder/|title=Rhizome Releases First Public Version of Webrecorder|newspaper=Rhizome|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Webrecorder targeted towards archiving [[social media]], video content, and other dynamic content, rather than static webpages. Webrecorder an attempt to place web archiving tools in the hands of individual users and communities. It a "symmetrical web archiving" approach, meaning the same software is used to record and play back the website.<ref name="ndsr.nycdigital.org">{{Cite web|url=http://ndsr.nycdigital.org/symmetrical-web-archiving-with-webrecorder-a-browser-based-tool-for-digital-social-memory-an-interview-with-ilya-kreymer/|title=Symmetrical Web Archiving with Webrecorder, a Browser-based Tool for Digital Social Memory. An Interview with Ilya Kreymer {{!}} NDSR – NY|website=ndsr.nycdigital.org|access-date=2016-10-29}}</ref> While other web archiving tools run a [[web crawler]] to capture sites, Webrecorder a different method, recording a user the site to capture its interactive features.
=== Oldweb.today ===	=== . ===
In December 2015, Rhizome launched [http://Oldweb.today oldweb.today], a project that allows users to view archived webpages within [[emulator|emulated]] versions of legacy web browsers.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Dellinger|first1=AJ|title=Oldweb.today lets you browse the Internet like it's 1999|url=http://www.dailydot.com/debug/oldweb-today-legacy-browser-simulator/|access-date=6 November 2016|publisher=Daily Dot|date=8 December 2015}}</ref> Users are given the option of browsing the site of their choice within versions of [[Mosaic (web browser)|Mosaic]], [[Netscape Navigator]], [[Internet Explorer]], [[Firefox|Mozilla Firefox]], [[Google Chrome]] and [[Ruffle (software)|Ruffle]]. The project gives users a deeper understanding of web history and the way browsing environments alter one's experience of the internet. It is an example of "Emulation as a Service" technology, imitating old software programs so that they can run on new computers.	In December 2015, Rhizome launched [http://.today .], a project that allows users to view archived webpages within [[emulator|emulated]] versions of legacy web browsers.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Dellinger|first1=AJ|title=Oldweb.today lets you browse the Internet like it's 1999|url=http://www.dailydot.com/debug/oldweb-today-legacy-browser-simulator/|access-date=6 November 2016|publisher=Daily Dot|date=8 December 2015}}</ref> Users are given the option of browsing the site of their choice within versions of [[Mosaic (web browser)|Mosaic]], [[Netscape Navigator]], [[Internet Explorer]], [[Firefox|Mozilla Firefox]], [[Google Chrome]] and [[Ruffle (software)|Ruffle]]. The project gives users a deeper understanding of web history and the way browsing environments alter one's experience of the internet. It is an example of "Emulation as a Service" technology, imitating old software programs so that they can run on new computers.
	OldWeb.Today containues to be maintained by Webrecorder.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kreymer |first=Ilya |date=2021-01-04 |title=Webrecorder {{!}} Flash Ain't Dead Yet! Even more ways to run Flash using OldWeb.today |url=https://webrecorder.net/2021/01/04/flash-aint-dead-yet.html |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=webrecorder.net}}</ref>
<big>'''Conifer'''</big>
	==== Conifer ====
In 2020, Rhizome renamed their Webrecorder.io. project to Conifer. Conifer lets its users “create high-fidelity, interactive captures of any web site you browse and a platform to make those captured websites accessible.”<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=Conifer|url=https://conifer.rhizome.org/|access-date=2021-11-13|website=Conifer|language=en-US}}</ref> Conifer is powered by its users and gives the power to “create, curate, and share their own collections of web materials. This can even include items that would be only revealed after logging in or performing complicated actions on a web site.”<ref name=":0" /> This tool also lets users save items with “complex scripting, such as embedded videos, fancy navigation, or 3D graphics,” which “have a much higher success rate for capture with Conifer than with traditional web archives.”<ref name=":0" />	In 2020, Rhizome renamed their Webrecorder.io project to Conifer. Conifer its users “create high-fidelity, interactive captures of any web site you browse and a platform to make those captured websites accessible.”<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=Conifer|url=https://conifer.rhizome.org/|access-date=2021-11-13|website=Conifer|language=en-US}}</ref> Conifer is powered by its users and gives the power to “create, curate, and share their own collections of web materials. This can even include items that would be only revealed after logging in or performing complicated actions on a web site.”<ref name=":0" /> This tool also lets users save items with “complex scripting, such as embedded videos, fancy navigation, or 3D graphics,” which “have a much higher success rate for capture with Conifer than with traditional web archives.”<ref name=":0" />
According to their user guide, Conifer works by putting web pages into “sessions."<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=How Conifer Works|url=https://guide.conifer.rhizome.org/docs/how-it-works/|access-date=2021-11-13|website=Conifer User Guide|language=en-US}}</ref> These "sessions" work by “requests sent by the browser and responses from the web are captured while you are interacting with sites.”<ref name=":1" /> Conifer defines a collection as a series of these sessions. When someone wants to view the sessions, Conifer “makes the browser request resources from the collection instead of the live web. Viewers of a collection should be able to repeat any action during access that were performed during capture.”<ref name=":1" />	According to their user guide, Conifer works by putting web pages into “sessions."<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=How Conifer Works|url=https://guide.conifer.rhizome.org/docs/how-it-works/|access-date=2021-11-13|website=Conifer User Guide|language=en-US}}</ref> These "sessions" work by “requests sent by the browser and responses from the web are captured while you are interacting with sites.”<ref name=":1" /> Conifer defines a collection as a series of these sessions. When someone wants to view the sessions, Conifer “makes the browser request resources from the collection instead of the live web. Viewers of a collection should be able to repeat any action during access that were performed during capture.”<ref name=":1" />
Line 46:	Line 48:
Conifer allows users to upload data in multiple formats, including:	Conifer allows users to upload data in multiple formats, including:
·       WARCs created with any web archiving tool (an ISO standard for web archiving)	created with any web archiving tool (an ISO standard for web archiving)
	ARC files (the predecessor of WARC)
	HAR files (a browser and web site debugging protocol format) <ref>{{Cite web|title=Uploading Data|url=https://guide.conifer.rhizome.org/docs/manage-sessions/uploading-warc/|access-date=2021-11-13|website=Conifer User Guide|language=en-US}}</ref>
	Conifer allows content to be captured via the local browser, or through a remote browser hosted on their servers accessed through a screen share.
·       ARC files (the predecessor of WARC)
	The choice of browser effects how the data will be captured. Conifer states that “There are four factors in a capture session: the browser that is operated by the user, its connection to the web archiving backend that writes the data, network location, and user identity.”<ref name=":2" /> The browser performs the network requests, and anything that is not requested cannot be captured. Ad blocker and privacy features can affect these requests. Also, webpages could appear differently due to the capabilities of each different browser. Conifer also gives the option for users to use their remote browser, which lets users “use the exact same browser for both capture and access.”<ref name=":2" /> These browsers run in the cloud and are pre-configured by Conifer for use in capturing websites.
·       HAR files (a browser and web site debugging protocol format) <ref>{{Cite web|title=Uploading Data|url=https://guide.conifer.rhizome.org/docs/manage-sessions/uploading-warc/|access-date=2021-11-13|website=Conifer User Guide|language=en-US}}</ref>
Conifer offers different approaches to capturing with the software. Through a browser, one can capture
·       Via your local browser
·       Via remote browser
·       Via the ArchiveWeb.page desktop app <ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Choosing a Browser|url=https://guide.conifer.rhizome.org/docs/capture-approaches/capture-browsers/|access-date=2021-11-13|website=Conifer User Guide|language=en-US}}</ref>
The choice of browser effects how the data will be captured. Conifer states that “There are four factors in a capture session: the browser that is operated by the user, its connection to the web archiving backend that writes the data, network location, and user identity.”<ref name=":2" /> The browser performs the network requests, and anything that is not requested cannot be captured. Ad blocker and privacy features can affect these requests. Also, webpages could appear differently due to the capabilities of each different browser. Conifer also gives the option for users to use their remote browser, which lets users “use the exact same browser for both capture and access.”<ref name=":2" /> These browsers run in the cloud and are pre-configured by Conifer for use in capturing websites.
There are also different ways that the browser can connect to Conifer: through “rewriting mode” or “proxy mode.” In the Rewriting mode, “all resources the browser requests are changed on the fly so that instead of reaching out to the original URL on the live web, everything goes through the conifer.rhizome.org web archiving server.” Proxy mode “has the web archiving backend connected to the browser via a web proxy…The browser can make requests as usual and the web archiving backend will have access to all of them, with almost no rewriting required. This makes proxy mode generally a more stable and reliable capture method that doesn’t require constant updating.”<ref name=":2" />	There are also different ways that the browser can connect to Conifer: through “rewriting mode” or “proxy mode.” In the Rewriting mode, “all resources the browser requests are changed on the fly so that instead of reaching out to the original URL on the live web, everything goes through the conifer.rhizome.org web archiving server.” Proxy mode “has the web archiving backend connected to the browser via a web proxy…The browser can make requests as usual and the web archiving backend will have access to all of them, with almost no rewriting required. This makes proxy mode generally a more stable and reliable capture method that doesn’t require constant updating.”<ref name=":2" />

Shrinks99 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These suggested edits look broadly okay, but there is one point which I have a minor concern about. In relation to Webrecorder (current text It uses a "symmetrical web archiving" approach) you have changed the word 'uses' to the word 'pioneered'. This seems to be potentially promotional text and the source which appears directly after that sentence appears to be an interview with the Webrecorder programmer, which would not be considered an appropriate independent source (even if it supports the 'pioneered' idea).

So, with the exception of changing the word 'uses' to the word 'pioneered', I'm happy for you to go ahead and make the requested changes. Alternatively, if you have an appropriate independent source to support 'pioneered' then please bring it forward and we can discuss.

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]