[sushiburps]

The New York Times maintains archives going back over a hundred years, there's no risk of loss of information over time, which is why the article leans into the "stealth edits" problem over the loss of information problem. The NYTs doesn't need the IA and has every right to block it.

[spiffytech]

That relies on NYT still being in business to make their archives available, among other failures modes.

Historians, genealogists, etc. find it valuable to look at news reports from several hundred years ago. It's important to society for a prominent paper's articles to be archived somewhere independent of the news organization itself.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It's important to society for a prominent paper's articles to be archived somewhere independent of the news organization itself

Plenty of libraries archive the Times. It still produces print and microfiche editions.

[Simulacra]

stealth edits

This is one of my biggest pet peeve's with a media. They will get something flat out wrong, stand beside it, and then much later go back and secretly change it without putting anything that it was changed. I would trust an Archived New York Times story over one that was in the NYT archives.

[fifteen1506]

Ya right.

That's why I choose newspapers that provide a PDF version of their newspaper :)

I'm not sure what the outcome was but at some time Portugal's Expresso's archives were deleted by a cyberattack. At the time (never rechecked) I got the feeling the older articles were lost.