The Internet Archive and the socio-technical construction of historical facts
Abstract
This article analyses the socio-technical epistemic processes behind the construction of historical facts by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (IAWM). Grounded in theoretical debates in Science and Technology Studies about digital and algorithmic platforms as “black boxes”, this article uses provenance information and other data traces provided by the IAWM to uncover specific epistemic processes embedded at its back-end, through a case study on the archiving of the North Korean web. In 2016, an error in the configuration of one of North Korea's name servers revealed that it contains 28 websites. However, the IAWM has snapshots of the majority of the .kp websites, which have been archived from as early as 2010. How did the IAWM accumulate knowledge about the .kp websites that are generally hidden to the world? Through our findings we argue that historical knowledge on the IAWM is generated by an entangled and iterative system comprised of proactive human contributions, routinely operated crawls and a reification of external, crowd-sourced knowledge devices. These turn the IAWM into a repository whose knowing of the past is potentially surplus – harbouring information which was unknown to each of the contributing actors at the time and place of archiving.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Archived websites do not preserve an original version of the live site, but rather a situated reconstruction shaped by crawl frequency, technical constraints, and human intervention.
“Archived websites do not preserve an original version of the live site, but rather a situated reconstruction shaped by crawl frequency, technical constraints, and human intervention (Ben-David and Amram, 2018).”
From Google Arts & Culture and the platformization of cultural heritage: Convergence, gamification, and shifting positions of institutional partners (2026) · cites this paper as Ben-David and Amram, 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cao, T. L. (2026) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565261431167
- Authors
- Ben-David, A., & Amram, A.
- Affiliations
- Open University of Israel (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Ben-David, Anat
- Venue
- Internet Histories
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-29
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 179-201
- ISSN
- 2470-1475 (ISSN-L)
- 2470-1483
- OpenAlex
- W2794823855
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 87.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Internet Histories (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Digital and Traditional Archives Management
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Digital Humanities and Scholarship
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › History of Computing Technologies
- Keywords
- web archiving, historical facts, epistemic processes, socio-technical systems, black box, digital platforms, provenance, web crawls, reification, historical knowledge
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review