Teaching Resources

I. Introduction §

This appendix serves as the Instructor’s Companion. It translates the theoretical concepts of the previous 18 chapters into actionable classroom mechanics. It answers the professor’s question: “How do I actually teach this?”

Philosophy: We teach Archaeobytology not just to transfer knowledge, but to train practitioners. Theoretical disputes about “digital dualism” are useful, but the ultimate goal is to produce graduates capable of saving history. Every assignment should result in a portfolio piece—a rescued artifact, a forensic report, or a strategic plan.

This toolkit provides ready-made discussion prompts, assignment sheets, rubrics, and technical lab guides to allow instructors to “plug and play” the curriculum.

II. Discussion Facilitation Guides §

Framework: These prompts are designed to move students from “gut reaction” to “systematic analysis” using the Custodial Filter (Significance, Fragility, Feasibility, Redundancy, Ethics).

Scenario 1: The Deleted Confession §

• The Case: A beloved celebrity posts a racist tweet at 2:00 AM. Five minutes later, they delete it. No screenshots exist yet. You captured it in your automated feed scraper.
• The Conflict: Accountability (History) vs. Right to be Forgotten (Privacy).
• Facilitation Tip: Ask students to vote: Delete or Save? Then ask: “Does the celebrity’s public status change the ethical calculus? What if it was your 15-year-old cousin instead?”
• Key Concept: Public Interest Exemption.

Scenario 2: The Teen’s Blog §

• The Case: A 30-year-old professional discovers their rigorous 14-year-old coming-out blog is still online and archived by the Wayback Machine. They beg you to remove it, citing professional embarrassment. The blog is a unique primary source on queer youth culture in the 2000s.
• The Conflict: Future History (Collective Value) vs. Present Consent (Individual Harm).
• Facilitation Tip: Use the “Temporal Distance” argument. Does the harm fade over time? Is the 14-year-old a different legal entity than the 30-year-old?
• Key Concept: The Right to Curate the Self.

Scenario 3: The Hate Forum §

• The Case: A notorious white supremacist forum is shutting down. It contains evidence of radicalization pathways, but also hate speech and doxxing of victims. You have the bandwidth to mirror it.
• The Conflict: Research Value (Understanding Extremism) vs. Harm Reduction (Amplifying Hate).
• Facilitation Tip: Discuss “Dark Archiving.” Can we save it without publishing it? Who gets access?
• Key Concept: The Quarantine Archive.

III. Assignment Templates §

Assignment 1: The Platform Autopsy §

• Task: Select a dead platform (e.g., Vine, Google+, Friendster) and write a 2,000-word “Coroner’s Report.”
• Requirements:
  1. Life History: When was it born? Who used it? (Demographics).
  2. Cause of Death: Diagnose the “Murder Weapon.” Was it corporate strategy, neglect, acquisition, or server failure?
  3. Taxonomic Analysis: Classify the surviving artifacts. Are they Petribytes (frozen)? Umbrabytes (shadowy/incomplete)?
  4. Preservation Status: Where is the body? (Internet Archive, torrents, lost forever).
• Learning Outcome: Understanding the lifecycle of digital platforms.

Assignment 2: The 72-Hour Triage Simulation §

• Task: You are the lead archivist. A niche fanfiction site (“FanFicX”) has announced it will shut down in 72 hours.
• Constraints: You have 1TB of storage, 5 volunteer archivists, and limited bandwidth. The site is 50TB. You cannot save everything.
• Deliverable: A Triage Matrix and Action Plan.
  • What do you save first? (Text? Images? Comments? Metadata?)
  • What do you abandon?
  • How do you deploy your 5 volunteers?
• Learning Outcome: Applying the Custodial Filter under pressure.

IV. Lab Exercises §

Lab 1: The Personal Rescue §

• Objective: Demystify the “black box” of archiving by making it personal.
• Task: Students must archive a single page of their own digital footprint (e.g., their own Twitter profile, a personal blog post) that is not currently backed up.
• Tools:
  • Internet Archive “Save Page Now”: For public-facing preservation.
  • Webrecorder (Conifer): For capturing dynamic content/scripts.
• Deliverable: A link to the stable WARC file and a paragraph reflecting on the difference between the “live” site and the “captured” version.

Lab 2: The Forensic Gaze §

• Objective: Understand “forensic materiality” by looking beneath the interface.
• Task: Download a “corrupted” image file provided by the instructor. Open it in a Hex Editor (HxD or 0xED).
• Instructions:
  1. Identify the file header (Magic Number).
  2. Find the text string hidden in the metadata comments.
  3. Repair the broken header to make the image viewable again.
• Deliverable: The “Secret Message” found in the file and the repaired image.

V. Case Study Teaching Notes §

1. GeoCities Rescue (2009) §

• Focus: Scale, Speed, and “Crisis Archiving.”
• Teaching Point: This was the “Dunkirk Moment” of web archiving. Use this to discuss the transition from “Polite spidering” to “Guerrilla scraping.”
• Discussion: Was it ethical to scrape personal pages without consent? (Answer: Yes, because the alternative was total annihilation).

2. Tumblr NSFW Purge (2018) §

• Focus: Marginalized communities and “Algorithmic Eviction.”
• Teaching Point: This demonstrates how Terms of Service changes act as “Soft Deletion.”
• Discussion: How do definitions of “Obscenity” serve as tools for erasure? Why are queer spaces disproportionately targeted?

3. Mastodon (Present) §

• Focus: Governance, Sustainability, and “The Seed Bank” model.
• Teaching Point: Mastodon represents the “Third Way” (Federation). It shifts the problem from “Corporate Benevolence” to “Community Maintenance.”
• Discussion: Is Federation a viable solution for long-term preservation? (Pros: No single point of failure. Cons: No single point of funding).

VI. Assessment Strategies §

The Portfolio Model §

Move away from exams. Multiple-choice tests cannot measure preservation skills. Grade based on the Field Report—documentation of actual preservation work.

Rubric: Platform Autopsy §

• Taxonomy Application (25%): Does the student correctly identify Vivibytes, Umbrabytes, etc.?
• Analysis Depth (30%): Does the diagnosis of “Cause of Death” go beyond the press release? (e.g., analyzing the acqui-hire intent).
• Historical Accuracy (20%): Is the timeline of the platform correct?
• Recommendations (15%): Are the suggestions for future preservation actionable?
• Writing/Clarity (10%): Is the report professional and accessible?