4 ms·
>> an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced. >Oh? Do tell! They do. In the very next paragraph in fact: The guidance
by nobody9999 8mo ago
>> an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced.
>Oh? Do tell!
They do. In the very next paragraph in fact:
The guidance says editors can remove Archive.today links when the original
source is still online and has identical content; replace the archive link so
it points to a different archive site, like the Internet Archive,
Ghostarchive, or Megalodon; or “change the original source to something that
doesn’t need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper)
- chrisjj 8mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- nobody9999 8mo agoI just quoted the very next paragraph after the sentence you quoted and asked for clarification. I did so. You're welcome. As for the rest, take it up with Jimmy Wiles, not me.
- mikehotel 8mo agoaka Jimbo Wales
- nobody9999 8mo agoThanks for the correction. I can't type the letter 'a'[0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ewY8CnFae0&t=56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ewY8CnFae0&t=56s
- Kim_Bruning 8mo ago> archive.today Hopeless. Caught tampering the archive. The whole situation is not great.
- snigsnog 8mo agoI'd rather deal with this weird feud than not have access to any archived content that people want censored. Defeats the entire purpose of an archive
- rockskon 8mo agoDid they? I thought the claim was code was added unrelated to the contents of the archived pages that effectuated a DDOS on someone's blog.