6 ms·

Why? The decision seems reasonable at first sight.

• chrisjj 8mo ago
  Second sight is advisable in such cases. Fact is, archives are essential to WP integrity and there's no credible alternative to this one. I see WP is not proposing to run its own.
  • mook 8mo ago
    Wouldn't it be precisely because archives are important that using something known to modify the contents would be avoided?
    • esseph 8mo ago
      > something known to modify the contents would be avoided? Like Wikipedia?
      • beej71 8mo ago
        No, not like that. There's a difference between a site that: 1) provides a snapshot of another site for archival purposes. 2) provides original content. You're arguing that since encyclopedias change their content, the Library of Congress should be allowed to change the content of the materials in its stacks. By modifying its archives, archive.today just flushed its credibility as an archival site. So what is it now?
        • esseph 8mo ago
          > You're arguing that since encyclopedias change their content, the Library of Congress should be allowed to change the content of the materials in its stacks. As an end user of Wikipedia there are occasions where content has been scrubbed and/or edits hidden. Admins can see some of those, but end users cannot (with various justifications, some excellent/reasonable and some.. nebulous). That's all I'm saying, nothing about Congress or such other nonsense. It seems like an occasion of the pot calling the kettle names from this side of the fence.
          • beej71 8mo ago
            But Wikipedia promises you that it will modify its content. They're transparent about that promise. An archival site (by default definition) promises you that it will not modify its content. And when it does, it's no longer an archival site. Wikipedia has never been an archival site and it never will be. archive.today was an archival site, but now it never will be again.
            • ouhamouch 8mo ago
              This is your imaginary archive from the world of pink ponies. Meanwhile their IMA on Reddit: no promises, no commitment. Just like Microsoft EULA :) https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1i277vt/psa_archivetoday_is_not_a_longterm_web_archive/ https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1i277vt/psa_ar...
              • beej71 8mo ago
                What I don't see on that page is where they explicitly don't promise to not modify anything in the archive.
                • ouhamouch 8mo ago
                  [dead]
                • chrisjj 8mo ago
                  > What I don't see on that page is where they explicitly don't promise to not modify anything in the archive. I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification /i Meanwhile seriously, if you were disappointed not to see e.g. "We explicitly don't promise not to modify", then perhaps you should consider why, regardless, this site was trusted enough to get a gazillion links in Wikipedia... and HN.
                  • beej71 8mo ago
                    > I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification. And I'm quoting all of that because it lacks an explicit (or implicit) promise of modification. :) It was (emphasis on past-tense) so-trusted because it advertises itself as an archival site. (The linked disclaimer is all about it not being a "long-term" archival site. It says it archives pages for latecomers. There is an implication here that it archives them accurately. What use is a site for latecomers if they change the content to be something else?) If they'd said or indicated they would be changing the content to no longer reflect the original site, Wikipedia would not have linked to them because they wouldn't be a credible source. In any case, now I can't use them to share or use links since we can no longer trust those archives to be untampered. When I share a link to nyt content on archive.today or copy and paste content into email, I'm putting my name on that declaring "nyt printed this". If that's not true, it's my reputation. Just like it was archive.today's.
    • chrisjj 8mo ago
      Obviously not, since archive.org is encouraged.
  • that_lurker 8mo ago
    The operators() of archive.today (and the other domains) are doing shadey things and the links are not working so why keep the site around as for example Internet archives waybackmachine works as alternative to it.
    • chrisjj 8mo ago
      What archive.today links are not working? > Internet archives wayback machine works as alternative to it. It is appalling insecure. It lets archives be altered by page JS and deleted by the page domain owner.
      • that_lurker 8mo ago
        Currently as far as I know at least both archive.today and archive.is have the same ddos code on the main page. For more details https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/ https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-...
        • chrisjj 8mo ago
          Is that what you call "not working"?
    • snigsnog 8mo ago
      No it doesn't. You can just request content be removed from Archive.org and they will honor this: https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-something-from-archive-org/ https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som... Nonstarter for anything that you actually want to be preserved, especially anything controversial.
      • chrisjj 8mo ago
        No request is needed. Just robots.txt to deliver a bulk removal.
  • throw0101a 8mo ago
    > Fact is, archives are essential to WP integrity and there's no credible alternative to this one. Yes, they are essentional, and that was the main reason for not blacklisting Archive.today. But Archive.today has shown they do not actually provide such a service: > “If this is true it essentially forces our hand, archive.today would have to go,” another editor replied. “The argument for allowing it has been verifiability, but that of course rests upon the fact the archives are accurate, and the counter to people saying the website cannot be trusted for that has been that there is no record of archived websites themselves being tampered with. If that is no longer the case then the stated reason for the website being reliable for accurate snapshots of sources would no longer be valid.” How can you trust that the page that Archive.today serves you is an actual archive at this point?
    • chrisjj 8mo ago
      > If ... If ... Oh dear. > How can you trust that the page that Archive.today serves you is an actual archive at this point? Because no-one shown evidence that it isn't.
      • rufo 8mo ago
        The quote uses ifs because it was written before this was verified, but the Wikipedia thread in question has links to evidence of tampering occurring.
        • chrisjj 8mo ago
          Lets see them, then.
          • kay_o 8mo ago
            They referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5#Evidence_of_altering_snapshots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... ?
            • 8mo ago
  • Jordan-117 8mo ago
    Did you not read the article? They not only directed a DDOS against a blogger who crossed them, but altered their own archived snapshots to amplify a smear against them. That completely destroys their trustworthiness and credibility as a source of truth.
    • chrisjj 8mo ago
      Sure I read it. But I don't believe everything I read on the internet.
      • creatonez 8mo ago
        The proof is right there for you to see. Denying it is rather wacky.
    • ouhamouch 8mo ago
      Altered snapshots = hide Nora name? ArsTechica just did the same - removed Nora from older articles. How can you trust ArsTechica after that?
      • Jordan-117 8mo ago
        They didn't just remove her name, but replaced it with the target's name. I don't know what you're talking about re: Ars removing her name from old articles.
        • deleted 8mo ago
          [deleted]
        • ouhamouch 8mo ago
          [dead]
        • Jordan-117 8mo ago
          Follow-up: maybe you're confusing Ars Technica with Wikipedia, whose admins did redact Nora's last name from discussions? If so, that's a weird equivalence to draw, since the change was disclosed and done to protect personal information, not attack someone else in the process. (Also, "Nora [redacted]" itself seems to be a name lifted from an unrelated person who had merely contacted Archive.today with a takedown request.)
  • huslage 8mo ago
    What exactly is credible about archive.today if they are willing to change the archive to meet some desire of the leadership? That's not credible in the least.
    • chrisjj 8mo ago
      A lot more credible than archive.org that lets archives be changed and deleted by the archive targets. What's your better idea?
      • RupertSalt 8mo ago
        > the archive targets Isn't there a substantial overlap with the copyright holders?
        • chrisjj 8mo ago
          Overlap?
      • josephcsible 8mo ago
        Does archive.org really let its archives be changed? That's very different than letting them be deleted from a credibility perspective.
        • ouhamouch 8mo ago
          Yes. Archive.org snapshots may load javascript from external sites, where the original page had loaded them. That script can change anything on the page. Most often, the domain is expired and hijacked by a parking company, so it just replaces the whole page with ads. Example: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701040026/http://echo.msk.ru/ https://web.archive.org/web/20140701040026/http://echo.msk.r... ---- And another example: https://web.archive.org/web/20260219005158/https://time.is/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260219005158/https://time.is/ The page "got changed" every second. It is easy to make an archived page which would show different content depending on current time or whether you have Mac or Windows, or your locale, or browser fingerpring, or been tailored for you personally
  • prmoustache 8mo ago
    > there's no credible alternative to this one. But this one is not credible either so...