3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoLets see them, then.
- kay_o 8mo agoThey 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... ?
- chrisjj 8mo ago> They referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... ? Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact name. I assume that is weasel words for 404 Not Found.
- Gander5739 8mo agoYou seem to have truncated the link; it appears in full for me in kay_o's comment.
- chrisjj 8mo agoI did not. The link was susequently edited. 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... I read that up to the first "proof", https://web.archive.org/web/20260218135501/https://www.google.com/search?q=nora+puchreiner&sca_esv=bf84d0236feb05f8&ei=Xb-Vad2SMYLs5NoPn-m-0Q4&start=50&sa=N&sstk=Af77f_f3yOKcuJJrXgW_Rt325l2b6P90WyloXktMRenO-TyPWVb8xy4nhv5WH4WloRYgL2E5haeoB2yXOuI5XKVDtlaQgmdCNS4Taj7Hs9nL8TMNoPCFzc3OsxiF2OTmZl7ytzHOUUpOwXrA2Z7eXs1M0KpcxE8miWZJVdfFhnhx0m4rQxV9wUNz_IioTa03-vaopTLWfdIYBy6LQ6FieiY9mjteqjG7&ved=2ahUKEwidtZS6k-OSAxUCNlkFHZ-0L-o4KBDy0wN6BAgJEBA&biw=1400&bih=600&dpr=2&sei=tcSVaafKDd3BkPIPicXb6Qg https://web.archive.org/web/20260218135501/https://www.googl... It lands "503 Service Unavailable No server is available to handle this request."
- Gander5739 8mo agoApologies, then. The Wayback link works just fine for me, no errors.