2 ms·

Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives?

by rendaw 2mo ago

zahlman 2mo ago
"it's pretty obvious why" here refers to why Wikipedia would reject them as a source.
s3p 2mo ago
Looking for the answer to this myself as well. Seems like a bit of conjecture
throw0101a 2mo ago
> Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives? See section "Blog capture tampered with": * https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a... Also: > On 20 February 2026, the English Wikipedia banned all links to archive.today, citing the DDoS attack and evidence that archived content was tampered with: Discussion had discovered that instances of Nora's name were replaced with Patokallio's and that "Nora" was likely an appropriated identity—the name belonged to a real person, whose only connection to archive.today had been a prior content takedown request.[18][17][19] The community's decision was made despite concerns over maintaining content verifiability—partly undermined by the discovery of the alterations— while removing and replacing the second-largest archiving service used across the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. The Wikimedia Foundation had stated its readiness to take action regardless of the community verdict.[18][20] Patokallio expressed his satisfaction with the outcome.[3] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Attack_on_Gyrovague_and_Wikipedia's_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Attack_on_Gyrova... > Specifically, AT's maintainers reportedly tweaked snapshots of a third-party blog post that Patokallio referred to in his February 2026 article about the DDoS attack. AT changed the name of a "Nora" person in said post to Jani Patokallio, making it look as if he had written some comments there. Eagle-eyed Wikipedia editors spotted the alterations, which have since then been reverted, but the action made it easy for them reach a final decision. * https://www.tomshardware.com/software/search-engines/wikipedia-officially-blacklists-all-links-to-archive-today-website-operator-caught-tweaking-their-own-archive https://www.tomshardware.com/software/search-engines/wikiped...

Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives?

by rendaw 2mo ago

Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives?

zahlman 2mo ago

"it's pretty obvious why" here refers to why Wikipedia would reject them as a source.

s3p 2mo ago

Looking for the answer to this myself as well. Seems like a bit of conjecture

throw0101a 2mo ago

> Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives? See section "Blog capture tampered with": * https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a... Also: > On 20 February 2026, the English Wikipedia banned all links to archive.today, citing the DDoS attack and evidence that archived content was tampered with: Discussion had discovered that instances of Nora's name were replaced with Patokallio's and that "Nora" was likely an appropriated identity—the name belonged to a real person, whose only connection to archive.today had been a prior content takedown request.[18][17][19] The community's decision was made despite concerns over maintaining content verifiability—partly undermined by the discovery of the alterations— while removing and replacing the second-largest archiving service used across the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. The Wikimedia Foundation had stated its readiness to take action regardless of the community verdict.[18][20] Patokallio expressed his satisfaction with the outcome.[3] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Attack_on_Gyrovague_and_Wikipedia's_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Attack_on_Gyrova... > Specifically, AT's maintainers reportedly tweaked snapshots of a third-party blog post that Patokallio referred to in his February 2026 article about the DDoS attack. AT changed the name of a "Nora" person in said post to Jani Patokallio, making it look as if he had written some comments there. Eagle-eyed Wikipedia editors spotted the alterations, which have since then been reverted, but the action made it easy for them reach a final decision. * https://www.tomshardware.com/software/search-engines/wikipedia-officially-blacklists-all-links-to-archive-today-website-operator-caught-tweaking-their-own-archive https://www.tomshardware.com/software/search-engines/wikiped...