|
| ▲ | mook 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Wouldn't it be precisely because archives are important that using something known to modify the contents would be avoided? |
| |
| ▲ | esseph 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > something known to modify the contents would be avoided? Like Wikipedia? | | |
| ▲ | beej71 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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? |
| |
| ▲ | chrisjj 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Obviously not, since archive.org is encouraged. |
|
|
| ▲ | that_lurker 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | huslage 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | A lot more credible than archive.org that lets archives be changed and deleted by the archive targets. What's your better idea? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | throw0101a 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Jordan-117 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ouhamouch 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Altered snapshots = hide Nora name? ArsTechica just did the same - removed Nora from older articles. How can you trust ArsTechica after that? | |
| ▲ | chrisjj an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure I read it. But I don't believe everything I read on the internet. |
|
