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?
> 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.
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.
Archive.org snapshots may load javascript from external sites, where the archived 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 replace the whole page with ads.
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.
> 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?
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.
Why? The decision seems reasonable at first sight.
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.
Wouldn't it be precisely because archives are important that using something known to modify the contents would be avoided?
> something known to modify the contents would be avoided?
Like Wikipedia?
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?
> 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.
Obviously not, since archive.org is encouraged.
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.
A lot more credible than archive.org that lets archives be changed and deleted by the archive targets.
What's your better idea?
Does archive.org really let its archives be changed? That's very different than letting them be deleted from a credibility perspective.
Yes.
Archive.org snapshots may load javascript from external sites, where the archived 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 replace the whole page with ads.
> the archive targets
Isn't there a substantial overlap with the copyright holders?
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.
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.
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-...
> 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?
> 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.
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.
Lets see them, then.
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.
Altered snapshots = hide Nora name?
ArsTechica just did the same - removed Nora from older articles. How can you trust ArsTechica after that?
Sure I read it. But I don't believe everything I read on the internet.
About how much had you previously donated over the years?
[flagged]
[flagged]