Projects talk:Archive everything: Difference between revisions

(25 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 16:

::Worth looking at for other options. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

== LIES! ==

==LIES!==

a lot of the ones that say "Yes" are not infact very yes.

Line 28:

[[Adobe#cite_note-1]], [[Adobe#cite_ref-8]] [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:please update before I call the police [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 19:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

::Archived em and updated the list accordingly, thanks for pointing them out since some of the older entries like those might be less accurate, cheers! (pls don't call the cops) [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 22:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:::I nearly placed the call but the situation's resolved itself. good work people keep it up [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 09:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

==Should we archive videos?==

I was looking through the [[Amazon]] page and noticed there's nearly two dozen video references. Video files are way bigger than webpage snapshots, and it shows by PreserveTube being the only one listed on this page (implying that if there's another archive for that purpose, it's not too popular).

For references leaning more on video, would it be better for one to work toward finding non-video references as well? e.g. finding websites that Louis shows in his videos? It would be a mountain of work, but as the saying goes we can't put all our archive (eggs) in one basket (host). [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I'd say that, where possible, we should prefer to archive webpages/documents over videos, especially when the it's the original/primary source and the video only references it. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 15:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

::PreserveTube seems good for archiving videos. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

==Archive.today==

With the recent controversy (see the related {{Wplink|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5|Wikipedia community conversation}}), where does that leave citations that have no easy replacement?

An example I have for this is the [[Vont]] article page that I created last year, specifically the passage regarding Vont's store page on Amazon and its activity. I first tried using Internet Archive, but it had resulted in an error — which led me to use Archive.today. And originally, I hadn't even planned on multiple captures but that changed when I noticed the postings looked different while I was drafting the article in my sandbox.

I just tried archiving their Amazon storefront page using the IA and it actually worked ''this'' time, so ''hopefully'' I'll be able to "re-build" the archival links that'll still illustrate the same point (see the [https://archive.is/https://www.amazon.com/s?srs=19824332011&rh=p_89:Vont archive.is history] for comparison). But if not, I would rather the citations be left alone in this instance.

Any other thoughts? — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 05:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:"[...] an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced. Several editors started to work out implementation details during this RfC and the community should figure out how to efficiently remove links to archive.today."

:I think it wise to follow in the footsteps of this conclusion of the Wikipedia RFC: making a best-effort to replace all Archive.today links with alternatives. It will probably be a slow process anyhow, and any content that is difficult to archive on IA or elsewhere can be left until last, by which time hopefully we will have found a suitable Archive.today replacement for such content. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 18:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:UPDATE: Since the Wayback Machine has proven to be unreliable in the instance I provided, I'll have to splice together the captures and upload to CRW. Not ideal, but the community is determined to rid itself of any Archive.today usage and I will do my best to comply. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 00:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

==Automation? List updating?==

I see many of the pages listed as not archived have been updated by [[User:Bananabot|Bananabot]] (usually early today), which is as its name implies, a bot.

Eg: [[Cerberus]], [[Cloudflare]], [[Denon HEOS Speakers]]

Is there a plan to segment pages into the ones humans need to add archive links to, vs ones that a bot can take care of? It's great if this task can be automated, and if so, it would be nice if we carbon-based contributors could focus on those pages the bot(s) can't handle. Or is there a way we ourselves can look at a page and determine that?

And when we add archive links, do we need to manually update "The list" with the new status for those pages? Or is the list updated through some automatic process periodically? (I looked at some history and can't tell.) Either way, could mention of that be added to the directions? Thanks! [[User:Marc84|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84|talk]]) 20:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, I'd like to first say that Bananabot is not a bot made by the CRW team, it is made by [[User:Banana]] (who sounds pretty cool btw). I think we should manually update the table for now unless Banana wants to code that in themself. There's no plan to segment pages, we only recently got an archiving bot anyway. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:The list is currently manually maintained, I think it would be lovely if it could be automated, it took a fair amount of human effort to initially fill it out and standardise its look.

:I'm not sure how Bananabot or similar work and which pages bots can or cannot handle. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

::It would indeed be good, but it depends on whether Banana (who is simply a volunteer, not someone who is paid) wants to code it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:::Also, due to how archiving works, Bananabot is (i think) able to handle all pages the IA can. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

::::Bananabot can handle everything that IA can save. Right now limits are rate on IA itself (itgets rate limited + uploading takes quite a while). About project page table - I'll check out if I can automate it [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 10:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for all the answers! And cool bot, @[[User:Banana|Banana]]. [[User:Marc84|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84|talk]]) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

==Redacted evidence is no evidence.==

So the main reason Archive.Today is supposedly untrustworthy is that they supposedly falsified snapshots.

Of course, this would be very bad if it were true, but if you actually dig to the bottom of the Archive.Today drama, past the sensationalized news articles by Ars Technica and others, you end up on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5#Evidence_of_altering_snapshots Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 § Evidence of altering snapshots].

Now, let's see what groundbreaking evidence they have, shall we?

*<s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> ~2026-10956-05 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

::Where exactly are you getting this information from? MEN KISSING 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

:::Your link returns a 404 error. <s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> sapphaline 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

</blockquote>

<small>(signatures shortened to usernames only)</small>

Awesome. "Just take our word for it, bro!"

Sorry, but if someone can't show me actual evidence, I don't trust it, and neither should you. If you can't see it, it might as well not exist. Redacted evidence doesn't count. Don't give credence to it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 10:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

:Rather silly to find my own username elsewhere on the internet, haha!

:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is further down.

:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

==Invidious?==

sir can I have some more Invidious? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

::so is Nitter and Redlib and they're also not treated as archives. I was talking abt Invidious' inclusion in [[Projects:Archive everything#Alternative frontends & mirrors|Alternative frontends & mirrors]] btw [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

:::Nitter is there because it allows for comments to be seen without sign-in so it's superior to x dot com, Redlib is there to go around 18+ gated content on old dot reddit that archive services can't get past. The three available Invidious instances that are up all have anti-bot measures that block archival services, and even if that weren't the case, the fact remains that PreserveTube can archive videos perfectly and YT archived pages leave the topmost comments visible, so there isn't really a need for a YT frontend for archival purposes in the first place (atm, anyway). [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 10:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ::Worth looking at for other options. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
-== LIES! ==
+==LIES!==
 a lot of the ones that say "Yes" are not infact very yes.
@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 [[Adobe#cite_note-1]], [[Adobe#cite_ref-8]] [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
+:please update before I call the police [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 19:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
+::Archived em and updated the list accordingly, thanks for pointing them out since some of the older entries like those might be less accurate, cheers! (pls don't call the cops) [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 22:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
+:::I nearly placed the call but the situation's resolved itself. good work people keep it up [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 09:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
+==Should we archive videos?==
+I was looking through the [[Amazon]] page and noticed there's nearly two dozen video references. Video files are way bigger than webpage snapshots, and it shows by PreserveTube being the only one listed on this page (implying that if there's another archive for that purpose, it's not too popular).
+For references leaning more on video, would it be better for one to work toward finding non-video references as well? e.g. finding websites that Louis shows in his videos? It would be a mountain of work, but as the saying goes we can't put all our archive (eggs) in one basket (host). [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
+:Yeah, I'd say that, where possible, we should prefer to archive webpages/documents over videos, especially when the it's the original/primary source and the video only references it. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 15:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
+::PreserveTube seems good for archiving videos. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+==Archive.today==
+With the recent controversy (see the related {{Wplink|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5|Wikipedia community conversation}}), where does that leave citations that have no easy replacement?
+An example I have for this is the [[Vont]] article page that I created last year, specifically the passage regarding Vont's store page on Amazon and its activity. I first tried using Internet Archive, but it had resulted in an error — which led me to use Archive.today. And originally, I hadn't even planned on multiple captures but that changed when I noticed the postings looked different while I was drafting the article in my sandbox.
+I just tried archiving their Amazon storefront page using the IA and it actually worked ''this'' time, so ''hopefully'' I'll be able to "re-build" the archival links that'll still illustrate the same point (see the [https://archive.is/https://www.amazon.com/s?srs=19824332011&rh=p_89:Vont archive.is history] for comparison). But if not, I would rather the citations be left alone in this instance.
+Any other thoughts? — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 05:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+:"[...] an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced. Several editors started to work out implementation details during this RfC and the community should figure out how to efficiently remove links to archive.today."
+:I think it wise to follow in the footsteps of this conclusion of the Wikipedia RFC: making a best-effort to replace all Archive.today links with alternatives. It will probably be a slow process anyhow, and any content that is difficult to archive on IA or elsewhere can be left until last, by which time hopefully we will have found a suitable Archive.today replacement for such content. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 18:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+:UPDATE: Since the Wayback Machine has proven to be unreliable in the instance I provided, I'll have to splice together the captures and upload to CRW. Not ideal, but the community is determined to rid itself of any Archive.today usage and I will do my best to comply. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 00:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
+==Automation? List updating?==
+I see many of the pages listed as not archived have been updated by [[User:Bananabot|Bananabot]] (usually early today), which is as its name implies, a bot.
+Eg: [[Cerberus]], [[Cloudflare]], [[Denon HEOS Speakers]]
+Is there a plan to segment pages into the ones humans need to add archive links to, vs ones that a bot can take care of? It's great if this task can be automated, and if so, it would be nice if we carbon-based contributors could focus on those pages the bot(s) can't handle. Or is there a way we ourselves can look at a page and determine that?
+And when we add archive links, do we need to manually update "The list" with the new status for those pages? Or is the list updated through some automatic process periodically? (I looked at some history and can't tell.) Either way, could mention of that be added to the directions? Thanks! [[User:Marc84|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84|talk]]) 20:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+:Hi, I'd like to first say that Bananabot is not a bot made by the CRW team, it is made by [[User:Banana]] (who sounds pretty cool btw). I think we should manually update the table for now unless Banana wants to code that in themself. There's no plan to segment pages, we only recently got an archiving bot anyway. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+:The list is currently manually maintained, I think it would be lovely if it could be automated, it took a fair amount of human effort to initially fill it out and standardise its look.
+:I'm not sure how Bananabot or similar work and which pages bots can or cannot handle. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+::It would indeed be good, but it depends on whether Banana (who is simply a volunteer, not someone who is paid) wants to code it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+:::Also, due to how archiving works, Bananabot is (i think) able to handle all pages the IA can. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
+::::Bananabot can handle everything that IA can save. Right now limits are rate on IA itself (itgets rate limited + uploading takes quite a while). About project page table - I'll check out if I can automate it [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 10:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
+:Thanks for all the answers! And cool bot, @[[User:Banana|Banana]]. [[User:Marc84|Marc84]] ([[User talk:Marc84|talk]]) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
+==Redacted evidence is no evidence.==
+So the main reason Archive.Today is supposedly untrustworthy is that they supposedly falsified snapshots.
+Of course, this would be very bad if it were true, but if you actually dig to the bottom of the Archive.Today drama, past the sensationalized news articles by Ars Technica and others, you end up on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5#Evidence_of_altering_snapshots Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 § Evidence of altering snapshots].
+Now, let's see what groundbreaking evidence they have, shall we?
+<blockquote>
+*<s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> ~2026-10956-05 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
+::Where exactly are you getting this information from? MEN KISSING 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
+:::Your link returns a 404 error. <s style="font-style:italic; color:#565656">(Redacted)</s> sapphaline 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
+</blockquote>
+<small>(signatures shortened to usernames only)</small>
+Awesome. "Just take our word for it, bro!"
+Sorry, but if someone can't show me actual evidence, I don't trust it, and neither should you. If you can't see it, it might as well not exist. Redacted evidence doesn't count. Don't give credence to it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 10:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
+:The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
+::I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
+:Rather silly to find my own username elsewhere on the internet, haha!
+:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] The redacted text was not any evidence. It was a TA making a really nasty and unsubstantiated allegation against the blog owner, which violates Wikipedia's policy on content about living people. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPTALK WP:BLPTALK]. Sapphaline discovered the archive tampering based on the link the TA posted, but that was mostly just something between coincidence and irony. As pointed out by Tempo, the real evidence of tampering is further down.
+:If you have any more questions about the RfC, let me know! [[User:MEN KISSING|MEN KISSING]] ([[User talk:MEN KISSING|talk]]) 06:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
+::Thank you for your clarification. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
+==Invidious?==
+sir can I have some more Invidious? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
+:Invidious is only an alt frontend for YT, I don't see how it would help here? It doesn't circumvent age-restricted vids, and we already have preservetube as a perfect YT archiver. [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
+::so is Nitter and Redlib and they're also not treated as archives. I was talking abt Invidious' inclusion in [[Projects:Archive everything#Alternative frontends & mirrors|Alternative frontends & mirrors]] btw [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
+:::Nitter is there because it allows for comments to be seen without sign-in so it's superior to x dot com, Redlib is there to go around 18+ gated content on old dot reddit that archive services can't get past. The three available Invidious instances that are up all have anti-bot measures that block archival services, and even if that weren't the case, the fact remains that PreserveTube can archive videos perfectly and YT archived pages leave the topmost comments visible, so there isn't really a need for a YT frontend for archival purposes in the first place (atm, anyway). [[User:Tempo123|Tempo123]] ([[User talk:Tempo123|talk]]) 10:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)