Projects talk:Archive everything: Difference between revisions

(12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)

Line 54:

:"[...] 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?==

Line 70:

Line 73:

::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 54: / Line 54: @@
 :"[...] 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?==
@@ Line 70: / Line 73: @@
 ::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)