Projects talk:Archive everything: Difference between revisions
→Redacted evidence is no evidence.: question |
MEN KISSING (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
: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) | :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) | ::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 unrelated. | |||
: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) | |||