Wikipedia might blacklist Archive.today after site maintainer DDoSed a blog
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Wikipedia cannot let it stand and do nothing. A valued miscreant that doesn't follow proper conduct is no better than a malicious nobody that doesn't follow proper conduct. Put them on public notice and restrict them for 30 days, publicizing precisely why the restriction exists. Then let them return on a probationary basis.
Scruples.
Scruples.
Upvote
91
(97
/
-6)
The entire situation just reads as baffling to me. On one hand, I can hypothetically see how the blogger's digging might be construed as a doxxing attempt - but the tone in the email chain doesn't seem to imply that the archive operator necessarily thinks this, and it wouldn't justify the response of threatening to make AI porn, anyways.
And, like -- surely, surely the owner/operator of an archive website knows that, even if the source webpage is taken down, that information will still freely exist, right? Like???
And, like -- surely, surely the owner/operator of an archive website knows that, even if the source webpage is taken down, that information will still freely exist, right? Like???
Upvote
70
(70
/
0)
Wikipedia often seems like the last bastion of common sense and equanimity on the internet.
This appears to be a real quandary, but I have every confidence they will discuss, debate and argue it out and then make a sensible decision.
Wikipedia drama is (thankfully) the least exciting drama...
This appears to be a real quandary, but I have every confidence they will discuss, debate and argue it out and then make a sensible decision.
Wikipedia drama is (thankfully) the least exciting drama...
Upvote
62
(64
/
-2)
I'm a little baffled that they allowed linking to it in the first place, as it appears most of the links were just attempts to bypass paywalls.
I'm the most anti-paywall person there is and don't really fret too much about people finding a copy of an NYT article or whatever online, but good lord you have to have somewhat higher standards when you're acting on behalf of an organization like the Wikimedia Foundation. There's just a ton of liability exposure if some litigious organization finds an infringing copy of their IP linked to from Wikipedia.
I'm the most anti-paywall person there is and don't really fret too much about people finding a copy of an NYT article or whatever online, but good lord you have to have somewhat higher standards when you're acting on behalf of an organization like the Wikimedia Foundation. There's just a ton of liability exposure if some litigious organization finds an infringing copy of their IP linked to from Wikipedia.
Upvote
63
(65
/
-2)
So how long until the Archive.today wikipedia article includes a section on this story?
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Where's the quandary? I think these actions clearly call into question the reliability of Archive.today. If Archive uses page views to launch a DDOS, it's not unreasonable to think it might attack its users themselves. It also makes me question the reliability of Archive. "Yes, we use page views for malicious purpose, but the content of those pages is totally reliable" is something I do not believe at all.
That Wikipedia relies so much on an unreliable source makes it unreliable itself. As someone who has donated to the Wiki Foundation, I don't see any quandary. The choice is distance itself from Archive, or join them as an unreliable and malicious entity.
Upvote
70
(72
/
-2)
Yeah, I get why paywalls exist (I subscribe to Ars and also to 2 news sources that are paywalled), but there needs to be a way for people to access stuff for reference purposes. FWIW, my local library has digital “subscriptions” to some major news orgs, but they’re a hassle to use on a regular basis (which is the point, I’m sure).
It would seem to be in the news orgs best interest to allow some sort of direct linking from Wikipedia to their articles (it’s a form of advertising, really). Obviously, there would be to be ways to prevent abuse, otherwise someone’s going to start a Wikipedia page that is just “All the articles from the NYT on today’s date”. But this seems like a solvable problem.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
IMHO Wikipedia should immediately cut off all connections with archive.today. They should only be partnering with transparent organizations like Internet Archive. Whoever is running archive.today is a criminal, no matter how smart they are or what value they bring. Drop the poisoned chalice people. More bad is to come from this relationship, I guarantee.
Upvote
30
(35
/
-5)
Aside: There’s a practice with some medical research papers (when funded by US government agencies?) that they becomes free access after a few years. It would be great for the historical record if news organisations did similarly. All academic journals too, in fact.
Upvote
31
(31
/
0)
Wikipedia is ultimately as reliable as its sources, and I see today is that the maintainer of Archive.today is ethically hazardous.
I agree with those quoted editors; it's better to deal with it on their own terms, while they can.
I agree with those quoted editors; it's better to deal with it on their own terms, while they can.
Upvote
33
(34
/
-1)
There are sites like newspapers.com, but they require a subscription. On the plus side, they're searchable and the quality is a lot better than the old microfiche.
Mind you, libraries paid for the microfiche, too. It wasn't a free service, just one that was offered to the public for free at taxpayer expense.
One option would be to do citations the old way -- just give the particulars of where to find it, then let people use their own library or other local resources to check it. That would make verifying edits a lot harder, though.
The blogger published the article in 2023, two years before the FBI became interested. Also just naming what country you think someone is in isn't doxxing.
Upvote
45
(46
/
-1)
I mean if you're going to deliberately misunderstand the difference between a nonprofit encyclopedia made by a veritable army of different people on the Internet and for-profit companies using it to enrich themselves, you could at least recognize the difference between using material and linking to it. It's quite reasonable that people who themselves have legitimate access to the source write the content, but given the source is paywalled share the archive version.
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
I think this is the best way to handle things; historically no one cared about yesterday's news. They could bar access for 7 days after publication. That should still entice people to subscribe and allow citations to function generally. But papers would have to make the change themselves; it won't help Wikipedia now.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
In principle, (and on principles...) I don't disagree with you (though I'm not sure I really have enough information for a truly informed view) - but the fact that many of these citations are not available anywhere else, the 695,000 current links and the possible proliferation of {{dead link}} tags far into the future do not seem like trivial problems either.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Are you frigging insane?
Let's meet with my wife, my kids, and many friends and get their opinions on this.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Yes. One is people trying to become billionaires while making a bunch of problems for the world and the other is trying to disseminate knowledge in a world where Google search isn't that good anymore to find an answer to a question. Better for all that they don't steal though.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
It sucks but they need to cut it off, better to do it themselves now on their own terms. If they do option B the operator could try to weaponize the remaining links against them for example. They've already shown a willingness to engage in petty destructive revenge.
May I say its amazing and hope-inspiring there's still places on the internet where people are having thoughtful debates on the merits of the options before them, even if i think their hand is or will be forced in this case.
May I say its amazing and hope-inspiring there's still places on the internet where people are having thoughtful debates on the merits of the options before them, even if i think their hand is or will be forced in this case.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
araczynski
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Just cut the ties and move on. Whatever has been referenced in the past will have to be assumed to be 'valid' even with no link (since it has been assumed to be valid all this time anyway). All new source links will just need to be from a different/new/reliable source.
Otherwise Wiki starts fast sliding into useless obscurity even faster than they already slowly are.
Otherwise Wiki starts fast sliding into useless obscurity even faster than they already slowly are.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Yeah apparently the owner of archive has never heard of Barbara Streisand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Upvote
7
(10
/
-3)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Yeah I can't believe option C is even being considered. It would kill any credibility wiki has. They are essentially saying we will deal with terrorists and criminals as long as they are useful terrorists and criminals. No just no.
Last edited:
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
You're joking, right? They segued very quickly into threats, insults, and using their page as a (crappy) attempt to use visitors' resources to DDoS someone. That's way worse than any perceived doxxing (which, to be clear, never actually occurred). If they were really concerned about it and not a bad actor, continuing a constructive dialogue would have been reasonable.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
One issue is "back in the day" it all appeared to be free. Libraries were free for the most part. The costs were hidden from view. And now people don't understand why things are no longer "free". But they never were.
TANSTAAFL
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
As a behind the
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
LOL, yes, pointing out the Streisand effect is a thing is a threat. I never knew.
And in any case, no, I would not respond with an inept DDoS attempt or the other threats. That's not normal behavior. If you think it is, then we don't really have anything more to discuss.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
Actually, it's a requirement attached to Federal grants (NIH and NSF at least) that results are published freely. Typically that means putting copies of any journal articles on a web server somewhere, or opting for an open-access publication. Same in Canada, where the time period before publications are made public access are being reduced as well.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Someone needs to archive the original blog post on archive.today, then add it as a link on that wiki page as an example
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Are you really saying that I tried doing it legally and it didn't work (yet) so that justifies criminal activity? Really? What if the guy didn't back down from a DDOS would an "ethical" murder for hire be justified? By your logic what option was left but to murder the blog owner to keep him quiet.
I know it is 2026 and the world has gone to shit but I feel it is yet another low to have to explain that "I tried all the legal stuff before engaging in criminal activity" is not a valid justification either legally or ethically.
If you have exhausted all legal remedies (which he had not) then you are done. Period.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
I don't think you'll find many people here sympathetic to the idea that websites should censor themselves in response to legal thuggery from random people.
The "Streisand effect" isn't a threat to do something. It's just natural consequences. If you sue somebody, then far more people become aware of the thing you're suing over than were before.
Calling it a threat is like saying "if you honk your horn at me people in other cars will hear and might think you're an asshole" is a threat.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
