I don't see the point in doxing anyone, especially those providing a useful service for the average internet user. Just because you can put some info together, it doesn't mean you should.

With this said, I also disagree with turning everyone that uses archive[.]today into a botnet that DDoS sites. Changing the content of archived pages also raises questions about the authenticity of what we're reading.

The site behaves as if it was infected by some malware and the archived pages can't be trusted. I can see why Wikipedia made this decision.

There is an post describing the possibility of an organised campaign against archive.today [1] https://algustionesa.com/the-takedown-campaign-against-archi...

How does the tech behind archive.today work in detail? Is there any information out there that goes beyond the Google AI search reply or this HN thread [2]?

[1] https://algustionesa.com/the-takedown-campaign-against-archi... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42816427

I noticed last year that some archived pages are getting altered.

Every Reddit archived page used to have a Reddit username in the top right, but then it disappeared. "Fair enough," I thought. "They want to hide their Reddit username now."

The problem is, they did it retroactively too, removing the username from past captures.

You can see on old Reddit captures where the normal archived page has no username, but when you switch the tab to the Screenshot of the archive it is still there. The screenshot is the original capture and the username has now been removed for the normal webpage version.

When I noticed it, it seemed like such a minor change, but with these latest revelations, it doesn't seem so minor anymore.

It seems a lot of people havent heard of it, but I think its worth plugging https://perma.cc/ which is really the appropriate tool for something like Wikipedia to be using to archive pages.

mroe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perma.cc

I noticed I've started being redirected to a blank nginx server for archive.is... but only the .is domain, .ph and .today work just fine. I wonder if they ended up on an adblocker or two.

> “I’m glad the Wikipedia community has come to a clear consensus, and I hope this inspires the Wikimedia Foundation to look into creating its own archival service,” he told us.

Hardly possible for Wikimedia to provide a service like archive.today given the legal trouble of the latter.

Strangely naive.

why is my first thought reading this that the blob is bothered by not having leverage to delete stuff from archive.today?

i don't know anything specific about the site or any conflicts involved, yet this smells like a negative PR campaign to me...

Kinda off-topic, but has anyone figured out how archive.today manages to bypass paywalls so reliably? I've seen people claiming that they have a bunch of paid accounts that they use to fetch the pages, which is, of course, ridiculous. I figured that they have found an (automated) way to imitate Googlebot really well.

They seem totally unrelated to the Internet Archive. They probably only ever got on Wikipedia by leeching of the IA brand and confusing enough people to use them

Archive.is is now publishing really weird posts on their Tumblr blog, related to the whole thing

https://archive-is.tumblr.com/post/806832066465497088/ladies...

https://archive-is.tumblr.com/post/807584470961111040/it-see...

FYI, archive.today is NOT the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine.

Why not show both? Wikipedia could display archive links alongside original sources, clearly labeled so readers know which is which. This preserves access when originals disappear while keeping the primary source as the main reference.

> If you want to pretend this never happened – delete your old article and post the new one you have promised. And I will not write “an OSINT investigation” on your Nazi grandfather

From hero to a Kremlin troll in five seconds.

"Non-paywalled" ad-free link to archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

> an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced.

Oh? Do tell!

Previously Related:

Archive.today is directing a DDoS attack against my blog?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805

Anecdotally I generally see archive.is/archive.today links floating around "stochastic terrorist" sites and other hate cults.

[dead]

>In emails sent to Patokallio after the DDoS began, “Nora” from Archive.today threatened to create a public association between Patokallio’s name and AI porn and to create a gay dating app with Patokallio’s name.

Oh good. That's definitely a reasonable thing to do or think.

The raw sociopathy of some people. Getting doxxed isn't good, but this response is unhinged.

At this point Archive.today provides a better service (all things considered) compared to Wikipedia, at least when it comes to current affairs.

So toward the end of last year, the FBI was after archive.today, presumably either for keeping track of things the current administration doesn't want tracked, or maybe for the paywall thing (on behalf of rich donors/IP owners). https://gizmodo.com/the-fbi-is-trying-to-unmask-the-registra...

That effort appears to have gone nowhere, so now suddenly archive.today commits reputational suicide? I don't suppose someone could look deeper into this please?

Anyone has a short summary as to who and why Archive.today acted via DDos? Isn't that something done by malicious actors? Or did others misuse Archive.today?

I will no longer donate to Wikipedia as long as this is policy.