onehundredsixtynine@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 12 hours agoEnglish Wikipedia bans archive.todayen.wikipedia.orgexternal-linkmessage-square25fedilinkarrow-up1211arrow-down14
arrow-up1207arrow-down1external-linkEnglish Wikipedia bans archive.todayen.wikipedia.orgonehundredsixtynine@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 12 hours agomessage-square25fedilink
minus-squareikt@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down2·11 hours agoSo they think archive.today can be replaced with: Replace the archive link so it points to a different archive with a copy of the source, such as the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive (https://web.archive.org/), Ghostarchive (https://ghostarchive.org/) or Megalodon (https://megalodon.jp/).
minus-squareactionjbone@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up29·11 hours agoNo. They think that relying on a hostile archive will ultimately harm Wikipedia. They know the shortcomings of the other options.
minus-squareikt@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·11 hours agoi’ve not used the others are they not as good? i’ll be trying them soon
minus-squareactionjbone@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·edit-22 hours agoIt’s not that they aren’t as good, necessarily. More that the others do less “grey-hat” stuff, and therefore are less likely to cause harm or alter the content they host.
So they think archive.today can be replaced with:
Replace the archive link so it points to a different archive with a copy of the source, such as the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive (https://web.archive.org/), Ghostarchive (https://ghostarchive.org/) or Megalodon (https://megalodon.jp/).
No.
They think that relying on a hostile archive will ultimately harm Wikipedia.
They know the shortcomings of the other options.
i’ve not used the others are they not as good?
i’ll be trying them soon
It’s not that they aren’t as good, necessarily.
More that the others do less “grey-hat” stuff, and therefore are less likely to cause harm or alter the content they host.