“I echo others [that Option] A is looking like something we’ll have to do eventually, anyways, and at least this way we have a chance to do it on our terms,” one editor wrote. “I hate to break it to you, but even if the FBI thing goes nowhere, a website whose operator apparently threatens to create AI porn in retaliation against enemies, using their names, isn’t a trustworthy mirror, and isn’t going to remain one.”
One editor reported being “miserable” about supporting Option A, “but we cannot permit websites to rope our readers into being part of DDoS attacks.” Moreover, “The fact is that most of the archive.today links on Wikipedia are not an attempt to save URLs that have now gone dead that the Internet Archive cannot handle, but efforts to bypass paywalls, which is convenient, but illegal. It’s strange that we accept links to archive.today for this purpose but don’t accept the same for Anna’s Archive or Sci-Hub,” the editor wrote.
We emailed the Archive.today’s webmaster address today about the Wikipedia discussion and will update this article if we get a response.
The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia, chimed in on the discussion today. “Our view is that the value to verifiability that the site provides must be weighed against the security risks and violation of the trust of the people who click these links,” wrote Eric Mill, head of the foundation’s product safety and integrity group. “We (WMF) encourage the English Wikipedia community to carefully weigh the situation before making a decision on this unusual case.”
Noting that “Archive.today’s owner has not been deterred from continuing the ongoing DDoS,” Mill wrote that “the same actions that make archive.today unsafe may also reduce its usefulness for verifying content on Wikipedia. If the owners are willing to abuse their position to further their goals through malicious code, then it also raises questions about the integrity of the archive it hosts.”
