338
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
338 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
82581 readers
3379 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dunno if I would call it "behaving poorly".
The blogger in question doxxed the owner/maintainer of Archive.today who in return doxxed the blogger. To me this sounds more like eye for an eye FAFO.
If it's altering snapshots, it's not a reliable archive. Simple as that.
That's inappropriate, childish, and unprofessional. It makes them untrustworthy for citations. There are better ways of handling it.
If altering snapshots for a grudge isn't your definition of "behaving poorly" for a site archiving the state of the Internet, then you must not think they have to be an accurate source of information. If they're not an accurate source of information, then Wikipedia has no obligation to allow them to be used in citations, and they should remove such citations.
Has the accuracy of the snapshots actually changed based on this edit? After all, if it's factual information being presented...
I do agree that it raises the issue of what other modifications there may be, and it IS childish, but so is going after a person who provides a good service and wants to remain anonymous while doing so.
All I'm saying is that while I do not agree with the actions, I also am not saying I don't understand the reasoning behind.
Yes! Quite literally, yes. They're supposed to be an archive of what is on other sites. It doesn't matter if the original site was, right, wrong, complete, incomplete, accurate, inaccurate, factual, unfactual, etc. If they change things, they're editorializing and are no longer an archive, they're new content - which is not the purpose people use them for.
That's literally the point. It doesn't matter how much you "understand the reasoning" (though you also think it's childish and don't agree with the actions). You can use it if you want to, no one is stopping you. The point is Wikipedia can't trust it as a source of archived data and has every right to ban it.
Did you actually read the two articles posted by the blogger? The archive.today owner wasn't doxxed. No personally identifying information was provided; it only aggregates already-known info including a couple of fake aliases. The most it concludes is that the guy is Russian or operating out of Russia.
https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/
https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-of-the-mysterious-guerrilla-archivist-of-the-internet/