← Back to context

Comment by beej71

2 days ago

No, not like that. There's a difference between a site that:

1) provides a snapshot of another site for archival purposes. 2) provides original content.

You're arguing that since encyclopedias change their content, the Library of Congress should be allowed to change the content of the materials in its stacks.

By modifying its archives, archive.today just flushed its credibility as an archival site. So what is it now?

8 comments

beej71

Reply
esseph  2 days ago

> You're arguing that since encyclopedias change their content, the Library of Congress should be allowed to change the content of the materials in its stacks.

As an end user of Wikipedia there are occasions where content has been scrubbed and/or edits hidden. Admins can see some of those, but end users cannot (with various justifications, some excellent/reasonable and some.. nebulous). That's all I'm saying, nothing about Congress or such other nonsense. It seems like an occasion of the pot calling the kettle names from this side of the fence.

  • beej71  2 days ago

    But Wikipedia promises you that it will modify its content. They're transparent about that promise.

    An archival site (by default definition) promises you that it will not modify its content. And when it does, it's no longer an archival site.

    Wikipedia has never been an archival site and it never will be. archive.today was an archival site, but now it never will be again.