← Back to context

Comment by zymhan

3 hours ago

Editing what is billed as an archive defeats the purpose of an "archive".

> Editing what is billed as an archive defeats the purpose of an "archive".

No, certain edits are understandable and required. Even the archive.org edits its pages (e.g. sticks banners on them and does a bunch of stuff to make them work like you'd expect).

Even paper archives edit documents (e.g. writing sequence numbers on them, so the ordering doesn't get lost).

Disclosing exactly what account was used to download a particular page is arguably irrelevant information, and may even compromise the work of archiving pages (e.g. if it just opens the account to getting blocked).

Don't be surprised by this, there are a lot more edits than you think. For example, CSS is always inlined so that pages could render the same as it was archived.

  • CSS inlining happens during the process of archiving, no?

    The issue here is to edit archived pages retrospectively.

The relevant part of the page to archive is the content of the page, not the user account that visited the page. Most sane people would consider two archives of the same page with different user accounts at the top, the same page.