Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
The links are usually to Archive.today (aka archive.ph and a bunch of other domains), not Wayback Machine (which is run by Internet Archive).
Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.
> Why folks continue to use them
Because there's no working alternative.
> Why folks continue to use them confuses me.
I use them. I haven't ever heard mention that the content is edited. Do you have a source?
7 replies →
> Why folks continue to use them confuses me.
Seems like the “confused” is disingenuous when not paying for content you read is a clear motivation.
1 reply →
Ironically, your framing of the situation is infinitely more disingenuous to push a personal agenda versus anything the archive.today guy did.
ehh it's a distinction without a difference. The point is that alternative links are available to circumvent paid access for anyone that wants them.
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
6 replies →
They're different sites, with different goals, run by different people.
9 replies →