Comment by normie3000
13 hours ago
> 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?
13 hours ago
> 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?
See
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...?
Besides tampering with content, the site was also using visitors to DDOS a blog that mentioned the owner of archive.today.
[dead]
See the "Background" section of the Wikipedia RFC on banning archive.today links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...
They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.
Just out of curiosity, how do we know that what is in the Wikipedia comments is accurate? I have no skin in the game. I was just wondering. Anybody can post anything on Wikipedia comments. I find it odd that Ars Technica would use that as a source. Maybe it's fine for gossip and speculation but it shouldn't be in Ars Technica then.
There is a megalodon.jp archive of an archive.today page that shows the edits: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805
And you obviously have no reason to believe me, but I was following this when it was happening at the start of this year and can confirm that the DDoS script and archive text replacements really did happen.
Because a lot of us watched the drama unfold in real time.
1 reply →