Wikipedia deprecates Archive.today, starts removing archive links

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Wikipedia’s policy change and rationale

  • Commenters quote Wikipedia’s new guidance: remove archive.today links when originals are still online; replace with other archives (Internet Archive, Ghostarchive, Megalodon); or replace the source with one that doesn’t need archiving.
  • Some users support the decision, arguing an archival site that alters stored content loses its core purpose and cannot be used for verifiable citations.
  • Others say archives are critical to Wikipedia’s integrity and claim there is “no credible alternative” for some content, especially paywalled or easily deleted material.

DDoS and manipulation of archives

  • Multiple users confirm archive.today is running JavaScript on its CAPTCHA page that repeatedly fetches a critic’s blog (with cache‑busting), characterizing this as a low‑rate but deliberate DDoS using visitors’ browsers.
  • Evidence is cited that archive.today temporarily modified existing snapshots (e.g., global find/replace of a name; changing logged‑in account names in archived social media), with third‑party archives capturing the altered state.
  • Many argue that this single act of retroactive tampering is enough to disqualify it as a reliable archival source.

Doxxing, retaliation, and “everyone sucks here”

  • There’s broad disapproval of attempting to unmask the operator, but also strong criticism of archive.today’s response (DDoS and smear threats).
  • Some say the operator is still a victim of doxxing regardless of their behavior; others see it as hypocritical given archive.today’s refusal to remove personal data for others.
  • Long subthread debates what “doxxing” means vs. OSINT using only public information, and when it becomes harassment.

Comparisons: archive.today vs Internet Archive and others

  • Defenders prefer archive.today because it:
    • Respects fewer takedown/robots requests, preserving controversial or unwanted content.
    • Often archives tricky, JS‑heavy sites and paywalled news more reliably than the Wayback Machine.
  • Critics note archive.org’s weaknesses (robots-based removals, JS execution that can alter rendered pages) but say these are categorically different from an operator editing stored HTML.
  • Perma.cc and self‑hosted tools (ArchiveBox, Readeck, Omnom) are discussed; Perma.cc’s cost and institutional focus are seen as a mismatch for “anyone can edit” Wikipedia.
  • Some advocate Wikimedia building its own archiver; others warn of legal and DMCA risks, especially around paywalls.

Paywalls and technical speculation

  • A major reason people rely on archive.today is paywall bypass. Alternatives include browser paywall‑bypass extensions and header tricks.
  • Speculation about archive.today’s methods: residential proxies, anti‑paywall scripts, possibly paid accounts; others doubt large‑scale account management is feasible.

Broader concerns and suspicions

  • Some see a coordinated campaign by news publishers or governments against archive.today, noting FBI interest and paywall economics; others think archive.today’s own actions “Streisand Effected” the controversy.
  • Several lament that a unique, very large corpus (especially social media and paywalled news) may now become practically unusable as a citation source, calling the situation a “stupid tragedy.”