upvote

points

by eek212111 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby normie300010 hours ago|
next
[-]
> 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?

reply
upvoteby uqers9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby sam_lowry_5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby Mogzol9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby sam3458 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby Mogzol4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There is a megalodon.jp archive of an archive.today page that shows the edits: https://megalodon.jp/2026-0219-1654-07/https://archive.ph:44...

There's also a bunch of previous hackernews discussions about it:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006

- 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.

reply
upvoteby fc417fc8027 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because a lot of us watched the drama unfold in real time.
reply
upvoteby avadodin13 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
reply
upvoteby fn-mote8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> 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.

reply
upvoteby opello5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Convenience as a higher order motivator than disgust at the bad behavior of archive.{today,ph,...} mentioned elsewhere, I think is the point of the comment to which you replied.
reply
upvoteby DaSHacka10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Ironically, your framing of the situation is infinitely more disingenuous to push a personal agenda versus anything the archive.today guy did.
reply