Wikipedia not having their own archives by now is a huge vulnerability.
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
122 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
87151 readers
3393 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Especially given the amount of money they've raised. Insane that at this point they didn't have a system to automatically archive any sources automatically
Them hosting their own archives of copyrighted articles would need to be non-public (for citation verification only), since if they did an archive.today-like public service, it would certainly get them sued by a constant carousel of copyright owners until they run out of money.
Archive.org might be a sign that most would look the other way, but given how tight Wikipedia's funding is, I don't think that's a good idea.
Archive.today owner looks like a clown.
I had no idea they were doing all kinds of nefarious shit like that.
Pepperage Farm remembers when Wikipedia was mass transitioning citations to archive sites because the original sites couldn't be trusted to retain the information over time.
Oh how the turn tables.
Wikipedia still does that, but only for trusted websites such as archive.org