Wikipedia’s Bold Move: Removing 695,000 Archive.today Links Over DDoS and Content Tampering Concerns

In a sweeping decision that has sent ripples through the digital archiving and open-source communities, Wikipedia editors have voted to remove all links to Archive.today from the online encyclopedia. The controversial move comes after revelations that the archiving service has been cited over 695,000 times across Wikipedia, raising questions about the reliability of its content and the ethics of its operations.

The Decision: A Breakup with Archive.today

The decision was formalized on Wikipedia’s Request for Comment (RFC) page, where editors debated the future of Archive.today links. The consensus was clear: “There is consensus to immediately deprecate archive.today, and, as soon as practicable, add it to the spam blacklist […] and to forthwith remove all links to it.” This marks a dramatic reversal from 2016, when Archive.today was removed from Wikipedia’s blacklist after being blacklisted in 2013.

The reasons for this reversal are twofold: allegations of unethical behavior and concerns about the integrity of the archived content. Wikipedia editors argue that the platform should not direct its readers toward a website that allegedly hijacks users’ computers to run a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. Additionally, evidence has surfaced suggesting that Archive.today’s operators have altered the content of archived pages, rendering it unreliable.

The DDoS Attack: A Digital Siege

At the heart of the controversy is a DDoS attack allegedly orchestrated by Archive.today against blogger Jani Patokallio. Patokallio, who has been a vocal critic of the archiving service, claims that beginning on January 11, users who loaded Archive.today’s CAPTCHA page were unknowingly executing JavaScript that sent search requests to his Gyrovague blog. The apparent goal? To increase his hosting bill and draw his attention to the service’s grievances.

Patokallio, who has extensively documented his interactions with Archive.today, described the site’s ownership as “an opaque mystery.” In a 2023 blog post, he concluded that the site was likely “a one-person labor of love, operated by a Russian of considerable talent and access to Europe.” Despite his inability to identify a specific owner, Patokallio’s investigations have shed light on the service’s questionable practices.

The Content Tampering Allegations

Beyond the DDoS attack, Wikipedia editors have raised concerns about the integrity of Archive.today’s archived content. Evidence has been presented suggesting that Archive.today’s operators have altered snapshots of webpages to insert Patokallio’s name. This tampering has led to accusations that the service is no longer a reliable source for preserving web content.

Wikipedia’s guidance now explicitly calls for editors to remove links to Archive.today and related domains, such as archive.is and archive.ph, replacing them with links to the original sources or to other archives like the Wayback Machine. This shift underscores the platform’s commitment to maintaining the accuracy and reliability of its citations.

The Archive.today Response

In response to the controversy, the apparent owner of Archive.today has defended the service’s value to Wikipedia. On a blog linked from the Archive.today website, they argued that the service’s importance lies not in bypassing paywalls but in its ability to “offload copyright issues.” They also claimed that the DDoS attack was a form of protest and that they would “scale down the ‘DDoS’” in light of the backlash.

The owner’s tone, however, has been dismissive of the criticism. In a blog post, they questioned why the media had not reported on the service’s activities earlier, suggesting that the attention was only drawn because of Patokallio’s involvement. “I don’t expect you to write anything good, because then who would read you, but there was plenty of dramas, wasn’t there?” they wrote.

The Broader Implications

Wikipedia’s decision to remove Archive.today links has broader implications for the digital archiving landscape. Archive.today has long been a popular tool for accessing paywalled content and preserving web pages, but its alleged unethical practices have now cast a shadow over its reputation. The move also highlights the challenges of relying on third-party services for archiving and the importance of transparency in digital preservation.

For Wikipedia, the decision is a reaffirmation of its commitment to accuracy and reliability. By removing links to a service that has been accused of tampering with content and engaging in cyberattacks, the platform is taking a stand against practices that undermine the integrity of its citations.

What’s Next?

As Wikipedia begins the process of removing Archive.today links, the digital archiving community will be watching closely. The controversy has sparked a broader conversation about the ethics of web archiving and the responsibilities of those who operate archiving services. For now, Wikipedia editors are focused on ensuring that their citations remain trustworthy and that their readers are directed to reliable sources.

The fallout from this decision is likely to continue, with Archive.today’s operators facing increased scrutiny and pressure to address the allegations against them. Whether the service can regain the trust of the Wikipedia community and the broader public remains to be seen.

Tags: Wikipedia, Archive.today, web archiving, DDoS attack, content tampering, digital preservation, online encyclopedia, Jani Patokallio, Wayback Machine, paywalls, copyright issues, transparency, reliability, citations, digital ethics, online content, web history, internet archives, cybersecurity, digital trust

Viral Phrases: “Wikipedia’s bold move,” “695,000 links removed,” “DDoS attack allegations,” “content tampering scandal,” “digital archiving controversy,” “trust in web archives,” “the end of Archive.today’s reign,” “Wikipedia takes a stand,” “the future of digital preservation,” “unmasking the mysterious archivist,” “the price of unreliable archives,” “a wake-up call for web archivists,” “the battle for digital integrity,” “the fall of a controversial service,” “the rise of trustworthy alternatives.”

,