Talk:Internet Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the class scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet Archive article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (prior to 2007)


Contents

[edit] Delayed updates

User:124.184.107.76 recently added some information about a "temporary" halt to updates to the Wayback Machine. I cleaned this up and added a link back to the original post in the discussion forums. Apparently, no archives later than April 1, 2005, are currently available. The quoted post indicates that they are making changes and will resume updates soon, but that post was made in mid-August. I have tagged this section as a current event, as I imagine there will be more information forthcoming (either that updates have resumed, or have been discontinued, or whatever the final outcome may be). -- GeoGreg 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging from this short post and this thread, they apparently have moved their servers and are now working on several updates. I tried www.bbc.com and www.cnn.com and there are 2006 copies of them alright. - Face 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variability of availability

I am a frequent researcher on the internet archive and I've noticed that research that I conduct a few month ago indicated some of the web sites had been lost by hackers. I pain painstakingly visited every link to try and find an old wiki that was destroyed by hackers. Due to work checking links today from a former administrator of the wiki, I found the information still in tact, except for 3 pages the hacker got to before the entire site was destroyed. Now I may be wrong. Its something very hard to prove. If a researcher is interested in the Internet archive they might be interested enough to find out how they manage to keep all that information online at the same time, or are bits of the achieve offline at times? I would be very grateful and I'm sure others would like to know the mechanics of process.--Joewski 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European mirror

Does the European mirror mentioned in the article still exist? I used to get redirected to it at least 50% of the time when accessing the collections from a UK IP address, but not any more. http://www.eu.archive.org/ says "Petabox cluster for www.US.Archive.org". I couldn't find any official announcements regarding either temporary failure or permanent withdrawal. 81.77.72.180 07:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What software?

Anyone have any additional information on what software they use to crawl the web? Home grown, commercial?

It's right there in the article: The Wayback machine "is maintained with content from Alexa Internet." Perhaps that could be expanded on somewhat, but I'm not sure how many of the details are public. Xtifr tälk 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial rant by User:82.234.109.34 removed from article

I reverted the addition shown by this diff which was added by User:82.234.109.34. This is an editorial rant and, though parts of it are true, it doesn't read as an encyclopedic addition. Clean it up and add it as proper content if you wish. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful addition?

I am an employee at the United States Military Academy, an academic institution supported by tax dollars which trains college aged students to become officers in the US Army and also grants bachelor degrees. The website www.archive.org has been blocked by the filtering software for at least 2 months. There has been little progress in getting it unblocked through official channels. Is it possible to include this information in the article here? Blocking archive.org seems to be an egregious occurrence of censorship at an academic institution. 1) Is it appropriate for a (this) wiki article? 2) What would be needed to corroborate this info to make it wiki verifiable? (newb apologizing in advance for any breach of etiquette) 24.44.82.176 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the filtering is written about in a reliable source, we can include it. See WP:RS and WP:V for more. If it has not been published in a reliable source and you'd like to see it included, see if a local journalist will cover the matter, then cite that artcile here. Jokestress 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And actually, it may not be that big a deall. If you want to stop people from visiting http://www.example.org, it rather defeats the purpose if they can just go to http://www.archive.org/web/*/http://www.example.org and effectively bypass the block. (I wonder if google cache is blocked as well?) The media collections could be an issue too, since, like Wikipedia/Wikimedia, they're not censored; as long as material is public domain or CC-licensed, they'll accept it. But as Jokestress says, the important thing here is reliable sources. Xtifr tälk 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure about what Xtifr means about "it may not be a big deal"; perhaps I am over-reacting. In any event, google cache seems to be censored too. It's hard to know exactly what I'm being "shielded from" since I can't even see the cached pages while trying to use the internet for legit educational purposes. (I feel like I've gone to a library to look at a book but am told I can't see it unless I explain exactly what's in it before the library will show it to me. How can I know, from just the title [URL] what I need from the book [website] without seeing inside it?) I'm not sure what I will/can do about my experience with censorship at USMA. If I do talk to a journalist and it gets covered, I'll report back. Thanks for giving me advice.24.44.82.176 23:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess that didn't sound quite right. The censorship itself may well be a big deal. But the detail of including the IA in that censorship is not (or should not be) a big deal, and thus, not particularly relevant to this article. Its more like: they (the school) want to ensure that students don't have access to certain books, so they not only monitor student purchases, but also forbid students to visit libraries that carry those books. The Archive/library has nothing to do with your school's decision to restrict your access to this library. The library is perfectly willing to show you the book. Your school just won't let you in the door. This is, basically, an issue about the school, not about the IA (except very tangentially, as one example of what gets censored, and Google cache is probably a more notable example). Xtifr tälk 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an American and this is OT but in fact your tax dollars only go to people who filter sometimes. See Children's Internet Protection Act for example. You should write to your local Senator and/or Congressional Representative if your not happy with this I guess, or get involved in organisations like the ACLU Nil Einne 16:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article about scanning books

Hey there. I work for the archive in Toronto and our scanning centre was recently in the Toronto Star. I don't feel confident editing the website myself, so I'll post the link here: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/203437

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.243.144 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Suzanne Shell

Any info on why the Suzanne Shell case even arose? I presume the Internet Archive had an existing way for site owners to have their content removed (& of course she could have just used the robots.txt). Any info on why she didn't take advantage with the service and/or wasn't satisfied? Was she just blowing her own trumpet and/or hoping for some easy cash? Nil Einne 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think she just didn't knew IA's existence until she saw it. The question is why a person would put something public in the internet and regret after it, and if it is right to remove this register :PSSPecter ☎|✉ ♠ 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unfounded allegations in 'controversies' section

The section 'Controversies' -> 'Missing news from 2001' contains unfounded allegations. On their substance, they are based on a misinterpretation of IA's general consistency of crawling and content coverage. With regard to Wikipedia policies, the allegations appear to be original resource with no alternate sources (besides the Flickr screenshots presumably created by the person making the allegation).

Additionally, Brewster Kahle is not quoted accurately, and indeed the quote has been subtly twisted to change its meaning in a crude/sensational direction. (Just check the article quote against the referenced source.) I think this is a serious enough misrepresentation to warrant a reprimand of the anonymous editor.

I will refrain from editing in this matter as I am an Internet Archive employee, but wanted to open a talk record to encourage some corrective action by others. Gojomo (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gojomo. I've tried removing the ridiculous material as have others, but two anonymous users are determined to have their say. Maybe the article should be locked from edit by anonymous users for a while. Fmccown (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That there are some days some pages were not archived is true but trivial. It is the implication that they are "missing" and that this is controversial that is problematic. The initially twisted misquote was problematic and indicative of a sloppy and improper agenda. The current allegation that "a gap of this size, of these 15 sites, occurring simultaneously, is special because it happened only once" is also deceptive, as you can find many similar gaps in sites and groups of related sites in the Archive -- the collection process has neither aimed for nor achieved the level of continuous coverage that is being assumed. This section is engaged in paranoid extrapolation from a misunderstanding of what the Archive does manage to provide, plus original research to boot. It should be published on your own website, not as part of Wikipedia. Gojomo (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This guy has been emailing me as well. It is an unsubstantiated crackpot conspiracy theory that doesn't pass the basic sniff test. Even the links he sends to show he is right, thoroughly refute his claims. (As said above, the gaps, while regrettable, are normal for that era of the archive.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The links cited below show a gap of this size, of these 15 sites, occurring simultaneously, happened only once.
Jimmy Wales claimed the links "thoroughly refute" that fact, and even claimed the gaps "are normal for that era."
But the links cited below show a gap of this size, of these 15 sites, occurring simultaneously, happened only once.
Brewster Kahle (Internet Archive founder), Gordon Mohr (Internet Archive employee), and Jimmy Wales
admit the gaps exist, their opinion is: this simultaneous failure to cache 15 major news sites is normal.
Opinions can not erase a verified fact which has a reliable source citation.
Each statement written about the Internet Archive's Missing News of 2001
cites the Internet Archive as the reliable source, without giving opinions.
Opinions can be erased from Wikipedia.
A verified fact can NOT be erased from Wikipedia.
Verified Fact: the Internet Archive is missing news in 2001.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:61.204.240.194 06:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC) in this diff. -84user (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding: "a gap of this size, of these 15 sites, occurring simultaneously, happened only once" -- This is false; there are other longer simultaneous gaps even in 2001, nevermind other years. (See my comment at [1].) Gojomo (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Gordon does not understand the word simultaneous. Simultaneous means "at the same time." A gap of this size, of these 15 sites, occurring simultaneously, happened only once.
Gordon posted a little summary about one site (CNN), but still Gordon is unable to post a gap of this size, of these 15 sites, occurring simultaneously. Why can't Gordon find a gap happening across all of these 15 sites at the same time? Because it only happened once. Anybody can verify this fact by clicking the citation links (the Internet Archive search results are easily verifiable.)
Also, the information Gordon posted about CNN is false (See his comment within [2].) Gordon claimed the Internet Archive DOES have archives of "deeper pages" published by CNN from August 24th, 2001, to September 10th, 2001, and Gordon even posted a link to these "deeper pages" as proof, but that first link Gordon posted showed no archives of pages published by CNN from August 24th, 2001, to September 10th, 2001.
Did the Internet Archive employee Gordon Mohr unfortunately post that link to unrelated 1996 archives by accident, or on purpose?
Did the Internet Archive webcrawler Alexa unfortunately miss these 15 sites all during the same period by accident, or on purpose?
Speculation about whether they dropped the ball on accident, or on purpose, is irrelevant.
The incontestable fact is: the Internet Archive dropped the ball by missing news from these 15 sites all at the same time, and they can not erase this fact.
The first positive outcome from this fact being posted is: from now on the Internet Archive will try not to miss archiving news from major sites.
The second positive outcome from this fact being posted is: from now on the Internet Archive will prioritize webcrawls of major sites, because failing to archive major news sites (while on the same exact days successfully archiving insignificant sites) is absurd. The Library of Alexandria does not make such errors of priority when choosing which sources to archive for posterity.
Another positive outcome from this fact being posted is: from now on people and organizations will begin archiving news from major sites themselves, as back-up, since the world now realizes the Internet Archive regrettably missed news from 15 major sites during the weeks preceding September 11th, 2001.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:61.204.240.194 06:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC) in this diff. -84user (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You are straining to ignore or even reverse the plain meaning of what I've explained. Interested people should read for themselves at the referenced thread. Gojomo (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing News from 2001 Verified

The Internet Archive's record of missing news from 2001 is verifiable at the Internet Archive (cited, published by the Internet Archive.)

Brewster Kahle's response about missing news from 2001 is verifiable at the Internet Archive (cited, published by the Internet Archive.)

The record published by the Internet Archive clearly shows that a gap of this size, of these 15 sites, occurring simultaneously, is special because it happened only once in the history of the Internet Archive.

The supporters of an organization are entitled to their point of view, but they can not (and should not) attempt to hide an embarrassing fact about the organization, especially when that fact has such a reliable source of verification.

Wikipedia readers who are researching the Internet Archive deserve to know the Internet Archive is a member of the American Library Association, and it is officially recognized by the State of California as a library, and because of its goal of preserving human knowledge and artifacts it has been likened to the Library of Alexandria, and it is missing news from 2001.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:61.204.240.194 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC) in this diff. -84user (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the real issue is whether these facts are notable. Just because it's true (which it obviously is, as you point out), doesn't mean that it's notable. In my opinion, this is trivia to most people, but obviously we could disagree on this, and it's not up to me.
Wikipedia's official policy on notability is on whether professional journalists have written on the topic, as their jobs and livelihoods depend on providing information that readers consider useful. As the section in question is uncited, I've removed it from the article. Unless you can cite more than one source for this issue, the section should not be restored. See WP:NOTE for more on the notability policy, and see every other section in the "Controveries" section for examples of cited controversies. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's official policy states:
A fact within an article is NOT required to be notable. WP:NNC
A fact verified by a reliable source can NOT be erased. WP:NNC
Hi 211.7.100.61(talk) (who also seems to be using 61.204.240.194), please sign your comments, as it makes it much easier to track this conversation.
Don't you see that your pet controversy section is unlike all the others in that no professional journalist has written on the topic? That there's not a single article to support your contention that this is, in fact, a topic of interest to the public? Deleted again. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's official policy states:
A fact within an article is NOT required to be notable. WP:NNC
A fact verified by a reliable source can NOT be erased. WP:NNC
Hi 211.7.100.61(talk), it's a fact that Gojomo works for the Internet Archives, yet this information is not included on the page. Why might that be? Perhaps because it's a non-notable fact? There might be some sort of filter to figure out which facts go onto the web page. perhaps... oh, I know, a newspaper article, or some other reliable source! If it appears in one of them, then perhaps we should include it in the article. Until then, deleted again. Oh, and for those just tuning in, we had a good quote earlier:
"It is an unsubstantiated crackpot conspiracy theory that doesn't pass the basic sniff test. " - Jimbo Wales on this issue [3]
Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's official policy states:
A fact within an article is NOT required to be notable. WP:NNC
A fact verified by a reliable source can NOT be erased. WP:NNC
Proponents of the Internet Archive have gone against Wikipedia policy, by attempting to erase a fact published by the Internet Archive itself.
Any further attempts to delete this verifiable published fact (published by the Internet Archive itself) would be unethical and against Wikipedia policy.
Blah blah blah unsourced, blah blah blah not notable. Obviously we're not agreeing, nor are you attempting to productively resolve this disagreement. Normally I'd say that we should get another editor in here to help us come to an agreement, but there are already two other folks (Gordon and Jimbo) that have agreed with my position that this is utter horsecrap. But... it sure would be nice if someone else chimed in at this point and said that. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"A fact verified by a reliable source can NOT be erased. WP:NNC" The policy does not say that, or anything like it. Verified facts most certainly can be erased if they are found to be insufficiently notable. "A fact within an article is NOT required to be notable." It isn't required to be notable enough to be the subject of its own article, but it does still have to meet a the standard that reliable independent sources have written about it. That doesn't appear to be the case here, which makes this section about the "controversy" a piece of original research. But you know what? It's interesting. And it is verifiable. So I think it would be worthwhile to note in the body of the article itself that IA's historical sampling rates have left gaps in its archive, and cite the pre-9/11/2001 gaps as an example. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NNC = Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content =
Shortcuts:
WP:NNC
WP:N#CONTENT
"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a 'separate article', but do NOT specifically regulate the 'content of articles' (with the exception of lists of people). The particular topics and facts WITHIN an article are NOT each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections."
= A fact within an article is NOT required to be notable. WP:NNC
= A fact verified by a reliable source can NOT be erased. WP:NNC
Thanks for quoting the policy; it makes it easier to explain how you're misreading it. You're correct that WP:NOTE doesn't regulate every item within each article. But if you read the second half of the second sentence (start with the semicolon), you'll see that WP:V and WP:RS do regulate every item. WP:NOR applies as well. This information you want to insert appears to fail WP:RS and WP:NOR (specifically WP:SYN). As for the second statement you keep repeating... there is nothing in any policy that says that. If a reliably verified fact violates any WP policy, it can and should be deleted. (By the way, your attempts to delete material from this discussion are futile; our archive has no gaps.) - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi JasonAQuest, thanks for the feedback. I agree with you that mentioning gaps in the service would be a useful thing to note in the body of the article. Perhaps the second paragraph of the Wayback machine section could read" Snapshots become available 6 to 12 months after they are archived. The frequency of snapshots is variable, depending upon the website, and there have occasionally been multi-week outages in the page." However, without a citation, this smacks of OR. We could include a link to 07/23/2001 to 09/15/2001 Internet Archive is missing 55 consecutive days of Newsweek.com, however, this seems clumsy. Thoughts? Pro crast in a tor (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's borderline OR, but at least all it does it dig up a single fact, rather than synthesizing a collection of facts, making an inference from them, and inventing a controversy about them. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NNC "The particular topics and facts WITHIN an article are NOT each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines;"
This means: the particular topics and facts WITHIN an article are NOT each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines.
This means notability IS required for SEPARATE ARTICLES, but notability is NOT required for the particular facts WITHIN an article.
This means people trying to erase a fact WITHIN an article using the 'not-notable' excuse, do not yet realize notability is only required for SEPARATE ARTICLES.
WP:NNC "instead, ARTICLE CONTENT is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring VERIFIABILITY and the guidelines covering the use of RELIABLE SOURCES and of trivia sections."
This means since this fact WITHIN an article can be VERIFIED at THE INTERNET ARCHIVE (THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE OF VERIFICATION) you can NOT erase it using the "not-notable" excuse.
You could try claiming "it's trivia", but even then, the trivia guidelines state: "Such sections should not be categorically removed. This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page."
So even if it's "not-notable", a VERIFIED fact with a RELIABLE SOURCE cited WITHIN AN ARTICLE can NOT be erased.
And even if it's "trivia", a VERIFIED fact with a RELIABLE SOURCE cited WITHIN AN ARTICLE can NOT be erased.
"Reliable sources" means independent sources. Like The Washington Post. Or Mother Jones. Or National Review. Or maybe even Fortean Times if you're desperate. The idea is that we base our articles on what other people report, not what Archive.org reports about themselves, and not on what you or I report. That's what "No Original Research" is all about. Please read it. If you think that this is a story that someone should be covering (and I get the impression that you do), convince a journalist to look at it. Stop wasting your time trying to shove it directly into an encyclopedia, because this encyclopedia's editorial policies don't allow that.
Also, I think you've misunderstood what "should not be categorically removed" means. It doesn't mean "should not be removed". That word "categorically" means that sometimes the information should be kept. But only when it meets all the other criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia. No matter how many times you declare that "a VERIFIED fact with a RELIABLE SOURCE cited WITHIN AN ARTICLE can NOT be erased", that's simply incorrect. Wishing doesn't make it so. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


The Internet Archive supporters who claimed, "notability (journalistic coverage) is required for article content" should be ashamed of themselves, because they are either lying about (or are confused about) the simple difference between 2 specific Wikipedia Policies:

1.) The Wikipedia Policy for SEPARATE ARTICLES states notability (journalistic coverage) is required for SEPARATE ARTICLES.
2.) The Wikipedia Policy for ARTICLE CONTENT states notability (journalistic coverage) is NOT required for ARTICLE CONTENT.

Notability is required for SEPARATE ARTICLES.
Journalistic coverage is required for SEPARATE ARTICLES.

Notability is NOT required for ARTICLE CONTENT.
Journalistic coverage is NOT required for ARTICLE CONTENT.

Facts within ARTICLE CONTENT need to be published
by only one Verifiable Reliable Source to be protected:
the Internet Archive is the Verifiable Reliable Source.

The Internet Archive is the Verifiable Reliable Source which has published this fact:
The Internet Archive is missing the headlines news of 15 major sites during the weeks preceding September 11th, 2001.

The Internet Archive is the Verifiable Reliable Source which has published this confirmation:
Brewster Kahle admitted that regrettably the Internet Archive is missing the headline news of 15 major sites during the weeks preceding 9-11.

To summarize, if you discover Exxon published on it's own homepage the admittance that it regrettably has not yet payed the total compensation demanded by Alaskan courts, here is what Wikipedia Policies state about adding that fact:

1.) You can NOT create a SEPARATE ARTICLE about that fact if it lacks journalistic coverage.

2.) You CAN add that fact to the existing Exxon ARTICLE CONTENT, even if it lacks journalistic coverage, as long as you cite Exxon as the Verifiable Reliable Source.

WP:NNC
"The particular topics and facts WITHIN an article are NOT each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines."

Finally, to all the people above who tried to use lack of notability (journalistic coverage) as an excuse to erase this verified fact published by a Verifiable Reliable Source:

If you truly want Wikipedia to begin requiring notability (journalistic coverage) for ARTICLE CONTENT, you will have to erase the Wikipedia Policy which specifically protects ARTICLE CONTENT published by a Verifiable Reliable Source. WP:NNC

Hi 211.7.100.61, you say "Notability is NOT required for ARTICLE CONTENT". That's incorrect, otherwise, I could add the word "purple" to the page, and argue that "Notability is NOT required for ARTICLE CONTENT". Which, as far as I'm concerned, is what you're doing when you mention that their crawler missed a few web sites in 2001. So? Not only is it not notable, but to label it a "controvery" is WP:OR. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NNC If you truly want Wikipedia to begin requiring notability (journalistic coverage) for ARTICLE CONTENT, you will have to erase the Wikipedia Policy which specifically protects ARTICLE CONTENT published by a Verifiable Reliable Source. WP:NNC
So, are you saying I can add "Barack Obama is running for president" to every article in Wikipedia? It's a true statement by a verifiable reliable source. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You can add article content with a verifiable reliable source about Obama: to the Obama page.
You can add article content with a verifiable reliable source about purple: to the purple page.
Article content with a verifiable reliable source is protected by Wikipedia Policy: WP:NNC.
Why couldn't I add it to this page? Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
First, Pro crast in a tor erased article content with a verifiable reliable source, repeatedly.
Then, Pro crast in a tor claimed journalistic coverage is required for article content, repeatedly.
Subsequently, Pro crast in a tor learned journalistic coverage is NOT required for article content. WP:NNC
Currently, Pro crast in a tor is facetiously asking why he can't add facts unrelated to the Internet Archive to the Internet Archive page.
Finally, Pro crast in a tor will realize when he encounters a verified fact which doesn't support his rosy POV about the Internet Archive, he can NOT delete ARTICLE CONTENT with a verifiable reliable source. WP:NNC
You can use the "lack of journalism" excuse to delete SEPARATE ARTICLES only.
You can NOT delete ARTICLE CONTENT when it has a verifiable reliable source. WP:NNC
61.204.240.194: Ok, you win, I'm done with this "debate". Of course, I'll still delete it if you re-add a "controversy" section without any journalistic coverage indicating that there is, in fact, a controversy, or some reason that it is, in some way, notable that their spider missed some pages on some days in 2001. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IA in Suits other than Patents

I note the main article sites 102B patent law timestamps. Is it acceptable here to open another subsection parallel to patents to reference other litigation (e.g., business disputes, product fraud, dissolution, etc.) where IA is in a court document? Can a court document be entered as a reference on the main article, or does it have to be picked up by a journal or media and set in context before it can be referenced on WP? I am new to WP. Nukeh (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funding

It seems to me the Internet Archive would have quite a lot of expenses, yet neither here nor on Archive.org can I find any information on how it's funded. Does anyone know? dimo414 (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Archive.org links in Wikipedia articles?

It occurs to me that referencing archive.org for references might create problems in relation to information that was later retracted. Or am I overthinking this? - Richfife (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think in that case you would end up with a dead link, just as the original url that had been supplanted by the archived one went dead at one time. In other words, no more problem than other dead links that need treatment. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. The Archive link would remain active after the original link that it was a duplicate of went dead. Some people (myself included) will sometimes replace dead links with links directly to archive copies of the link to bring them partially back to life. - Richfife (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Only a subset of links are replaceable by Archive links ... in the case of non-replaceable ones (the majority, actually), the death of an Archive link leads to the common irreplaceable link situation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use for primary sources

Right now wikipedia primarily uses project gutenburg as the main link for primary sources. But archive.org now has many classic works that PG does not. So we might want to double check for some works. --Gary123 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is for discussion on improvements to the article. Changes in wikipedia policy or reccomendation should be sugjested in the Wikipedia_talk: namespace.