The English-language edition of Wikipedia is blacklisting Archive.today after the controversial archive site was used to direct a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against a blog.

In the course of discussing whether Archive.today should be deprecated because of the DDoS, Wikipedia editors discovered that the archive site altered snapshots of webpages to insert the name of the blogger who was targeted by the DDoS. The alterations were apparently fueled by a grudge against the blogger over a post that described how the Archive.today maintainer hid their identity behind several aliases.

  • XLE@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 hours ago

    From Wikipedia

    As of 13:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC), the owners are now batch-replacing certain names in archived pages with the real name of the gyrovague.com webmaster as a form of harassment.

    The top piece of evidence (not in any special order) was redacted due to “revealing personal information”.

    Other subsequent pieces of evidence were retained but names were replaced with abbreviations

    I have another evidence of tampering: this is a Megalodon archive of a archive.ph archive of a post. The original post is now dead. Patokallio mentions this post in his blog – he would surely mention if the post mentioned him, in the way the archived version does. He quoted the original [N.P.] was a woman[…], while the archive.ph reads Jani Patokallio was a woman[…]

    Another example:

    Sometime today, Archive.today replaced the name with the equivalent amount of spaces (only where N…'s name used to be). Ironically, “Jani Patokallio” is of the same length as “N…”.

  • notsure@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    4 hours ago

    People with lotsa money tried to make truth disappear…are you all fucking nutz?

    • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Archive.today became non-citable the moment it began altering archived webpages, regardless of anything else.

    • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It sounds like archive.today is behaving poorly. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn’t exactly “big money”. If you know different on either front, can you please explain. Otherwise your comments are meaningless.

      • fonix232@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Dunno if I would call it “behaving poorly”.

        The blogger in question doxxed the owner/maintainer of Archive.today who in return doxxed the blogger. To me this sounds more like eye for an eye FAFO.

        • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 hours ago

          That’s inappropriate, childish, and unprofessional. It makes them untrustworthy for citations. There are better ways of handling it.

          If altering snapshots for a grudge isn’t your definition of “behaving poorly” for a site archiving the state of the Internet, then you must not think they have to be an accurate source of information. If they’re not an accurate source of information, then Wikipedia has no obligation to allow them to be used in citations, and they should remove such citations.

          • fonix232@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Has the accuracy of the snapshots actually changed based on this edit? After all, if it’s factual information being presented…

            I do agree that it raises the issue of what other modifications there may be, and it IS childish, but so is going after a person who provides a good service and wants to remain anonymous while doing so.

            All I’m saying is that while I do not agree with the actions, I also am not saying I don’t understand the reasoning behind.

            • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Has the accuracy of the snapshots actually changed based on this edit? After all, if it’s factual information being presented…

              Yes! Quite literally, yes. They’re supposed to be an archive of what is on other sites. It doesn’t matter if the original site was, right, wrong, complete, incomplete, accurate, inaccurate, factual, unfactual, etc. If they change things, they’re editorializing and are no longer an archive, they’re new content - which is not the purpose people use them for.

              I do agree that it raises the issue of what other modifications there may be,

              That’s literally the point. It doesn’t matter how much you “understand the reasoning” (though you also think it’s childish and don’t agree with the actions). You can use it if you want to, no one is stopping you. The point is Wikipedia can’t trust it as a source of archived data and has every right to ban it.