Internet Archive begins fact checking archived sites - They resisted a long time but they fell at last

https://blog.archive.org/2020/10/30/fact-checks-and-context-for-wayback-machine-pages/

Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages​

Posted on October 30, 2020 by Mark Graham

Fact checking organizations and origin websites sometimes have information about pages archived in the Wayback Machine. The Internet Archive has started to surface some of these annotations for Wayback Machine users. We are attempting to preserve our digital history but recognize the issues around providing access to false and misleading information coming from different sources. By providing convenient links to contextual information we hope that our patrons will better understand what they are reading in the Wayback Machine.
As an example, Politifact has investigated a claim included in a webpage that we archived. Our.news has matched this URL to the Politifact review which allowed us to provide a yellow context banner for Wayback Machine patrons.

In a different case, we surfaced the discovery that a webpage is part of a disinformation campaign according to the researchers at Graphika and link to their research report.

As a last example, the Internet Archive archived a Medium post that was subsequently removed based on a violation of their Covid-19 Content Policy.
As a library, our intention is to provide access to source material that might otherwise disappear but doing so with context prominently displayed.

We would like to acknowledge the hard work of the organizations we are building upon in order to provide context for archived web pages: FactCheck.org, Check Your Fact, Lead Stories, Politifact, Washington Post Fact-Checker, AP News Fact Check, USA Today Fact Check, Graphika, Stanford Internet Observatory, and Our.news.
We welcome feedback and suggestions about how to make the Wayback Machine better.

 

[Coleslaw]

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Well this is no surprise to be honest.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

If they pull a YouTube and Twitter and start deleting and censoring things that were supposed to be originally archived for historical purposes, then they will turn into another Wikipedia. It’s only a matter of time.

 

[ADHD]

We welcome feedback and suggestions about how to make the Wayback Machine better.

Just archive stuff and make it available for the public to sift through without doing anything to it.

 

[ScatmansWorld]

Reminder that there's an open source web archiver you can host yourself.

https://archivebox.io/

 

[Horizontal Horror]

Null can't make an archiver soon enough.

 

[Sithis]

Maybe I'm retarded but does this just apply to archive.org or will similar sites such as .is and .md etc be similarly affected?

Regardless, it's so blatantly fucking obvious why they're doing this.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

If they pull a YouTube and Twitter and start deleting and censoring things that were supposed to be originally archived for historical purposes, then they will turn into another Wikipedia. It’s only a matter of time.

Didn't they already back during Gamergate? I seem to recall Zoe got a page or two totally deleted from the Internet Archive but maybe it was through using a legitimate way of getting pages removed (since in some cases you can do that).

 

[SBG]

Didn't they already back during Gamergate? I seem to recall Zoe got a page or two totally deleted from the Internet Archive but maybe it was through using a legitimate way of getting pages removed (since in some cases you can do that).

Not sure about pages concerning Zoe, but I do remember them deleting pages about some video game developer contests, stuff about who the judges were since people wanted to look into what links the judges had to the winners. Nearly as soon as anyone started looking into those pages they suddenly got deleted. Was obviously to keep people form getting more evidence of corruption, so yeah the site has been fucked for years now.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I think this is what pushed people away from depending on the wayback machine and instead using archive.is and whatever else. Since it rubbed in people's faces how they were siding with the corrupt judges or whatever.

 

[hundredpercent]

Maybe I'm retarded but does this just apply to archive.org or will similar sites such as .is and .md etc be similarly affected?

No.

 

[Pee Cola]

Maybe I'm being here, but IA keeping allegedly false and misleading content online with a context banner is the least worst option in current year.

Ofc in current year + 1, even a (relatively) sensible compromise like this may not be enough to protect IA from becoming completely pozzed. But that's current year + 1's problem.

 

[Pixy]

When it comes to images, you have to manually copy+paste them into your post, rather than copy+pasting the entire article in one go. Otherwise they don't show up.

 

[Govt. Shitposting Machine]

Somehow I feel this has already been talked about, but apparently the article is from today so maybe the world simulation is just falling apart faster.
Anyway, Internet Archive is NOT reliable, without sounding like an a-logging asshole too much let me just say they just like to remove your shit on a whim with no excuse other than "I don't like it". I barely trust them doing this 'cause you just know they'll slap that yellow banner on fucking anything the admins don't agree with.
Why are internet projects often run by these pink-haired soyboy energy people? Between this and archive.TLD it feels like there's no good option for archiving links without resorting to some kind of expensive self-hosting.

EDIT: My typos are awful and now they will be forever remembered by hundredpercent's quote

 

[hundredpercent]

Somehow I feel this has already been talked about, but apparently the article is from today so maybe the world simulation is just falling apart faster.
Anyway, Internet Archive is NOT reliable, without sounding like an a-logging ass hole to much let me just say they just like to remove your shit on a whim with no excuse other than "I don't like it". I barely trust them doing this 'cause you just know they'll slap that yellow banner on fucking anything the admins don't agree with.
Why are internet projects often run by these pink-haired soyboy energy people? Between this and archive.TLD it feels like there's no good option for archiving links without resorting to some kind of expensive selfhosting.

Well, just look at what happens when our guys try to run them.

 

[The Last Stand]

Their job is to ARCHIVE, not to revision history. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[HeyYou]

Eh, on the COVID one, the "context" is just to explain that Medium deleted it according to its content policy and Internet Archive is not endorsing the author's view on COVID just because they're archiving it. Probably the least egregious way to do it.

That said, linking to Politifact on archives of news stories is definitely incredibly annoying.

 

[FuckedUp]

How much does that 2010 Forbes article have to do with this?

 

[SBG]

Maybe I'm being here, but IA keeping allegedly false and misleading content online with a context banner is the least worst option in current year.

Ofc in current year + 1, even a (relatively) sensible compromise like this may not be enough to protect IA from becoming completely pozzed. But that's current year + 1's problem.

It's a first step in the process of appeasing the left that hates having archives of their shit available due to it showing their dishonesty. Rather than stick to a simple role of providing archives, they're now deciding how appropriate the things archived are, which will inevitably lead to a push for them to decide whether something should be allowed to be archived.

 

[Ponchik]

Somehow I feel this has already been talked about, but apparently the article is from today so maybe the world simulation is just falling apart faster.
Anyway, Internet Archive is NOT reliable, without sounding like an a-logging asshole too much let me just say they just like to remove your shit on a whim with no excuse other than "I don't like it". I barely trust them doing this 'cause you just know they'll slap that yellow banner on fucking anything the admins don't agree with.
Why are internet projects often run by these pink-haired soyboy energy people? Between this and archive.TLD it feels like there's no good option for archiving links without resorting to some kind of expensive self-hosting.

EDIT: My typos are awful and now they will be forever remembered by hundredpercent's quote

they already don't scan sites if a robots.txt file says they can't, they have no problems responding to dmcas... i do like a lot of the work that the internet archive does but i don't trust them with this shit to begin with and this factchecking shit sets an even worse precedent

(i'm fairly confident they tried doing this months ago when covid became a thing, but i may be mistaken)