Talk:Internet Archive

NPOV: too positive?

I have noticed that the tone of this article tends to be very positive about the Internet Archive. It might well have done a lot of good, but it also has a reputation for hosting terrorist and neo-Nazi material. (It really doesn't take a lot of searching to find on there if you want to try!) I've noticed edits recently have been taking away academic sources about these problems whilst leaving in positive articles from non-academic sources. I'm concerned that the neutrality of the article might be compromised by this. Epa101 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that well-cited articles about terrorist and neo-nazi material on IA should be included in this article. I notice that this Memri article [1], which is cited by Boucher & Young, contains a screenshot of an Internet Archive search on "holocaust" that is drastically different from what I get when I do the same search (nearly three years later): I get no Holocaust denial or nazi material, as far as I can tell, in the first many results (screenshot available on request!). Perhaps the archive has changed its methods or policies? I also note this article [2] which mentions the archive taking down some offensive content. DoctorMatt (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

They might have changed a little bit since that article was written, but we have to go with what is written in reliable sources and not with original research. I don't want to offend anyone too much with some of the hateful content found on there, but, for just two examples (one British and one American), look at the search results for David Duke and for National Front. Epa101 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I would also note that Jason Scott, who is a senior person at the Internet Archive, has a history of vandalising Wikipedia: see here! I am concerned that he or some of his mates might be monitoring this page. Epa101 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is completely fatuous logic. Archive.org, Archive.is, Ghostarchive.org etc blindly capture everything on the internet that is accessible. Just like Google, Bing etc index everything blindly. So what next? Ban Google and Bing?

And we can do without the "if you can't kick the ball, kick the man" personal attacks. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Erm, we don't allow Google and Bing as references on Wikipedia. I've not made any personal attacks. This is how we identify bad-faith edits on Wikipedia. Someone is taking off negative coverage here, even if it's backed up by reliable sources, and leaving all the positive coverage on there. That's the truth of it. Epa101 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. The citation is to the original source document. The place where it resides is essentially irrelevant apart from demonstrating provenance. If the original URL is no longer available, we give the archive.org/archive.is/ghostarchive backup URL. We are not citing the archive, we are citing the document. [Using the term document loosely, could be a web page, an image, a video or a journal article.] Any clearer? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No. I am not talking about using the Internet Archive for citations (e.g. the Wayback Machine). I am talking about the Wikipedia article on the Internet Archive. The reason why you might find my missing the point is that you're on the wrong page for the discussion that you're trying to have. This is the Talk page for the article. I'm saying that the article is overwhelmingly positive and criticisms of the Internet Archive are being taken off. You mentioned Google in an earlier message; we have a page called Criticism of Google and rightly so. In contrast, there is little criticism in this article on the Internet Archive. I have been trying to restore an academic citation that says that the Internet Archive hosts fascist resources that are not allowed on other platforms. The text is very defensive in saying that the Archive takes sources that were mainstream at the time. No! The article looks at the works of William L. Pierce and Harold Covington, and they were not mainstream when they were released. I maintain that there is an NPOV problem here. Epa101 (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I would just add that generating a distorted slant against the IA based on cherry-picked statements from research about the way Nazis use it is not automatically shielded from NPOV just because the article doesn't have enough information on what you wnat to talk about yet. The situation earlier was a good example. The article you wanted to use was appropriate for citing a description of the process that it was actually about—particularly linking to scans of public domain material that IA keeps for a separate mission, just like (the article mentions) other projects including Project Gutenberg and Google Books. It was not appropriate to quote one out-of-context sentence to say "the Archive is important to Nazis" with the clear implication that IA approves of that or invites it. Balancing the truth of the article with "it's in an RS I found" can be contentious, but this was clearly over the line for me. The thing is, I'm sure you could write a paragraph about this Nazi use pattern based on the cited source and the sources it cites, but you've got to do it without making it clear in the article that you think the IA is an active participant in it or somehow a silent supporter of Nazis, which is not true on its face. lethargilistic (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As to "they were mainstream at the time," I wrote it when I was out and in a hurry. I recognize that that part could read to you as defensive of the Archive, but I was trying to describe why the Nazis were linking to it without approving or disapproving of the content. I agree that I did a bad job on that sentence, though. I'm sure you could find a better way to write the thing you want to write overall. lethargilistic (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the Internet Archive is an active participant in Nazism or a silent supporter of Nazism. It already says in the article that the Archive is used by the Islamic State and similar groups, which doesn't seem to be disputed. It would be a strange ideology to back both Nazism and the Islamic State. It might be a simple case that they have got their priorities wrong, but that is not an excuse for sharing books that are illegal in some countries. From reading the article through again, I don't think that it's unfair to take from the article that the Internet Archive is popularly used amongst neo-Nazis. (As an aside, I once clicked on a video made by the USA after their liberation of Germany and the comments underneath were horrible.) I'll think about how to rewrite the sentence with the citation. Epa101 (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that reads well to me. I have tweaked the opening sentence of the section too, to introduce the concern/criticism more clearly.

No, I don't believe I'm on the wrong talk page. My concern is expressed well in the article, so I'll just copy it: amidst discussion about whether such documents should be preserved by archivists or not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a news article about the challenges of archiving controversial materials. [3] It is an honorable practice to "share books that are illegal in some countries". In repressive countries, it is required for freedom of thought to survive; see for example Samizdat. In free countries, it is a way to make materials available for study by both those who may agree with them, and those who may disagree and want to learn why they disagree. Long-term archives should not follow short-term fads by tossing out materials that a majority disagrees with or even wants to actively suppress. It is often true that tiny minority points of view become the accepted wisdom of future generations. This is true whether the topic is (a few easy examples): physics, racism, religion, the status of women, the germ theory of disease, or the origins of species. Without access to the original records of those ideas, it is impossible for historians to trace their development and spread. Gnuish (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the Colchester Collection, specifically, notable enough for a mention in the actual article? If yes, how well does effectively publicizing that specific list in a Wikipedia page balance with the encyclopedic value that naming one adds? lethargilistic (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of employees?

On 2024-02-04T10:36:30 User:2001:ee0:4bca:fd50:b50c:773b:1a40:16ba "Updated the statistics", replacing

• "Internet Archive – Full text of "Full Filing" for fiscal year ending Dec. 2019". May 9, 2013. Archived from the original on October 30, 2021. Retrieved October 30, 2021 – via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer.

with

• "Internet Archive – Full text of "Full Filing" for fiscal year ending Dec. 2022". January 31, 2024. Archived from the original on February 4, 2024. Retrieved February 4, 2024 – via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer.

I'm concerned that the new 990 no longer matches the number of employees in this article: PartI "5. Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2019 (Part V, line 2a)" says 169, but the same field on the 990 for 2022 says 0.

That number changed to 0 in the 990, but the number of employees is still listed at 169. The number 169 does not make sense to me, which is why I haven't changed the number in the infobox. However, something is not right here.

Might someone care to suggest what to do about this? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

One possibility is that the 990 from 2022 that lists 0 employees has been later amended with more accurate numbers, and Nonprofit Explorer doesn't always show amended returns. My suggestion is to revert back to an earlier 990 until this is figured out. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Archive.org down?

Not resolving for me. Anyone else experiencing the same? Tuvalkin (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, AI did it:

this is our second blast of abusive traffic from an AWS customer today apparently from an AI company harvesting Internet Archive texts at an extreme rate

Tuvalkin (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I just learned that they run a Mastodon instance

Why isn't this mentioned anywhere on the article? When they started this? There are references to this on Wikidata. [4] Galzigler (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Record labels suing IA now

Inside the $621 Million Legal Battle for the 'Soul of the Internet'. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Expalning the History of InternetArchiveBot

on may 10 1996 Brewster Kahle founded the Internet Archive, around that same time he began working on a project called "Alexa Internet" and a web archive called "Wayback Machine" that was later launched to the public in october 2001. on december 9 2015 user Cyberpower678 made an new internet bot named Cyberbot II, it was later rebranded was 'InternetArchiveBot" the following day, on 20 september 2021 the bot was funded by the Internet Archive Itself for like 25 million US dollars, thats was all the explaining. 95.24.0.205 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I know this isn't a forum but this is imprtant

Despite the archive thankfully not being corrupted, there are douchebag hackers that are planning on taking down arguably the most important library since Alexandria. Wikipedia relies on Archive for several sources. So I think we should have a serious discussion on the Archive in general. Wolfquack2 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that this is important. You're also correct that this is not a forum - it's not the place for an inherently broader discussion of the matter. I just took a look around in the help pages as I don't interact in the formal venues at all, but there is a discussion that's started at the 'village pump' - WP:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Internet_Archive_hacked. There's not much there, but it would probably be the best place for further discussion - or to spawn new discussions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is true, that all archives may disappear forever, my existence on Wiki will have been for naught. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ll look into that then. Wolfquack2 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Information about the recent DDoS attack and data breach

Information about the recent DDoS attack and data breach is in October 2024 cyberattack and History. I think these sections should be combined and link to the article specifically on this topic Internet Archive cyberattack. Should this information be in History or October 2024 cyberattack? Gideonrmt (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Info should be in the history section, with the other DDoS attack mentioned; the "controversies and events" section (of which October 2024 cyberattack is a subsection) was originally meant for events not about the operations of the service itself and rather for legal or other events not immediately affecting the service; the "Internet Archive cyberattack" article, or the fact that it exists, is a result of WP:RECENTISM and perceived greater notability from the disproportionate impact it has had on Wikipedia; (see also this [5] explanatory comment at the ITN nom) it should be redirected back here unless a good reason for the article's existence is given. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your response. Should the history section be split into subsections to make it more clear and allow for a redirect from Internet Archive cyberattack to go to a section specifically about the cyberattacks? Gideonrmt (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Making a subsection just for the recent attack may introduce problems with undue weight; linking to the content on the attack can be done with a simple {{anchor}}, which is invisible to the reader. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you for your help! Gideonrmt (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@MountainDew20 This is the discussion; the article was rightly redirected as it has not proven to be more notable than the countless other data breaches that frequently happen but do not as directly affect Wikipedia and as a result do not have their own articles. See my above comment as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche: I'm not privy to the conversation that lead to this comment, but I don't think that's the right test. It doesn't matter if there are more or less subjectively notable data breaches. The main thing that matters is still significant coverage in reliable sources, which the IA breach definitely has. The event-specific criteria do mention that crimes often aren't notable, but they also say events with a "widespread (national or international) impact" are more likely to be notable. Taking down IA for this long is definitely not just notable for Wikipedians; it's a global outage of a widely-used, global resource, and it's been ongoing for a week at this point. A Google Search breach that took down the service for a week (is a more severe example, but still) would absolutely be notable under the same conditions, so why not IA? lethargilistic (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

October 23, 2024

The Internet Archive is back, but the Login is not working. The message says: "We're sorry. Login is not allowed at this time. The latest updates can be found on X / Twitter, Bluesky, and Mastodon." 2804:214:8779:B3FC:741A:1C95:6903:F9E6 (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Added this edit. Thanks! Gideonrmt (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the 'cyberattacks' section needs to be moved out of the history section, and replace with a 30,000 ft overview. As it stands, it's an entire section in 'history' that covers May 27, 2024 to current, which suffers a bad case of recentism; not really a historical overview by any stretch. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 14:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

True but I think it would be easier to do that once the dust settles on this. There are still changes happening every day. Gideonrmt (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but that only bolsters the argument: it's detailing small near-daily matters, which in the scheme of history...aren't! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I just mean its difficult to know which details will be important and which just suffer from WP:Recentism. Also not including that on October 23 archive.org was back online with limited features could make it seem like archive.org is still unavailable. I do think cyberattacks should remain in history and be shortened to only include an overview of events. I also think the heading for cyberattacks should be removed and replaced with an wp:anchor instead. Gideonrmt (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree on all points, for sure. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hosting purl.org

According to Persistent_uniform_resource_locator that "on 27 September 2016 OCLC announced a cooperation with Internet Archive". I believe the result is that IA is hosting `purl.org` (and related redirection services). However, the IA page currently doesn't list Purl (or "purl.org") as a service run by IA. Should this be added? Cheers, FnordMan (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We should wait until IA has updated their page to indicate 'all services are now restored' - as there's no way to check the purl stuff until they're back up. I've verified that the in-addr.arpa for 'purl.org' maps onto ux-haproxy1.us.archive.org, so we know that at least that much does exist; whether they still propagate results remains to be seen. Purl doesn't appear to have garnered much attention or use though, based merely on the dearth of mentions found on the web. Had never heard of it before you provided the article link. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"インターネット・アーカイブ" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect インターネット・アーカイブ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29 § インターネット・アーカイブ until a consensus is reached. Dominicmgm (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Page move Internet Archive to Website Archive

@GoTV439 You moved page Internet Archive to Website Archive without discussion. I undid your bold move because it was not discussed and I believe many people, including myself, would disagree with the move. The organization this article is about is called Internet Archive. Thanks, Gideonrmt (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)