Wikipediocracy

On Meta

Linkrot is a serious problem for the Wikipedia of every language. Content is supposed to be based on previously published sources. Many of these sources only exist online and not in print. When such sources die, the information in Wikipedia citing it is in question; and if no replacement source can be found, then the information is no longer easily attributable. That means our readers can no longer check the validity of cited claims, which eventually need to be removed. And the work that was spent on researching the deleted information has been wasted.
WebCite (see also its own website) is an on-demand archiving service to permanently store webpages. Thus, even if the original web page changes or disappears, the cited information is still verifiable if the contributor to Wikipedia has had the foresight to archive the web page at WebCite.
It is claimed that EN Wikipedia currently has over 180,000 links to WebCite. If WebCite dies, all these links will break and many of those references will be unusable, especially if the original link is already dead.
The service is currently in financial trouble. The idea is that the Wikimedia Foundation takes control over the WebCite service, including the physical infrastructure (such as servers) and the domain webcitation.org. In return, the WMF would finance the necessary modernization of the service.

HRIP7 wrote:On Meta

Linkrot is a serious problem for the Wikipedia of every language. Content is supposed to be based on previously published sources. Many of these sources only exist online and not in print. When such sources die, the information in Wikipedia citing it is in question; and if no replacement source can be found, then the information is no longer easily attributable. That means our readers can no longer check the validity of cited claims, which eventually need to be removed. And the work that was spent on researching the deleted information has been wasted.
WebCite (see also its own website) is an on-demand archiving service to permanently store webpages. Thus, even if the original web page changes or disappears, the cited information is still verifiable if the contributor to Wikipedia has had the foresight to archive the web page at WebCite.
It is claimed that EN Wikipedia currently has over 180,000 links to WebCite. If WebCite dies, all these links will break and many of those references will be unusable, especially if the original link is already dead.
The service is currently in financial trouble. The idea is that the Wikimedia Foundation takes control over the WebCite service, including the physical infrastructure (such as servers) and the domain webcitation.org. In return, the WMF would finance the necessary modernization of the service.

I'm not a copyright lawyer and don't play one on TV, but I'd want to talk to one or two if I were WMF before diving in...

RfB

Would WMF delete all the snapshots of Wikipedia pages that have been deleted but are still visible on WebCite?

Outsider wrote:Would WMF delete all the snapshots of Wikipedia pages that have been deleted but are still visible on WebCite?

I can practically guarantee you that WebCite links to evidence of corruption and incompetence on Wikipedia would be in serious
danger of being censored. WebCite is "better" for that purpose than Wikipedia, since there is no guarantee a cached page will last
any length of time.

Daniel Brandt, Tarantino and a few others have used WebCite frequently to save deleted WP pages, a practice that I find to be
extremely risky, regardless of who owns or operates WebCite.

Last year I did an analysis of weblink references on ten random Wikipedia articles, and found that 19% of the links were already dead.
I also analyzed the number of references in 200 random articles, and determined that the average Wikipedia article has 2.2 references,
mostly because so many articles are stubs, poorly written, poorly documented, and/or otherwise poor quality. So, 4.4 million references,
836,000 of which are dead links.

This is yet another massive scandal, in process and not yet discovered. Taking over WebCite will do very little to ameliorate it.

I oppose this. Too many people within the WMF are into censorship. What if the WMF threatens to withdraw funding if an achived webpage that influential Wikipedians wish to see disappear isn't erased? Remember that Commons is run by people who blacklisted Wikipediocracy at one time. Wikipedians shouldn't have any influence over WebCitation. They might delete evidence of wrongdoing or anything that's embarassing to the WMF.

There's also the issue of what Wikipedians don't want to see deleted. Many Wikipedians don't believe in copyrights.

EricBarbour wrote:Daniel Brandt, Tarantino and a few others have used WebCite frequently to save deleted WP pages, a practice that I find to be
extremely risky, regardless of who owns or operates WebCite.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273&st=0&p=299318&mode=linear#entry299318

Daniel Brandt censors WebCitation so that Wikipedia can't access information that he published on the open web. Brandt robs public information and knowledge that Wikipedia wants to make free by null-routing hyperlinks from Wikipedia and censoring archives. Brandt isn't any better than the Wikipedians when it comes to censorship.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Daniel Brandt, Tarantino and a few others have used WebCite frequently to save deleted WP pages, a practice that I find to be
extremely risky, regardless of who owns or operates WebCite.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273&st=0&p=299318&mode=linear#entry299318

Daniel Brandt censors WebCitation so that Wikipedia can't access information that he published on the open web. Brandt robs public information and knowledge that Wikipedia wants to make free by null-routing hyperlinks from Wikipedia and censoring archives. Brandt isn't any better than the Wikipedians when it comes to censorship.

There is no guarantee that anything on the web today will still be there tomorrow, and you have no right to either assume or insist that it is. Nor do you have any right to assume that you can access any website, or that referrers from your site will be served information from site B.

lilburne wrote:There is no guarantee that anything on the web today will still be there tomorrow, and you have no right to either assume or insist that it is. Nor do you have any right to assume that you can access any website, or that referrers from your site will be served information from site B.

Is providing information to anyone but those using Wikipedia or anyone else Brandt has a grudge against NameBase's mission? Is that how "Public Information Research" operates? Did the other members of Public Information Research approve of Brandt's null-routing?

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

lilburne wrote:There is no guarantee that anything on the web today will still be there tomorrow, and you have no right to either assume or insist that it is. Nor do you have any right to assume that you can access any website, or that referrers from your site will be served information from site B.

Is providing information to anyone but those using Wikipedia or anyone else Brandt has a grudge against NameBase's mission? Is that how "Public Information Research" operates? Did the other members of Public Information Research approve of Brandt's null-routing?

What has that got to do with you? I similarly redirect all Android devices., though I may changed that to a few seconds delay per page access, but whatever, it has nothing to do with you.

Content creators can restrict access any which way they like. One has a right to speak, and also a right NOT to speak. Sites like WebCite undermine that right.

lilburne wrote:What has that got to do with you? I similarly redirect all Android devices., though I may changed that to a few seconds delay per page access, but whatever, it has nothing to do with you.

Content creators can restrict access any which way they like. One has a right to speak, and also a right NOT to speak. Sites like WebCite undermine that right.

Why are you holding a leader of a tax-exempt, non-profit organization to such low standards? If Jimbo or someone within the WMF were to do the same thing, thekohser would probably be the first to notice in the hypothetical Jimbo case, and you all would be taking a stand against the null-routing. Do you really believe that Brandt was operating a non-profit website appropriately?

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

lilburne wrote:What has that got to do with you? I similarly redirect all Android devices., though I may changed that to a few seconds delay per page access, but whatever, it has nothing to do with you.

Content creators can restrict access any which way they like. One has a right to speak, and also a right NOT to speak. Sites like WebCite undermine that right.

Why are you holding a leader of a tax-exempt, non-profit organization to such low standards? If Jimbo or someone within the WMF were to do the same thing, thekohser would probably be the first to notice in the hypothetical Jimbo case, and you all would be taking a stand against the null-routing. Do you really believe that Brandt was operating a non-profit website appropriately?

I don't give a damn about what GK would do or say. I don't give a damn about Brandt either. I have very little knowledge about him, I don't want to know about him, he doesn't figure on my radar, his fights are not mine.

If the WMF deletes stuff that they find embarrassing whilst recording for posterity stuff about others then that is hypocritical and one may make that case. Saying that no one should ever delete anything from the web is a whole pile of fuxor.

As a point of principal I don't have to allow anyone on to my sites, and I don't have to facilitate any 3rd party site, and I'll null-route any device or referral I chose.

lilburne wrote:I don't give a damn about what GK would do or say. I don't give a damn about Brandt either. I have very little knowledge about him, I don't want to know about him, he doesn't figure on my radar, his fights are not mine.

If the WMF deletes stuff that they find embarrassing whilst recording for posterity stuff about others then that is hypocritical and one may make that case. Saying that no one should ever delete anything from the web is a whole pile of fuxor.

As a point of principal I don't have to allow anyone on to my sites, and I don't have to facilitate any 3rd party site, and I'll null-route any device or referral I chose.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273:

Daniel Brandt wrote:To encourage its deletion, I have nullrouted all links on en.wikipedia.org that lead to NameBase content (there are about 100 of these). I will stop doing this if and when the NameBase article comes down.

We're not talking about mere null-routing here. Daniel Brandt was using NameBase as leverage in order to pressure Wikipedia into censoring material. Brandt was basically holding NameBase hostage and demanding that Wikipedia pay a ransom. I guess that it can be argued that Wikipedia did the same thing with the SOPA blackout, but whereas the Wikipedians demanded freedom, Brandt demanded censorship. What the Wikipedians did was far more virtuous than what Brandt did. It's inappropriate for a leader of a non-profit to use a non-profit's product as leverage in order to obtain censorship.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

lilburne wrote:I don't give a damn about what GK would do or say. I don't give a damn about Brandt either. I have very little knowledge about him, I don't want to know about him, he doesn't figure on my radar, his fights are not mine.

If the WMF deletes stuff that they find embarrassing whilst recording for posterity stuff about others then that is hypocritical and one may make that case. Saying that no one should ever delete anything from the web is a whole pile of fuxor.

As a point of principal I don't have to allow anyone on to my sites, and I don't have to facilitate any 3rd party site, and I'll null-route any device or referral I chose.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273:

Daniel Brandt wrote:To encourage its deletion, I have nullrouted all links on en.wikipedia.org that lead to NameBase content (there are about 100 of these). I will stop doing this if and when the NameBase article comes down.

We're not talking about mere null-routing here. Daniel Brandt was using NameBase as leverage in order to pressure Wikipedia into censoring material. Brandt was basically holding NameBase hostage and demanding that Wikipedia pay a ransom. I guess that it can be argued that Wikipedia did the same thing with the SOPA blackout, but whereas the Wikipedians demanded freedom, Brandt demanded censorship. What the Wikipedians did was far more virtuous than what Brandt did. It's inappropriate for a leader of a non-profit to use a non-profit's product as leverage in order to obtain censorship.

So? Its an issue for his organisation, and nothing to do with you.

I've null-routed all Android devices from some 4000+ pages until such time as Google start paying taxes. Other than the fact that I have almost 10000s images on flickr I'd redirect all image requests from google image search for similar reasons. As it is I'll start rehosting images so that I can screw with GIS, for years I've rearranged for geodata rss feeds to similarly protest GIS and SV. Meanwhile I'll keep up the pressure on flickr to allow us to implement blacklist/whitelists of referring sites.

I'll use what methods and what tools I have. I don't expect to do much against Google, unless I can convince others to follow suit and black out Android devices. One suspects Brandt thinks the same.

BTW I null-routed WP links for several months in 2009.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebCite&diff=5236757&oldid=5236502:

+ '''Perspective from WebCite''': WebCite - a project I initiated - is humbled by the support from the Wikimedia / Wikipedia community. We are more than willing to discuss all possible options, including a "takeover" by WMF. Personally, I would think that leaving it a stand-alone entity with funding and strong ties to the WMF would be the better solution for all parties involved (not least, legal exposure), but this is for WMF to decide, and as WebCite initiator my primary goal is to see WebCite flourish and survive, which it may be best achieved the umbrella of the WMF. In any case, WebCite does need cash (we are hoping to raise $50k by end of this year to pay a developer for a much needed overhaul, more storage space etc). The third option is a commercial one, i.e. raise Venture Capital and/or charge for "pro/premium" memberships. The latter is the avenue we may have to pursue if other fundraising efforts fail. In the meantime, please donate at http://fnd.us/c/aQMp7 (preferably with a comment) - this will go a long way to demonstrate to potential funders that there is some serious need and support for a service like this. Gunther Eysenbach, University of Toronto, WebCite initiator --[[User:Eysenbach|Eysenbach]] ([[User talk:Eysenbach|talk]]) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebCite&diff=5240713&oldid=5240608:

Webcitation operates a policy that a page archived due to Wikimedia use won't be removed without community or other policy consent.

<small>''(History pages are a crucial part of our content and often researched, we can expect this more as time goes on. So the cites backing those up are every bit as valid for future. If someone wants to write or study the history of X in 100 years including "X as at 2013", and topic X has over time had old material condensed, they will still have the old pages but will need the old cites it drew on and those still have 'prima facie' educational value)''</small>

FT2 wants the Wikipedians to control what is or isn't deleted from WebCite. Settling copyright disputes is going to be hell for copyright owners. WebCite needs to remain independent.

Sounds like a whole pile of legal. If I were a commercial publisher, or author then I'd be pissed about wikipedia or any other organisation simply copying data from my site to some other site, and if I found them doing that they'd be commanded to stop.

lilburne wrote:Sounds like a whole pile of legal. If I were a commercial publisher, or author then I'd be pissed about wikipedia or any other organisation simply copying data from my site to some other site, and if I found them doing that they'd be commanded to stop.

I'm glad that someone can understand why I was pissed at Suarez. The reason I null-routed some 83 NameBase citations on Wikipedia was because everyone was ignoring my request to have the Wikipedia article on NameBase deleted. I spent 30 years developing NameBase, and I felt that Wikipedia's description of NameBase was incompetent and inaccurate. What's a banned former Wikipedia editor supposed to do? I couldn't write to the Foundation; they would ignore me because they enjoy immunity. I've tried that more than once over the years.

Null-routing means that if the referrer revealed that the user arrived at NameBase from Wikipedia, their connection to NameBase timed out. All they had to do was paste the URL into their address bar, which would strip off the referrer. Suarez overreacted and pasted all the content from those citations into Webcitation, and then changed the links in Wikipedia.

At which point I sent a letter to WebCite Consortium:

January 30, 2012

WebCite Consortium
c/o Centre for Global eHealth Innovation
R Fraser Elliott Building, 4th Floor, Room 4S435
190 Elizabeth Street
Toronto ON, M5G 2C4

Dear WebCite Consortium:

Enclosed is a five-page list of webcitation.org URLs that we wish to have deleted. A rogue Wikipedia editor added these WebCite links to various articles on Wikipedia without our permission, on or about January 20, 2012. Each URL on this list shows the original URL at namebase.org from which it was pasted to your site.

We own the copyright on NameBase (our U.S. copyright certificate is enclosed), and take responsibility for our content. Part of this responsibility requires that we discourage gratuitous scraping of our content onto other websites, which tends to place our content beyond our control.

Regards,
Daniel Brandt

It took a couple of weeks, but WebCite replaced the content with a note that it was deleted because of a copyright issue. This meant that Suarez's effort had backfired.

But Suarez still protests too much. A month later we were kicked off of seven dedicated servers at three different providers, because for two months our servers were assaulted by DDoS attacks. Our providers could not tolerate the collateral damage to shared upstream resources, such as edge routers and switches. NameBase went down, and so did all of our other sites.

Suarez is an administrator at Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I suspect that someone associated with ED was behind the attacks. While Suarez is not responsible for these attacks, one might have expected that he would voice an objection to them on ED. After all, he seems to think the content on NameBase is worthwhile.

Instead, he was too busy pasting comments on ED that I had made on other forums about this and that, so that those basement-dwellers on ED who delight in dissing me had more grist for their lulz mill.

Yeah having to copy and past a URL into a browser address bar is such a loathsome for of censorship it makes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum seem positively liberal.

And only 83? Google reckons to have 17,000 pages indexed on my site though there are just a little over 4000, the rest being indexes, galleries, and rss feeds etc. All now go to to a FUCK GOOGLE image if you arrive there via an Android device. I swear my feet are becoming cloven hoofed.

lilburne wrote:Yeah having to copy and past a URL into a browser address bar is such a loathsome for of censorship it makes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum seem positively liberal.

What about non-techies and mobile users? Brandt created a major accessibility problem, and he wanted this problem to exist in order to pressure Wikipedia into censoring content.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

lilburne wrote:Yeah having to copy and past a URL into a browser address bar is such a loathsome for of censorship it makes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum seem positively liberal.

What about non-techies and mobile users? Brandt created a major accessibility problem, and he wanted this problem to exist in order to pressure Wikipedia into censoring content.

I'd say the DDoS attacks created a much larger accessibility problem, but you don't seem to be complaining about that matter. Why is that?

Mr. Brandt:

You should get a developer to convert Namebase into a mobile app. It would be more difficult to disrupt, and give you a revenue stream.

thekohser wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

lilburne wrote:Yeah having to copy and past a URL into a browser address bar is such a loathsome for of censorship it makes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum seem positively liberal.

What about non-techies and mobile users? Brandt created a major accessibility problem, and he wanted this problem to exist in order to pressure Wikipedia into censoring content.

I'd say the DDoS attacks created a much larger accessibility problem, but you don't seem to be complaining about that matter. Why is that?

Because Brandt hates kittens, and therefore deserves bad experiences. Like all kitten haters do.

SB_Johnny wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

lilburne wrote:Yeah having to copy and past a URL into a browser address bar is such a loathsome for of censorship it makes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum seem positively liberal.

What about non-techies and mobile users? Brandt created a major accessibility problem, and he wanted this problem to exist in order to pressure Wikipedia into censoring content.

I'd say the DDoS attacks created a much larger accessibility problem, but you don't seem to be complaining about that matter. Why is that?

Because Brandt hates kittens, and therefore deserves bad experiences. Like all kitten haters do.

Also, Michaeldsuarez is an ED administrator and therefor über Kool, with a Kapitol K, doing as they do the internet equivalent of an obnoxious self-entitled street punk with a can of spraypaint.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

lilburne wrote:Yeah having to copy and past a URL into a browser address bar is such a loathsome for of censorship it makes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum seem positively liberal.

What about non-techies and mobile users? Brandt created a major accessibility problem, and he wanted this problem to exist in order to pressure Wikipedia into censoring content.

What % of users actually click links. What % of non-techies and mobile users are looking up namebase links?

Who made you internet link monitor?

As an ex-admin of online content, I have done far worse than Mr Brandt has, over issues as trivial as deep-linking. (A problem in the heavy bandwidth charge days of yore)

At no point however did I pretend I was being anything other than a massive dick about it. My content, my rules, I decide who sees it, how they see it, and who gets credit. I didnt attempt to paint it as some sort of nice thing, or just/right.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:FT2 wants the Wikipedians to control what is or isn't deleted from WebCite.

Mainly concerning sex with animals?

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22webcite%22&tbm=nws

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22webcitation%22&tbm=nws

Media coverage of WebCite's plight is pretty dismal. It's pretty much just an article in the Digital Journal so far:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343511

WebCite needs better PR, and it needs to speak to potential large donors (e.g. Google, which donates to FreeBSD).

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WebCite#Please_donate

Exactly the sort of responses that I was expected from Wikipedians.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WebCite#Please_donate

Exactly the sort of responses that I was expected from Wikipedians.

Don't you think it's more than a little disingenuous to talk of "Wikipedians" when only three have commented on your posting, one of whom appears to support your position?

Malleus wrote:Don't you think it's more than a little disingenuous to talk of "Wikipedians" when only three have commented on your posting, one of whom appears to support your position?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebCite&oldid=5252004#Please_donate

Who's this "one of whom" that you speak of? The responses from Silver seren, SpinningSpark, and Stefan2 are all negative. I don't see anyone there agreeing with my opinion.

I'm glad to see that there is no policy that you have to be old enough to understand the issue before you can comment on meta.

Outsider wrote:I'm glad to see that there is no policy that you have to be old enough to understand the issue before you can comment on meta.

Of course! Children, and mental defectives, are always welcome.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WebCite#Please_donate

Exactly the sort of responses that I was expected from Wikipedians.

It was a childish comment (X people supported the proposal, only Y people have donated to WebCite). The discussion is about getting a long-term solution that allows WebCite to survive and thrive. If it fails, then yes, some organised effort to get Wikipedians to individually donate to WebCite would be reasonable, and if very few are willing to help protect a service that's quite important for Wikipedia you could reasonably complain. But right now - it's just childish.

rd232 wrote:It was a childish comment (X people supported the proposal, only Y people have donated to WebCite). The discussion is about getting a long-term solution that allows WebCite to survive and thrive. If it fails, then yes, some organised effort to get Wikipedians to individually donate to WebCite would be reasonable, and if very few are willing to help protect a service that's quite important for Wikipedia you could reasonably complain. But right now - it's just childish.

The ratio between X (people who support WebCite being taken over or given a grant) and Y (people who donated) is much worse now:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebCite/supporters&oldid=5261311

http://www.webcitation.org/6EZc2ZUEG

87:46. It's nearing 1:1, and that's assuming that all the donators are Wikimedia users. Nearly half of the people who are aware of WebCite's plight haven't donate yet. I believe that such criticism is valid, but perhaps wasn't necessary or the right time to bring it up, as you've said. I was trying to guilt people into donating. That's why the heading was "Please donate".

You're right about the childishness. I'm sorry for overreacting and acting so soon.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:87:46. It's nearing 1:1...

thekohser wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:87:46. It's nearing 1:1...

:ermm:

Whoops. I meant 2:1. The ratio of X:Y is approaching 2:1, and the ratio of (X-Y):Y is approaching 1:1.

As far (archive), it isn't looking very good.

$7,851

31% raised of $25k goal

176 Contributors

124 Days running

The only good news is that the number of donators has finally surpassed the number of !voters in the discussion on Meta (mostly because the slow trickle of donators kept going while activity from the Wikimedian !voters slowed to a trickle in early April and died by April's end). Unfortunately, at this rate, WebCite is going to die.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:As far (archive), it isn't looking very good.

$7,851

31% raised of $25k goal

176 Contributors

124 Days running

The only good news is that the number of donators has finally surpassed the number of !voters in the discussion on Meta (mostly because the slow trickle of donators kept going while activity from the Wikimedian !voters slowed to a trickle in early April and died by April's end). Unfortunately, at this rate, WebCite is going to die.

Sue and Jimbo both have the cash necessary for this.
Why won't either one of them step up?