original, saw this somewhere else too. ddos stuff. this one blames ru for archive.today mess. sounds about right. didn' intend it to look like an announcement here. it kind of did. post based on ars story, apparently. who knows

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

But Wikipedia doesn't need to bypass paywalls, and you can bypass them yourself with a bit of work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    There's websites with paywalls that even Bypass Paywalls Clean can't bypass. In cases that it can, it sometimes just fetches the article contents from archive.today.

    That doesn't mean an alternative shouldn't be found, but we also shouldn't pretend that nothing is being lost by losing access to unpaywalled sources. For practical purposes, a paywalled source means no source for most readers, unless a non-paywalled alternative can be found to replace it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    That's good for you, and it is okay for you to use archive.today personally, as long as you block their DDoSing.

    But Wikipedia does not need to bypass paywalls, and they don't require the source to be freely (or easily) viewable to verify the info.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I'm still deciding how much I agree or disagree with this. It's true that they do cite books which you often can't read online, but adding information backed up by a paywalled proof feels a bit "trust me bro". E.g. I could find/create a site with an impossibly large paywall and no-one would realistically able to check my sources.

  • source
  • parent