Specifically, they changed a "commenting as: [their alias]" UI element to "commenting as: [name of the blogger they were fighting with]".
Compare (the changed element is near the very bottom of the page; replace the "[dot]" since these URLs seem to trigger spam filters for some commenters):
> Change the original source to something that doesn't need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper), or for which a link to an archive is only a matter of convenience.
They're basically recommending changing verifiable references that can easily be cross-checked and verified, to "printed on paper" sources that could likely never be verified by any other Wikipedian, and can easily be used to provide a falsification and bias that could go unnoticed for extended periods of time.
Honestly, that's all you need to know about Wikipedia.
The "altered" allegation is also disingenuous. The reason archive.org never works, is precisely because it doesn't alter the pages enough. There's no evidence that archive.today has altered any actual main content they've archived; altering the hidden fields, usernames and paywalls, as well as random presentation elements to make the page look properly, doesn't really count as "altered" in my book, yet that's precisely what the allegation amounts to.
The accusation is not that they alter pages at all -- they obviously need to in order to make some pages readable/functional, bypass paywalls, or hide account names used to do so. The Wayback Machine does something similar with YouTube to make old videos playable.
The allegation here is that they altered page content not just to remove their own alias, but to insert the name of the blogger they were targeting. That moves it from a defensible technical change for accessibility to being part of their bizarre revenge campaign against someone who crossed them.
You should add this context to the talk page. You can do it anonymously without login. I wasn’t aware of either side of this allegation, and it’s helpful to understand this context.
Are there people who just downvote every comment? How is this a bad suggestion? If people want change on WP, they should contribute to the discussion there.
It's because it's actively maintained, and bypassing the paywalls is its whole selling point, thus, they do have to be good at it.
They bypass the rendering issues by "altering" the webpages. It's not uncommon to archive a page, and see nothing because of the paywalls; but then later on, the same page is silently fixed. They have a Tumblr where you can ask them questions; at one point, it's been quite common for everyone to ask them to fix random specific pages, which they did promptly.
Honestly, you cannot archive a modern page, unless you alter it. Yet they're now being attacked under the pretence of "altering" webpages, but that's never been a secret, and it's technologically impossible to archive without altering.
There's a pretty massive difference between altering a snapshot to make it archivable/readable and doing it to smear and defame a blogger who wrote about you.
Immutability and reproducibility is great. Depending on unreliable and antiquated hardware, like the USB key sticks, is not.
Who exactly has the environment where you can add, let alone promptly repair/replace, USB key sticks, on your server? Or run PXE when you have just a single server? How exactly do you do that in Hetzner or OVH? Let alone any other service where you get just a single dedicated server or two.
So, we're big enough to have our own quarter-rack in a collocation facility, let's do PXE. Now you have to have a whole separate infrastructure server, just for your other servers to be able to boot properly? (And how exactly does that server itself boot?) Plus, have an extra infra server for redundancy?
Sorry, but this is the reason noone would use SmartOS. You can't build a fortress on such a shaky foundation.
It's simply out of touch with the target market. At least with FreeBSD or OpenBSD, you known it'll just work™ on any single server, as long as serial console access is available, which is standard-enough. Going against the mainstream of Linux is already hard-enough, there's no reason to make it any harder.
SmartOS sounds like a lot of work, for negligible or even negative benefit.
There's zero good reasons why any machine with 450GB+ of zfs-backed redundant storage, needs to rely on USB keys or networking, in order to function properly. There's a reason Samsung's Joyent entirely abandoned and divested of SmartOS, because this sort of over-engineered mentality, simply doesn't compute. It prevents all sorts of usecases, and even with a growth mindset, still prevents the organic growth from a couple of servers to a rack and more.
The biggest downside of running off of a USB key, is that it's super unreliable.
How exactly does it make any sense to use ECC memory and ZFS RAID for error correction and redundancy, but then rely on the modern floppy disk for the OS itself?
From experience, it's not overstated. Running your own email server is pain, and even if you do everything right you may get delivery problems. And if you want to improve your chances, you have to do whatever big tech wants you to. And if you ever get onto the bad side (for example, your site is hacked and distributes malware for a few days) you may never recover.
It's not impossible, but it's not something you run once and forget.
Gmail or Apple scaling up is going to be treated differently from some random new domain suddenly appearing on a Digital Ocean or Hetzner or AWS cloud instance.
But how would anyone know it's Gmail or Apple if the IP address is new?
That's exactly my point, that the reputation need is overstated by all those services that claim to solve a known problem that everyone has heard of, but noone has actually experienced, because, guess what, it might not actually exist.
I've seen plenty of cases where the emails sent out through Sendgrid et al, end up in the Spam folder, or these "professional" services don't even attempt to retry, thus, never getting through the greylisting, or other bugs which cause deliverability issues, which would never happen if you were to run your own real mail-server on your own hardware yourself.
I'm not disputing that assertion, yet it does go against the marketing materials we're all presented by all of these services, as for reasons to not run our own mailservers.
In other words, if all you want to do is run a personal mailserver, or even a corporate one, you'll probably not have to deal with this supposed IP reputation issue, unless the IP addresses you use, have already been added to the blacklists even before you start at it.
Running your own mail servers to do the volume emitted by Sendgrid would indeed be on the level of starting your own medium sized business. Getting IP allocation, swip'ing them out to divisions of your company or your customers and paying into whitelists for all the "free" email providers like Google et al would be a massive up front cost.
Running your own mail server for personal email is an afternoon of setup DKIM, DMARC, SPF, FCrDNS and such, setup of your MTA/IMAP/WEB preferences, tuning some filters, setting up aliases, accounts for family and with time the tuning work eventually slows down and then it's just maintaining accounts, aliases and the occasional rules to block problem networks and domains. With time you may find some servers that require lowering security or filters but that is also very easy.
Yes if you are using a domain that's been around for a while and has a reasonably stable IP address history and is not on any blacklists, that is the defintion of a "good" reputation. Or at least it's not a bad one.
Can you kindly explain why Blink's monopoly is bad, but iOS Safari's monopoly is good?
Whilst at it, can you kindly explain how Blink is even a monopoly if it's actually separately distributed by 6+ distinct and unrelated/competing vendors, namely, Google, Microsoft, Brave, Vivaldi, Yandex, Opera, etc? Out of these 6 vendors, a total of at least 3 are running an entirely independent search engine, so, these aren't just "fronts", but real competitors.
Whilst at it, can you kindly explain why is it better than I have to use a Windows machine to configure my keyboard or mouse, or the Bluetooth headset, instead of using a web browser on any device with any OS? Or why do I have to download extra apps to get video conference access instead of using a Blink-based web browser from one of like half a dozen vendors?
I never have to use Chrome on any device besides ChromeOS; how exactly is it a monopoly when I can uninstall it once, and never see it on the same device ever again, even on Android, which is made by Google? How is it a monopoly when I don't even lose anything by replacing it with another browser, even on Android?
How exactly is Chrome the same as Edge or Brave or Vivaldi or Yandex Browser or Opera?
Why are there no browsers on iOS besides Safari, and how is that not a monopoly?
The "Internet Explorer" issue culminated with Microsoft attaining a market share that allowed them to stop all innovation and investment into the product, where the browser became substantially lagging behind the competition, as well as lagging substantially in standards compliance. Something that's currently an issue with Safari, not Chrome. (Please enlighten me if that's not the case — which exact standards does Chrome NOT support today? Else, how is supporting EXTRA experimental standards a bad thing?) Chrome and Blink, on the other hand, became market leaders not because they couldn't be uninstalled, but because of superior engineering; Blink is the only browser engine today where you can configure your gaming keyboard, for example. How's that NOT innovation?
Why do you have to keep redefining words according to some laws some politicians wrote, or misplaced analogies that turn things upside down, in order to sustain your points? The only Internet Explorer of today is Safari — severely lagging behind in most modern features, without any ability to be uninstalled or replaced on the iPhones and iPads. Again, I'm actually typing this in Firefox on desktop. As I said, I don't use Chrome, it's not even installed on my machines; because it doesn't have a monopoly in any way, on any device besides ChromeOS. (If you're curious on why I don't use Chrome or Blink on any desktop, it's because I cannot stand blurry text, and there's no way to disable blurry text in Safari, WebKit, Chrome or Blink, which have mandatory antialiasing, making all text super blurry and ugly; that's the actual monoculture we should be talking about.)
I'd much rather have to switch to Brave or Vivaldi for a video phone call, or keyboard configuration, or NFC, than install half a dozen of outdated third-party XXX-only apps with full permissions and questionable security practices or distribution methods.
The better question to ask here, is, why would you NOT want to have a CHOICE to have these things in a secure browser by SEVERAL distinct major vendors like Google, Microsoft, Brave and Vivaldi, and Yandex, and Opera, and others?
Again, I don't even use Chrome. I replace it even on Android. So, I am not concerned with Google taking me over, because they clearly aren't.
But how am I more secure when I have to install lots of dodgy apps to get the most basic things like video conferencing working?
Just because you don't see a problem with Apple's monopoly, doesn't mean that everyone for whom it's a problem is a Blink admirer or works for Google or Microsoft or Chrome or Blink.
I'm typing this in Firefox on a Mac; I usually uninstall Chrome even from Android, usually after first using it to install F-Droid, then Aurora Store; then it's disabled promptly. Why should I not be allowed to disable Safari?
Apple's iOS monopolies are a far bigger issue than Chrome. These issues you guys talk about, don't really exist for me. I use YouTube regularly without Chrome, I use Android without a Google Account, I use all the banking apps without Play Store. None of this is possible on iOS. On iOS, you cannot preserve your privacy at all, because everything depends on having an Apple Account, and being monitored by Apple. Hence, I don't take iOS or iPhone as a serious contender for a daily driver for me.
BTW, they also alter paywalls and other elements, because otherwise, many websites won't show the main content these days.
It kind of seems like "altered" is the new "hacker" today?
reply