FaceDeer

It’s literally a result of insanity, so it’s not going to just “go away.”

That’s what the investigation is to determine, of course.

An attacker could trick a user into clicking a malicious link inside a Markdown file opened in Notepad

So you can give someone a Markdown file with a link to an application, and if they click the link the application runs.

Markdown supports links, yeah.

Sure, I’m not saying this isn’t “malicious.”

I’m questioning why this particular instance of lawbreaking makes his site an “unreliable source”, whereas all the copyright violation he’s been up to all along didn’t? And now you’re bringing in speculative instances of future lawbreaking that also seem unrelated, what does crypto mining have to do with the reliability of the sources archived there?

My point here is that people are jumping from “he did something bad that I don’t like!” to “therefore everything he does is bad and wrong!” Without a clear logical connection between those things. Sure, the DDOS thing is a good reason to try to avoid sending traffic to his site. But that has nothing to do with the reliability of the information stored there.

Is it really an “unreliable source”, though? The owner of the site is acting maliciously with regards to this DDOS, of course, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to act maliciously about the contents of archive.today itself.

One could make the case that the owner of archive.today was already flagrantly flouting copyright law, and therefore a criminal, and therefore “unreliable” right from the get-go. Let’s not leap to conclusions here.

You’re misinterpreting what Wikimedia’s “free knowledge” mandate is about. They have a hard-line requirement that the knowlege they distribute is legally free, for example - it has to be under an open license. archive.today is quite the opposite of that. They don’t just archive any old knowledge willy-nilly, they’ve got standards. And so forth.

Simply running an archive.today clone would not fit. The “source documents only” archive would already be stretching the edges rather far. There’s already Wikisource, for example, and it’s got the “open licenses only” restriction.

I think that’d go pretty far beyond Wikimedia’s mandate, but having something whose purpose was specifically archiving just the sources for their articles would be pretty awesome.

Even for Trump this was a remarkably cheese-brained Executive Social Media Post. One for the history books.

There’s precedent. China made some trade deals with Nigeria and there’s hardly any ice hockey going on in Nigeria now.

At some point medicine doesn’t help. Trump is well past that point now.

Surely all of these problems would go away if teenagers would simply act rationally and do as they’re told. Has anyone tried explaining this to the teenagers?

“I regret that so many people are offended.”

I seriously doubt that any institutional or otherwise large-scale investors would have reacted to that. It has absolutely no impact on Bitcoin in practical terms.

They have yet to earn it.

It’s weird how AI has turned so much of the internet from its generally anti-copyright stance. I’ve seen threads in piracy and datahoarding communities that were riddled with “won’t someone please think of the copyright!” Posts raging about how awful AI was.

I maintain the same view I always have. Copyright is indeed broken, because of how overly restrictive and expansive it has become. Most people long ago lost sight of what it’s actually for.

If they do it’s not by the actual training of AI.

I don’t know if you noticed, but we might be urgently needing that military in the near future.

Simple.wikipedia isn’t a summary of regular Wikpedia, it’s a whole separate thing. It’s intended to convey the same data, just in a simpler way.

The problem being discussed here is not the availability of Wikipedia’s data. It’s about the ongoing maintenance and development of that data going forward, in the future. Having a static copy of Wikipedia gathering dust on various peoples’ hard drives isn’t going to help that.

Wikipedia’s traditional self-sustaining model works like this: Volunteers (editors) write and improve articles for free, motivated by idealism and the desire to share knowledge. This high-quality content attracts a massive number of readers from search engines and direct visits. Among those millions of readers, a small percentage are inspired to become new volunteers/editors, replenishing the workforce. This cycle is “virtuous” because each part fuels the next: Great content leads to more readers which leads to more editors which leads to even better content. AI tools (like ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, etc.) disrupt this cycle by intercepting the user before they reach Wikipedia.