Forum:CT:Sourcing policy amendment: Backup links for social media posts

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Sourcing policy amendment: Backup links for social media posts
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was support proposal. Tommy-Macaroni 18:34, August 16, 2020 (UTC)

Wookieepedia:Sourcing#Rules, item 11, currently requires that screenshots be uploaded to Wookieepedia for the purposes of creating backups of social media posts. These are hosted in Wookieepedia:Social media screenshots. The reasoning for this is because Internet Archive has historically been unable to create backup versions of Facebook and Twitter posts, and still has trouble doing so as far as I can tell.

However, we've recently begun using archive.today, which can create backups of social media posts. This service takes a pure screenshot of a webpage and does a vastly superior job of presenting archived data than Internet Archive in many cases. Therefore, the requirement of going through the pain of uploading a social media screenshot is now obsolete. I am therefore proposing the following modification to WP:S#Rules 10 and 11:

  1. When citing an external link, a permanent archival link (also called a backup link) must be included in the reference. Use archive.today or Internet Archive's Wayback Machine for this purpose.
    • Social media posts must likewise include a backup link. In the instance a social media post cannot be archived through one of the aforementioned archiving services, an accompanying screenshot of the post must alternatively be uploaded to Wookieepedia and linked in the reference itself.
    • The Wookieepedia community, particularly the article-reviewing panels through the article-nomination processes, may judge the validity of expired external links, including social media posts, that cannot produce a backup link or screenshot. The original URL must be provided in the reference, accompanied by a note indicating that its content has expired, such as (Information no longer available).

Some additional notes:

  • This is combining Rules 10 and 11 into a single rule.
  • Additionally, any reference notes from this section of the policy page with "rationale" and links to previous Mofferences, etc., will be retained and updated as necessary (see the policy page if you don't know what this is referring to).
  • Finally, any existing social media screenshots that have been uploaded to Wookieepedia may be deleted if they can be converted into backup links. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:01, August 8, 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:01, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  2. Definitely. Makes our usage consistent, and getting an archive link is also less work then uploading a screenshot. Tommy-Macaroni 19:04, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  3. Makes sense to me. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:06, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  4. Mr Star Wars AminoRepublic (talk) 19:08, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  5. 01miki10 Open comlink 19:10, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  6. AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:12, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  7. Destroy all social media posts! Erm. Imperators II(Talk) 19:13, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  8. Braha'tok enthusiast (Hello there) 19:13, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  9. Zed42 (talk) 19:14, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  10. Finally, this makes managing backup links so much easier. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 19:21, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  11. Sounds good. VergenceScatter (talk) 20:02, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  12. RattsT (talk) 20:05, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  13. After going through the screenshot process with multiple tweets for one article even though it was redundant with an archive backup, I definitely support this streamline. Immora (talk) 20:18, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  14. CIS roundel OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 20:31, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  15. --Lewisr (talk) 21:12, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  16. Makes perfect sense. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus Open frequency 21:13, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  17. Good stuff. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 22:35, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
  18. —Tomotron Revanchist Sith (Star Forge) 01:48, August 9, 2020 (UTC)
  19. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:01, August 9, 2020 (UTC)
  20. Wholeheartedly yes! --NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:36, August 9, 2020 (UTC)
  21. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:06, August 9, 2020 (UTC)
  22. Let the snowball continue rolling. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:19, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
  23. Cwedin(talk) 03:39, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
  24. I much prefer having backup links to hundreds of screenshots. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 06:06, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
  25. 1358 (Talk) 07:47, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
  26. Fan26 (Talk) 16:50, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. If I must be the lone voice of dissent, so be it. Archive.today is a good alternative for now, but they are not functionally stable. They do not have the same kind of infrastructure as archive.org (which now even finds itself under attack), and so they have had to repeatedly switch their domain name while they operate under fire from multiple factions on a shoestring budget. Furthermore, their ability to archive Facebook depends on their setting up fake accounts, a practice which is intermittently reliable and dubiously ethical. So, in short, there is no practical alternative to maintaining our own social media archive. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:23, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
    • All I'm going to say in response is that, by this rationale, we need to be uploading and hosting screenshots of every single thing we ever archive, because no guarantee exists that any archiving service is permanently reliable, be it Internet Archive or anything else. And while that's certainly true, eventually we reach a point where doing so is just impractical. Archive.today's blog indicates that they've managed to survive since December 2012. I'm willing to give them a chance. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:58, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding User:Darth Culator's concern, is one archive site or the other up to the discretion of the editor? I didn't read it as a requirement to use a specific service. -- Immora (talk) 03:42, August 10, 2020 (UTC)