The English-language edition of Wikipedia is blacklisting Archive.today after the controversial archive site was used to direct a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against a blog.
In the course of discussing whether Archive.today should be deprecated because of the DDoS, Wikipedia editors discovered that the archive site altered snapshots of webpages to insert the name of the blogger who was targeted by the DDoS. The alterations were apparently fueled by a grudge against the blogger over a post that described how the Archive.today maintainer hid their identity behind several aliases.
Should I stop using archive.ph then? I mostly used it because it’s a lot faster than archive.org, which is a bit clunkier to use.
Yep, also owned by archive.today.
As is archive.is, archive.fo, archive.li, archive.md, and archive.vn.
Well, for accessing paywalled articles .org is no replacement for .ph/.today, sadly. But it’s advisable to use it as little as possible, it seems using visitors for DDoS’ing the blog is still going on.
GhostArchive came up in discussions.
The problem that web.archive.org and ghostarchive.org both have is that they regularly fail to archive content
Understandable. Archive.today is really good at getting website content, but their methods are proprietary and a little dubious.
If you just want to save things locally, I believe Single File is really good. It downloads the page that you see on your browser, as you see it.
Also, as the name indicates, it downloads the page as a single file. Obviously, it doesn’t help for archiving the page for other people, though.
Couldn’t you host it somewhere yourself? I guess there’s a question of trust there, but trust is the reason Wikipedia has decided to stop using archive.today
I would probably use the Wayback Machine for that. You can give it the page’s address and tell it to make a copy.
The Wayback machine is good, but it has limitations archive.today subverted. That’s why people are looking for alternatives specifically to the latter