This is the Documentation forum. It can be used to discuss and suggest changes to documentation, including the rules that govern editing, sources, and behaviour on the wiki; as well as help articles and guides.You can use the 'Add topic' button to start a new conversation.
Resource archiving?[edit source]
What is the current status of resource archiving? We've (RC) seen some resources link to archived versions because the originals aren't live on the web. Most of the resources, however, are live and linked to directly.
Do we (the wiki) have a system to ensure we will have access to archived versions of these resources should their live versions be lost? If not, do we want to implement one?
- it was suggested in the discord that installing the wayback machine extension to automatically archive visited pages is a possible way of dealing with this. i think, though, that this issue kind of folds into the ongoing discussion about the 'right to be forgotten' - where is the line between preservation of a community resource and allowing a person control over what of their information is out there? once a page is archived, it's pretty much there forever. and while i personally think that an archive link strongly suggests "this person isn't around any more and/or doesn't hold the same views", which is what most people are concerned with communicating by taking down content, i don't know if other people feel the same way. and i'm not sure if there's some way of forming a heuristic of when things are safe to preemptively archive. beyond policy, i still think some kind of ~outreach program~ or something to encourage people to host their works with preservation in mind, including assenting to being archived, etc etc would be beneficial. idk! i think there's some brainstorming to be done here vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 15:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
mentioning specific individuals in articles about controversial topics[edit source]
i know we've talked about the 'right to be forgotten' aspect of citing/mentioning specific people in articles a bit before - but i've been thinking a about to handle controversial topics when it comes to this issue specifically. i'm working on the factkin draft recently, specifically the reception section, and exploring all the different opinions on the issue kind of necessitates mentioning specific individuals, at least with the sources i've found. i'm usually very pro-archival, but i can see this having consequences in the future. if the wiki eventually becomes the well-known resource that i think we all hope it to be, is it really the best idea to have, essentially, a list of pro and anti factkin individuals? i would hope that no one gets targeted [on either side] because of the article, but the internet is the internet.
i'm less concerned about people like ama-factkin who already make their opinions very clear and expect people to use them as a resource, because i'm sure they've already considered the potential consequences. but what about someone who just contributed to a discussion on a forum, for example? i doubt that they're expecting to get referenced so publicly and they might not want to have their opinion so out in the open.