Henning, I think you have missed an important detail (and if I'm mistaken, I'd like to know about it).
This is not an "either/or" situation. At least in the past, when I have manually added Wayback Machine links (or seen them added by bots), they do not *replace* dead links, they merely complement them. The English Wikipedia templates include two separate parameters for "url" and "archiveurl".
Adding one by an automated process does nothing to prevent the other from being repaired, whether by automated process or by human intervention.
Also, it's essential to consider that many "dead links" are truly dead at the source site. A newspaper may have implemented a paywall or taken its archives offline altogether; a political campaign may have let its domain lapse now that its candidate has retired from politics; a corrupt government may have removed information to suppress evidence. We all agree that repairing those dead links that can be repaired is ideal; but not all dead links *can* be repaired. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
On 16.12.2015 21:12, Danny Horn wrote:
#1. Migrate dead links to the Wayback Machine (111 support votes)
I really hope, you don't follow that wish, as it is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia.
Switching dead links to the archive is a move to a dead end, instead of looking for
a) the new correct URL, as many links were just moved. b) alternative sources for the same fact.
Ciao Henning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe