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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>