Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-11-06/Technology report

Discuss this story

Administrators do not have access at all due to the black lock A clarification is required here. (Not sure how I missed this in the drafting state, but oh well.) Administrators do not have access at all as the revisions are oversighted, not just being black locked. – robertsky (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On "all you need to know is archive.is/ and a five letter code.", you can also just search the article url in "I want to search the archive for saved snapshots". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with the Asian News International case, an open letter has been published and is taking signatures.--Ipigott (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironical 😉 that the Wayback Machine managed not to crawl the Asian News ... vs. article until after it was taken down; archive.org contains only multiple snapshots of the page in its blacklocked state. ...Could be a perfect storm of coincidental timing, too, since the article's still-live-and-interesting state happened to coincide with the Internet Archive's own recent outage and service degradation. (They got pwned on 2024-10-08, and are still operating in a slightly-degraded capacity even now, though most services related to the Wayback Machine were back up and running by 2024-10-21. Still, the first capture of the article['s blacklock notice] occurred on 2024-11-04.) FeRDNYC (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the deleted blacklocked page and it seems more like an defence outside court than a normal wikipidea article, I mean why was Judge mentioned by name so many time and at one place written "Chawla complied", you just making your case look worse by such actions. Imo wikimedia can get through this legal hurdle much more formally than people on wikipidea have any idea of. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 11:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who has trouble parsing this sentence? " . . . a reader should then wonder why the court feels that it is problematic for Wikipedia editors to summarize and that journalism, when the information in Wikipedia originates from external journalism." Ought there be another verb somewhere near "that journalism"? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]