Editing WebCite

{{historical}}
{{New sister project proposal
<!-- The following are about the status of the proposal -->
|status = closed
|comments = 
<!-- The following are about the proposal itself -->
|project_name = WebCite
|topic = Wikimedia
|project_description = See ''Proposal'' below.
|multilingual_wiki = There will be just one version.
|multilingual = No language variants.
|technical_reqs = See ''Proposal'' below.
<!-- The following are optional -->
|tagline = 
|url = http://www.webcitation.org/
|logo = 
|more_settings = Users can submit website urls for those websites to be cached.
|development_wiki = 
|participants = 
}}
[[w:link rot|Linkrot]] is a serious problem for the Wikipedia of every language. Content is supposed to be based on previously published sources. Many of these sources only exist online and not in print. When such sources die, the information in Wikipedia citing it is in question; and if no replacement source can be found, then the information is no longer easily attributable. That means our readers can no longer check the validity of cited claims, which eventually need to be removed. And the work that was spent on researching the deleted information has been wasted.

[[w:en:WebCite|WebCite]] is an on-demand archiving service to permanently store webpages. ''(See also [http://www.webcitation.org/ its own website], and [[w:en:Wikipedia:Using WebCite]] for information on how WebCite can be used with Wikipedia.)''  Even if the original webpage changes or disappears, the cited information is still verifiable if the contributor to Wikipedia has had the foresight to archive the webpage at WebCite.

It [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28technical%29&diff=536744113&oldid=536742065 is claimed] that EN Wikipedia currently has over 180,000 links to WebCite. Since WebCite has ceased operations in late 2021, all these links have broken unless they are available on an alternative web archive. Some of these references will become completely unverifiable, because some of the original URLs to them would be dead and the stored copy on WebCite was the only source left.

The [//ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebCite_Archiver WebCite Archiver] bot on RuWiki had archived over 507,000 pages on WebCite service at the moment.

The service is currently in financial trouble.  According to the [http://www.webcitation.org/6ET50vzJH WebCite homepage as of February 2013], WebCite will stop accepting new submissions by the end of 2013, "unless we reach our fundraising goals to modernize and expand this service."  If their fundraising does not increase by more than double its current rate, the goal will not be reached.

'''''The idea proposed here is that the Wikimedia Foundation take control over the WebCite service, including the physical infrastructure (such as servers) and the domain''''' ''<nowiki>webcitation.org</nowiki>''. '''''In return, the WMF would finance the necessary modernization of the service.'''''

==Proposed by==
<!-- Enter the names of those who came up the idea of the project in the first place -->
[[User:Toshio Yamaguchi]]

==Alternative names==
<!-- Enter other names the project could be given instead -->


==Related projects/proposals==
<!-- List other proposals or existing Wikimedia wikis similar to the one proposed, if any -->


==Domain names==
<!-- Link to potential web addresses where the wiki for the project could reside -->
http://www.webcitation.org/

==Mailing list links==
<!-- Link to the foundation-l mailing list archive page where this proposal has been mentioned (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/) -->


==Demos==
<!-- If there are other wikis out there already with similar themes (but not under the Wikimedia umbrella, provide links to them here -->


{{#ifexist: WebCite/supporters | {{/supporters}} | 
==People interested==
<inputbox>
type=create
preload=Proposals for new projects/supporters-preload
editintro=Proposals for new projects/supporters-intro
default={{subst:PAGENAME}}/supporters
hidden=yes
break=no
buttonlabel=Add your signature
</inputbox> }}


==Discussion==
*I'm concerned that it might not be possible for the Wikimedia foundation to take control of WebCite.  One of the [[founding principles]] of the foundation is that there is free licensing of all content.  The non-archived content of WebCite is released under a CC BY-NC-SA license, so that isn't compatible with the WMF's goals; however, that aspect can be changed.  The more difficult aspect is the fact that archived pages are not free content.  Is the WMF able/willing to do this?[[User:Ryan Vesey|Ryan Vesey]] ([[User talk:Ryan Vesey|talk]]) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
**I think the archiving is perfectly justifiable under fair use. I think it fits within the gap defined by [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 §107] of United States copyright lawand the English Wikipedia already uses content under fair use claims. [[User:Toshio Yamaguchi|Toshio Yamaguchi]] ([[User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi|talk]]) 08:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
*** The legal implications of having the WMF host a service like this would be something that will more than likely be discussed ad nauseum if this proposal gets any sort of community traction (which I think will certainly happen).  I would suggest that for the purposes of this discussion that the legal implications be the least important thing to even remotely worry about, as some of the best legal scholars in the world will be literally helping the WMF try to sort this one out and possibly even get laws passed to make this happen.  Technical and financial considerations are going to be much more complicated.  --[[User:Roberth|Roberth]] ([[User talk:Roberth|talk]]) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
***My concerns weren't with the legal implications, but whether the WMF would be willing to do this or not.[[User:Ryan Vesey|Ryan Vesey]] ([[User talk:Ryan Vesey|talk]]) 23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
*I'll also note a correction to the above.  We won't lose the 180,000 links already to WebCite, we just won't be able to create more.  This isn't saying that it's not a big problem, because it is.[[User:Ryan Vesey|Ryan Vesey]] ([[User talk:Ryan Vesey|talk]]) 23:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
*As much as i like preserving information and publishing free, accessible information, I don't trust the management here. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
** While I'm less trusting of some of the "community outreach" programs and ways that the WMF seems to be mismanaging money that doesn't seem to be promoting the essential mission of directly supporting the sister projects including Wikipedia, one thing the WMF seems to do very well is to manage server resources to support a community organized website.  A project like this would hardly tax the server resources of the the WMF.  Numbers like 180k links and perhaps a small multiple of that number of images associated with those articles being cited is along the lines of some of the smaller obscure language sub-projects of Wikipedia.  Establishing policies for what gets archived is going to be much more of an issue.  --[[User:Roberth|Roberth]] ([[User talk:Roberth|talk]]) 00:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
***I don't doubt the WMF's ability to host and fund a project such as WebCite. I'm concerned about censorship. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
*A comment, a question, then another comment. First, if WebCite is seriously underfunded, I find it hard to believe that it will continue uninterruptedly. Some altruistic organization may offer to keep running what's already there, but I'd guess that even this is unlikely. First announcing that no more submissions will be possible and later closing down completely seems a common pattern—I've seen it at the URL-shortening service tr.im, for example (though I'm happy to note that tr.im is back, after a long break).

Michaeldsuarez, which management are you referring to? WMF's, or WebCite's? If the former, how are its failings WebCite-relevant? If the latter, please elaborate.

While I'm appalled to think that WebCite might vanish, hope that it flourishes, and recognize that WMF has more money than a bunch of individuals do, I have my own qualms about a takeover. WebCite is sometimes used for material whose copyright-holder didn't merely allow to vanish but instead quite deliberately deleted. (A company may wish to say one thing, and later change its mind and hope that nobody brings up the matter.) If Wikipedia cites such material as archived at a website that's demonstrably independent, that's one thing, If it instead cites such material as archived at a website owned by the same umbrella organization, charges (however underinformed or even malicious) that Wikimedia is out to discredit organizations or people, or even that it permits the falsification of material, might look more plausible. If WMF funds WebCite, I now think that WebCite should remain separate, and be seen to remain so. -- [[User:Hoary Returns|Hoary Returns]] ([[User talk:Hoary Returns|talk]]) 03:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
:* Simply funding them the $50,000 is an option, so long as the WMF is willing to do it. In the name of protecting the interests of Wikipedia's references, it makes sense to do so. [[User:Silver seren|Silver seren]] ([[User talk:Silver seren|talk]]) 09:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
:**I would prefer this option. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnchen]] ([[User talk:Hahnchen|talk]]) 13:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
:***Is it appropriate for the WMF to donate donation money intended for Wikimedia? What about a "Save WebCitation" banner instead? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 20:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
:****As long as it fits within their defined missions, they can use the funds however they determine is best. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[:en:Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|投稿]]</font> · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:*****Donators should be aware of what they're funding. We shouldn't give an outside organization donation money without alerting the donors. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 18:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:******In this case it's not really ''that'' different from buying domain name services. It's an essential service for WMF's major project, and whilst  obviously WMF should be transparent about any resources provided, it's hardly something so radical or massive in scale that donors ought to be asked permission. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 23:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:*@Hoary_Returns: I'm referring to the WMF. I don't trust the WMF. My concern is about Wikipedians possibly censoring WebCitation. I don't want to name names here. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 20:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
*I would worry about the risks of stacking Fair Use.  Copyright law has no sense to it - just because Google has a thumbnail of every image doesn't mean that we can, or indeed, that anyone that doesn't have Google's lawyers can.  What happens when we have an article with an inline reference ''and that points to'' another Wikimedia page with the full text of an archived article?  I don't claim to know the legal lingo, transformative versus archival or whatever, but my feeling is that WebCite is something we'd want to have a high firewall around so that in case the publishers go after it with long knives one night that the fallout doesn't reach Wikipedia proper.  So I'm thinking it would be better to find a way to assure its survival, assure it is not censored (agree with Michaeldsuarez on that one), assure that it remains non-profit, but not actually ''take it over''. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 05:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
**WebCite is already very liberal when it comes to deleting anything copyright owners request to be deleted. [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page Sherrod requested] the deletion of all of the encyclopediadramatica.com snapshots. [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273&st=0&p=298828&mode=linear#entry298828 Daniel Brandt requested] the deletion of all namebase.org snapshots when [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20120121000000&contribs=user&target=Michaeldsuarez I attempted] to provide accessible alternatives to hyperlinks that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36273 Brandt nullrouted]. I don't believe that a WMF-managed WebCite would be more liberal than the current management when it comes to responding to copyright-related takedown requests. In fact, it would probably be more difficult to delete copyrighted material from a WMF-managed WebCite due to the amount of activists involved in Wikimedia. I was referring to people taking down archived content in order to protect their reputations, not their copyrights. There are people who want to see negative material disappear without a trace, even when that negative information is true, and I'm afraid that the WMF would comply with some of those requests. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
***I also fear this. It almost seems to me like maybe it would be a better idea for the '''Internet Archive''' to host it... Anyone up for seeing if they can?? That option would '''definitely''' save the WMF money, and prevent any censorship/takedowns.--[[Special:Contributions/174.103.114.44|174.103.114.44]] 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

=====Perspective from WebCite=====
WebCite - a project I initiated - is humbled by the support from the Wikimedia / Wikipedia community. We are more than willing to discuss all possible options, including a "takeover" by WMF. Personally, I would think that leaving it a stand-alone entity with funding and strong ties to the WMF would be the better solution for all parties involved (not least, legal exposure), but this is for WMF to decide, and as WebCite initiator my primary goal is to see WebCite flourish and survive, which it may be best achieved the umbrella of the WMF. In any case, WebCite does need cash (we are hoping to raise $50k by end of this year to pay a developer for a much needed overhaul, more storage space etc). The third option is a commercial one, i.e. raise Venture Capital and/or charge for "pro/premium" memberships. The latter is the avenue we may have to pursue if other fundraising efforts fail. In the meantime, please donate at http://fnd.us/c/aQMp7 (preferably with a comment) - this will go a long way to demonstrate to potential funders that there is some serious need and support for a service like this. Gunther Eysenbach, University of Toronto, WebCite initiator --[[User:Eysenbach|Eysenbach]] ([[User talk:Eysenbach|talk]]) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:* Well, that's that then. This should be left up to the WMF to discuss with Mr. Eysenbach now. Has anyone let Jimbo (or whomever would be appropriate) about this response yet? [[User:Silver seren|Silver seren]] ([[User talk:Silver seren|talk]]) 02:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:**[[:en:User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Does_the_WMF_have_a_position_on_meta:WebCite.3F]]. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

* '''Issues, and possible way forward to resolve the issues'''. Webcitation is an important public knowledge service and crucial in the internet era: the loss of knowledge due to page removal or rewriting has been very widely acknowledged. So I see this as falling centrally within the WMF mission, as well as something we directly benefit from and can legitimately service. 

: My key question is that I know the kinds of uses and pages we store on webcitation - they fit in our mission. But webcitation's mission is wider - it allows anyone to archive any pages for any use, and ''we have no idea what pages or uses that covers''. We might take on webcitation for our purposes either as a public service or to safeguard our 180k linked sources or ability to add to them. But with those come how many millions of archived pages, and archived by whom, and for what purpose, and what validity? We don't know and we need to think about it. For example: 1/ If we took on webcitation and set no limits on archive use, at what point do we fall foul of the law on copyright? (Ask archive.org, they should have done the research) 2/ Since webcitation archives specific pages on demand rather than spidering, will we ignore robots.txt and is that construed negatively in law? 3/ Will we instigate limits of what the service can be used for, or patrol those limits? (Archive your favorite porn or "hate" site in case it goes down - does webcitation allow it, or WMF want it) 4/ If we set usage criteria - even as simple as requiring archiving users to click to confirm criteria or term of storage - then we are also removing a resource that will archive any user's needed page at will (and who knows what a random user may genuinely with good cause needs to archive!) and not replacing it with a site that will do the same public job.

: So while I love the idea of webcitation as a WMF project, and the public service and synergies of that idea, the first steps must be 1/ to consider the full range of uses webcitation gets, and where those uses would stand in law if WMF operated it, and 2/ to be reassured the public would not accidentally lose a resource as much as gain one if WMF did operate webcitation.

: '''Since these are complicated legal questions I'd rather see a 90% win than an endless stall. I'd like to suggest an initial step like this:'''

:# WMF hosts webcitation.org (and could also consider the same for selected other websites relevant to our mission if they need it). 
:# Hosting service and technical support for webcitation (and any WMF developer or staff involvement if agreed upon) is offered as a grant or donation to webcitation, which continues to exist independently as at present and operates the actual service. 
:# Any WMF staff who work on webcitation are formally doing so as subcontractors, by WMF to webcitation, and their cost will be reimbursed by webcitation (at a sensible rate), or given as a grant or donation against specific projects, or a mixture of these.
:# WMF hosting includes appropriate mirroring, ensuring the webcitation system and data is secured, exactly as the wikis are or any other hosting operator might. 
:# Webcitation operates a policy that a page archived due to Wikimedia use won't be removed without community  or other policy consent.
::::<small>''(History pages are a crucial part of our content and often researched, we can expect this more as time goes on. So the cites backing those up are every bit as valid for future. If someone wants to write or study the history of X in 100 years including "X as at 2013", and topic X has over time had old material condensed, they will still have the old pages but will need the old cites it drew on and those still have 'prima facie' educational value)''</small>

: This ensures legal separation as at present, but adds support of webcitation, assurance of data preservation, the imprimatur of WMF's name as a supporter and host to help Webcitation both operationally and with enhancement of confidence for its own fundraising, and all the other benefits discussed, including a pathway to future integration or closer collaboration if ever wanted. But since it does not involve WMF owning or creating any webcitation data, it should be much easier to agree as a first step. We can do more later if the legal side is not an issue, but this gets - without undue worry or risk - the key practical benefits to both projects envisaged by the proposal. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 08:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::I've looked into WebCite quite a bit.  My $0.02:  Part of my concern with simply throwing money at WebCite is that I have been unable to discover what has been causing the serious problems they're having.  The site has ''repeatedly'' been down for lengthy periods of time (over a week, on multiple occasions) with '''no''' communication regarding what's been going on, or even acknowledgement that anyone there knew there was a problem, and permanently lost a significant amount (3 months?) of data.  Eysenbach et. al have done a GREAT SERVICE by getting WebCite going and running for a few years, but I think leveraging the WMF's expertise at keeping something like WebCite up and running, and doing so efficiently makes cooperation a great idea.  ThisFT2 proposal makes a lot of sense.  Providing hosting service and technical support for webcitation, or a hosting a webcitation fork/clone would be a great idea.  Finishing the work to have Archive.org be that clone (as discussed below) would be '''an even better idea'''; this is their core competency.  Throwing money at WebCite MAY or MAY not be an efficient us of our funds.  I suspect it isn't.  We know how to keep systems up close to 100%, cost-efficiently.  We don't know what their budget is, or have evidence that they have or can get the expertise to be able to to that.  If we fork, Wikipedians/WMF should still give WebCite enough funds to support continued hosting of the content they already host 'for us', indefinitely.--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 20:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

=====European Law=====

*I oppose this proposal. WebCite is a service that is not allowed under European law and that hence may not be run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Apart from that it is not Wikipedia's business if resources disappear from the web. Wikipedia must be based upon reliable sources which means that URLs are usually not sufficient, we need printed books and databases for references anyway.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] ([[User talk:Aschmidt|talk]]) 02:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
**The WMF is not a European organization, so if the main WMF (as opposed to other country-specific Wikimedia organizations) decides to do it, it doesn't really matter what any European law allows or disallows. And we can't rely solely on printed books and databases as they don't always contain the information needed (and online sources often contain information not even found in printed sources). There are plenty of reliable online sources, so discounting all or even most of them is not a valid argument. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[:en:Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|投稿]]</font> · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 04:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
**I don't think it would be wise to break the law, whatever law it may be.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] ([[User talk:Aschmidt|talk]]) 09:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
***We do this all the time when uploading a copyrighted image or unable to upload an "free" image (to a "local wiki") in a country and not being able to upload it to Commons because of US law... So how is this situation then different? (for the case the WMF would overtake WebCite) <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</font></small> 23:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

*Personally I see an ethical issue with giving WebCite the money but ''not'' taking it over. It is much more defensible from a donor's perspective to say, "We're taking the money you gave us to start a new project, which happens to entail acquiring and expanding on a pre-existing website that is critical to our aims" than "We're taking the money you gave us and giving it to a project not affiliated with us at all, and that we have no say in running." [[User:Intelligentsium|Intelligentsium]] ([[User talk:Intelligentsium|talk]]) 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
*To be a bit more "selfish" here, if WMF runs WebCite, how can we direct the course of the redesign/expansion to best suit the wikiprojects' needs? --[[User:LukeSurl|LukeSurl]] ([[User talk:LukeSurl|talk]]) 00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

=== Other options ===
I support this, but I've looked around and can't see if the folks at WebCite have agreed to this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Just in case this does not succeed, I think it would be a good idea to have other options to look at.
*Perhaps the WMF could donate server space and internet connectivity to WebCite. This may be a significant portion of their operating costs.
::This would seem like a viable solution to at least part of the problem. Any other ideas? [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.47|64.40.54.47]] 16:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::: See mine above? (08:20, 13 February 2013). [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 09:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:WebCite head Eysenbach ''has'' commented, above.--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
*It is instructive to look at the history of [[w:User:WebCiteBOT]] and at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Webcitebot2]]. Despite the good efforts of several contributors, it seems efforts to make bot-based automation of WebCite submissions (and linkages to them) has been largely ineffective. The concepts don't seem terribly difficult, but there's a necessary level of cooperation and engagement that's been missing. Similar efforts have been more fruitful, (e.g. with the [[w:Wayback Machine]]) but we should not be dependent on a single archiving engine, nor a single country's whims about what should stay on line. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 21:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
* WebCiteBOT projects have been successful a pilot projects - the issue was always that WebCite needs funding to handle such a large number of archiving requests  --[[Special:Contributions/99.231.144.202|99.231.144.202]] 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
** {{fact}} That's news to me; when I tried to figure out why they were not live, I never found this answer anywhere.  --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
==== WebCite can apply for a grant ====
[[en:User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe at the WMF]] was kind enough [[en:User talk:Philippe (WMF)#Does the WMF have a position on meta:WebCite?|to point out]] that WebCite/Gunther Eysenbach can apply for a grant of up to $30,000 from the WMF at [[Grants:IEG]]. The instructions at [[Grants:IEG]] have the details of how to apply. The deadline for round 1 of grants is February 15, 2013. The second round of grants opens on August 1, 2013, but can be written up before then. This may be one possible solution. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.22|64.40.54.22]] 06:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, this grant would be a partial solution, but it would still fall $20,000 short of Webcite's goal. How long will a single grant or the total $50,000 last? I have concerns about us relying on an external service that itself is dependent on funding sources that are not guaranteed. [[User:Fredlyfish4|Fredlyfish4]] ([[User talk:Fredlyfish4|talk]]) 04:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::That's something I am concerned about as well. This is the reason why I proposed that the WMF takes control of WebCites infrastructure and domain name. [[User:Toshio Yamaguchi|Toshio Yamaguchi]] ([[User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi|talk]]) 07:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
*{{comment}} The comment linked to above stated "the Wikimedia Grants process", not specifically [[Grants:IEG|Individual Engagement Grants]]. More likely, we would be talking about [[Grants:Index]] which is a rolling program without the fixed deadline that IEG have. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 09:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:* KTC is correct, WebCite wouldn't be applying for an Individual Engagement Grant. Please see [[Grants:Start]] for the list of all the different types of grants available, the type of grant that WebCite would apply for would be the "Wikimedia Foundation Grant" for which, as KTC stated, "Proposals accepted at any time". Please see [[Grants:Table]] for a list of the previous individuals/organisations/groups that have applied through this process. The grant would be assessed by the [[Grant Advisory Committee]] who would help evaluate the grant, and one of the factors would be community support, which there clearly appears to be as per [[#People interested|above]]. [[User:Thehelpfulone|<span style="color:red">'''The'''</span>]][[User talk:Thehelpfulone|<span style="color:black">'''helpful'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<span style="color:red">'''one'''</span>]] 13:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::*Regardless of the grant type, my concern about relying on grants, or donations for that matter, remain. [[User:Fredlyfish4|Fredlyfish4]] ([[User talk:Fredlyfish4|talk]]) 14:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::[[User:Michaeldsuarez]] requested that I clarify my comment here.  I was speaking of grants in general - I'm actually not an expert on the process or on what can and can not be done using the money granted by various parts of the grant making programs, but I recommend writing to Katy Love (klove{{@}}wikimedia.org), who IS an expert, or to Asaf Bartov (abartov{{@}}wikimedia.org) who knows everything about - well - everything.  I will also point them here - hopefully one of them can tell us which grant program would be most effective.  [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 14:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
=====Response from WMF Grants Program=====
#Yes, WebCite can apply for a grant, per the instructions at [[Grants:Index|the Wikimedia Foundation Grants Program information page]]. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
#I don't know enough about Webcite to be able to join the discussion at this point, but after skimming this page, I would recommend to first explore some of the other ideas raised here—in particularly, the ArchiveLinks extension already explored by WMF—and to get some input from WMF Tech.  If a grant _is_ submitted, this would be made part of the discussion anyway, so I think we'd all be wiser if we do this first and discuss a grant later. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
#To clarify, there are a host of issues involved with a possible grant, so the Tech input is not the only thing needed for us to consider approving such a grant.  Legal and oversight concerns would need to be clarified as well.  Also, we'd need the owner of Webcite to be part of the conversation. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
#: He already is. He's posted on this page under the username "Eysenbach". --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
#::Ah, indeed!  I missed that.  Thanks for the pointer. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User talk:Ijon|talk]] 03:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

=====Response from Funds Dissemination Committee=====
Hello, and thank you, Philippe, for inviting me into the fold to comment on whether WebCite's eligibility for funding from the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). In fact, in order to be eligible, entities must meet the [[m:FDC portal/Eligibility criteria|eligibility criteria]]. As my colleague [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] has mentioned, WebCite may be eligible for grants from the WMF Grants Program if applying for project funding. While WMF Grants Program gives mission-aligned project grants, FDC grants fund annual plans of eligible WMF-associated entities. You can find out more about the FDC from the [[m:Funds Dissemination Committee/Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of the FDC|FDC framework]] and on the [[m:FDC portal|FDC portal.]] If there are other questions, I'm happy to answer them. [[User:KLove (WMF)|KLove (WMF)]] ([[User talk:KLove (WMF)|talk]]) 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

==== Please donate ====
Currently, [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebCite/supporters&oldid=5247135  41 people support] some sort of relationship between the WMF and WebCite, yet [http://www.webcitation.org/6ETXRzMH5 only 35 people donated] money so far. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:You assume all 41 have spare money to donate. [[User:Silver seren|Silver seren]] ([[User talk:Silver seren|talk]]) 07:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::Children and those who don't earn enough money to donate at least $5 shouldn't be deciding the fate of a scholarly project. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 15:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:What kind of democrat are you? Do you think that sort of condition should be applied to the wider world? Perhaps only those who own serfs should vote? [[User:Archolman|Dick]] ([[User talk:Archolman|talk]]) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Nowhere on Wikimedia is there a requirement to donate before one can participate in a discussion.  Nor is there an age restriction.  That is a ridiculous and insulting thing to say.  Comments should be judged on their own merits, and yours have none, regardless of how much you have donated. [[User:Spinningspark|'''<font style="background:#FFF090;color:#00C000">Sp<font style="background:#FFF0A0;color:#80C000">in<font style="color:#C08000">ni</font></font><font style="color:#C00000">ng</font></font><font style="color:#2820F0">Spark</font>''']] 17:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::{{oppose}} There is no policy that I'm aware of saying that Wikimedia contributors have to be old or rich in order to participate in discussions. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 17:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm just saying that children and those without working experience aren't as wise as those with a fuller experience of life and work. Entrusting the naive with power isn't the best thing to do. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 14:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Why limit it at $5? Call me a traditionalist, but the voting should really be limited to land-owners. ▫ '''[[User:JohnnyMrNinja|<font color="#202040">Johnny</font><font color="#204040">Mr</font><font color="#206040">Nin</font><font color="#204040">ja</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JohnnyMrNinja|'''talk''']] / [[:en:User talk:JohnnyMrNinja|'''en''']]) 19:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm not normally someone to get involved in discussions like this but do you really think that an expert in a particular field, currently out of paid work for whatever reason, but with plenty of time and effort to spend, is less suited to this "deciding the fate of a scholarly project" than those of us who can afford a donation but lack time?  A project like this only works by relying on the various strengths of its members. [[User:ChrisHodgesUK|ChrisHodgesUK]] ([[User talk:ChrisHodgesUK|talk]]) 08:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
::::[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ChrisHodgesUK&oldid=474783759 You have a master's degree]. Do you lack working experience? Are you "currently out of paid work for whatever reason"? I believe that it's more likely for those without expertise or skills to be unemployed. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did my PC security software block an intrusion attempt by distinguishesskillbuilding.org when  I loaded the donation webpage? [[User:GrahamColm|GrahamColm]] ([[User talk:GrahamColm|talk]]) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
: I had no problem when I made a donation earlier today.[[User:WVhybrid|WVhybrid]] ([[User talk:WVhybrid|talk]]) 01:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::@Graham, does your spamware use Spamhaus for it's blocking rules? distinguishesskillbuilding.org is listed in the Spamhaus Domain Blacklist:
www.spamhaus.org/query/domain/distinguishesskillbuilding.org
Netcraft:
Hosted by:
eSecureData.com
10252 City Parkway,
Suite 206
Surrey BC CA V3T-4C2  71.19.255.40 	Linux 	Apache 	21-Feb-2013.
Robtex:
Registrant:
PrivacyProtect.org
PO Box 16
Note - Visit PrivacyProtect.org to contact the domain owner/operator
Nobby Beach
Queensland
QLD 4218
AU
+45.36946676
Either a poorly regulated new website by an individual, or a new spam-server. I think the first choice, as spammers don't generally shout 'It works' to the world, they just send spam. [[User:Archolman|Dick]] ([[User talk:Archolman|talk]]) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


[http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30337#p30337 Rude], Michael. Really rude. [[User:Silver seren|Silver seren]] ([[User talk:Silver seren|talk]]) 08:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:"Rude" and "insulting". If I felt that the average Wikipedian cared more about free speech than about hurt feelings, especially their own hurt feelings, then I wouldn't be so concerned about the possibility of censorship. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::I would like more censorship please, where do I donate for some of that?[[User:Dainomite|Dainomite]] ([[User talk:Dainomite|talk]]) 08:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The Peoples Republic of China? North Korea?[[User:Archolman|Dick]] ([[User talk:Archolman|talk]]) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, "41 people support some sort of relationship between the WMF and WebCite, yet only 35 people donated money so far" does not imply any assumption about those who didn't pay, and certainly no assumption that "all 41 have spare money to donate". Some people here may indeed have no spare money. And if they don't have spare money, of course they should be free to comment here and indeed to help to set policy. As of a few seconds ago, 45 people had donated, and the appeal hadn't yet brought in 2% of the hoped-for funds. Perhaps I'm unusual in finding these figures surprising and dispiriting. As for the idea that something called distinguishesskillbuilding.org makes an "intrusion attempt", Ghostery tells me that the only funny stuff is from Facebook, Google Analytics, and something called AddThis, while the only page components not from fundrazr.com are the big arrow graphic from amazonaws.com (i.e. Amazon) and a little "g+" graphic from gstatic.com (i.e. Google). Incidentally, [http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator the WDG HTML validator] tells us that distinguishesskillbuilding.org (or more strictly speaking the version of this that it is fed) currently reads, from start to finish: <pre><html><body><h1>It works!</h1></body></html></pre>—pretty innocuous. -- [[User:Hoary Returns|Hoary Returns]] ([[User talk:Hoary Returns|talk]]) 13:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30558#p30558 &ndash; I'm sorry for causing trouble. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

==== archive.is ====

Speaking of alternative, another common site I often use that seems useful and relevant in this context is [http://archive.is/ archive.is]. Just thought I'd at least mention that there are (many?) others out there providing the same service that could be considered as well. Though I assume the pressure for WebCite is to preserve their urls (we're not discussing it so much to have an archiving service in general, since WebCite clearly isn't the only one of its kind).  –''[[User:Krinkle|Krinkle]]''<sup>[[User talk:Krinkle|talk]]</sup> 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:BTW, archive.is has archived almost all the external links from English, German and Russian Wikipedia. Almost, because some sites are excluded (archive.org, WebCite, YouTube, ...). Now it seems reasonable to include WebCite into the list. [[User:Rotlink|Rotlink]] ([[User talk:Rotlink|talk]]) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

==== wikiwix.com ====

Another similar service by a french company, wikiwix.com. The french Wikipedia used this service regularly to preserve dead links since 2008, [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Syst%C3%A8me_de_cache] [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/31_janvier_2012#Wikiwix] [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Questions_techniques/semaine_17_2012#Wikiwix_en_d.C3.A9rangement_.3F]. They have [https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%E9cial:Recherche_de_lien&limit=500&offset=24500&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwikiwix.com%2F ~25.000 weblinks to wikiwix]. There are WP articles on the service [[:de:Wikiwix]], [[:es:Wikiwix]] etc. but they were deleted on [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Wikiwix/Suppression frWP] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiwix enWP] (see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archived_citations][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archived_citations_2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#AntiLinkrotBot]). Just FYI and context. --[[User:Atlasowa|Atlasowa]] ([[User talk:Atlasowa|talk]]) 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

====WikiNews====
If the WikiMFCommunity were to change the rules and get more users editing WikiNews, WikiNews could take fill the role of WebCite.  The rule change being to allow using WikiNews articles as sources for Wikipedia articles.  With more users at Wikinews (WN), more articles would be created and reviewed for accuracy then kept.  With the review of the original source for the WN article in effect those sources' information would be archived with the article.  Granted this does help with non-current events, unless past event articles could be created specifical to be sources for future WN or WP articles.[[User:Spshu|Spshu]] ([[User talk:Spshu|talk]]) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:Verifiability issues aside, many/most of the items archived would not be news-related, and currently existing citations would be historical and not fit with Wikinews' topical remit. Furthermore, wikinews currently produces about three articles per day, whereas this is a question of ''thousands'' of citations. [[User:LukeSurl|LukeSurl]] ([[User talk:LukeSurl|talk]]) 12:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::Well, I did mention that their might need to have a change in policy regarding the topical nature of the articles.  Second, if Wikinews was an allowed source for WP then there might be a greater move of editors to produce more articles per day.  I did edit at WN for a while but there wasn't enough reviewer level editors to approve the articles and one of them that was quick to delete the unreviewed articles.  There was also a fork (OpenGlobe) from the project.  Plus there is WikiSource which can contain any public domain documents that helps with more historical sources with the [//en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica] and the like. WikiBooks possibly too. [[User:Spshu|Spshu]] ([[User talk:Spshu|talk]]) 14:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::: As a Wikinews enthusiast, I would support using 'published' Wikinews articles as sources in Wikipedia. But this does not solve the problem even for the minority of cases where rotten links could have been covered by Wikinews, i.e. were within Wikinews project scope, and news articles could have been written about them. This is because Wikinews articles themselves are to be sourced from at least two independent external reliable sources, and these are amenable to link rot like any other links. --[[User:PICAWN|PICAWN]] ([[User talk:PICAWN|talk]]) 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Because the Wikinews article has be to reviewed to be "published".  The reviewer would have to check article to the external sources.[[User:Spshu|Spshu]] ([[User talk:Spshu|talk]]) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::I don't feel that it would be desirable to replace Webcite with WN. WN, like WP, is a wiki reliant on third party [[:en:Wikpedia:RS|reliable sources]]. That means Wikipedia need to ensure that the chain of preservation or archive is preserved, or credibility and verifiability break down. Therefore, WN potentially have the same issues to us when it comes to archiving. And what's more, they only cover news items, and what they cover is extremely patchy. There are also many articles on WP that are not 'mainstream news' related, and so fall outside the scope of WN, so as far as I'm concerned, such a proposal doesn't address any real problems that WP faces with the disappearance of Citeweb. --[[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
<!-- Feel free to add additional sections or sub-sections -->

====DIY?====
I may be missing something, but is there any reason why this cannot be done in-house? Wouldn't that overcome some of the concerns mentioned above in taking over an existing service (which is apparently used by non-Foundation projects) or in funding an outside service? I'm not saying it's an ideal or necessarily even a good choice, but since I haven't seen it considered on here, I'd like to bring it up. [[User:Mendaliv|Mendaliv]] ([[User talk:Mendaliv|talk]]) 18:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:The source code for WebCite is CC-licensed, IIRC, so this would not be very difficult.  --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 20:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

====OTRS====
PDF files of webpages can be archived in the OTRS system and procedures be made to release such files only when a case for fair use is given. This will discourage abuse and limit legal liability. [[User:Morgankevinj|<span style="color:darkgreen">Morgan</span><span style="color:blue">'''Kevin'''</span><span style="color:red">J</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Morgankevinj|''(talk)'']]</sup> 18:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

====Why bother?====
I see little discussion of the quality and value of websites.  They are often inaccurate.  Books, journals, magazines and newspapers are reviewed, although they still have mistakes. But anyone can put whatever they want on a website, formatted so it looks serious and reliable. </span><span style="color:#652222">(<small>© 2011 Ministry of Information. All rights reserved.)</small></span> Serious works rarely cite websites: doing so would destroy the author's credibility. WP should consider credibility too.  Even if there were no legal issue with republishing web pages that the authors may have since corrected or withdrawn, it is questionable whether we should. If a link rots and there is no evidence that it led to a credible source such as a book or journal, it seems better to quietly drop it. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 13:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:Not all information can be found in print media and journals. For many cases where this is so, website references are adequate provided they meet various criteria, as described by Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Print media and journals are a first-tier form of reference, whilst websites are a second-tier fallback when the first-tier is not available. Obviously we would prefer the better references, but we can also settle for references that are slightly not as good, but still satisfactory. The problem with websites is that they tend to go down from time to time, and WebCite is an important tool in countering this issue.

:Different websites have different levels of reliability. By saying ''"But anyone can put whatever they want on a website, formatted so it looks serious and reliable"'', you're creating an association fallacy ("Geocities pages written by 14 year olds exist, therefore all websites are unreliable"). We have policies in place which make sure that the correct websites are used. We even have blacklist filters that prevent known dodgy websites to be used, and various bots are made to look out for new editors adding URLs to known problem websites, and these edits are swiftly reverted.

:I may be able to find a scientific journal article on [[w:pneumonia|pneumonia]], but I might not be able to find one about [[w:Arch Linux|Arch Linux]]. This is where website sources come in, simple as that. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">[[User:benlisquare|<font style="color:#FFFF00;background:red;">'''&nbsp;李博杰&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span> | <small>—[[User talk:benlisquare|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Benlisquare|contribs]] </small> 05:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

=== Internet Archive / ArchiveLinks extension ===

* the internet archive offers a similar service at a larger scale and is in no danger of going away.  Has anyone contacted them about this?
**The Internet Archive is not on demand, you have to pray that it picks up the site you want. Maybe sacrifice a goat. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
**The Internet Archive does not ''index'' on demand, thus you can not confirm that a page has been archived until it is indexed. The URL of a newly archived page should look like <nowiki>http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://example.org/</nowiki>. – [[User:Allen4names|Allen4names]] ([[User talk:Allen4names|talk]]) 04:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
**The Internet Archive, while a good alternative resource, does not archive pages on demand. It's therefore not possible to assure a page is archived until its indexed, which can sometimes take months. [[User:Tucoxn|Tucoxn]] ([[User talk:Tucoxn|talk]]) 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
*** The IA does maintain a paid on-demand archive service, Archive-It, for big institutions and similar customers. I contacted their Kristine Hanna a few years ago (September 2009) to suggest something for WMF, but was brushed off; as far as I know, nothing has happened since. --[[User:Gwern|Gwern]] ([[User talk:Gwern|talk]]) 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
***: For reference: the [http://www.archive-it.org/ Archive-it website], and the [http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#Archive-It FAQ] on how it operates. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 22:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

* There is also [[mw:Extension:ArchiveLinks]]. It's some WikiMedia code that automatically sends citations to an archive service. I think all you have to do is file a request at Bugzilla to get it enabled. I think the Internet Archive already agreed to archive links if the requests come from the WMF servers, but I'm not positive. Here's some basic questions.
:*Has anybody contacted the WMF?
:*Has anybody contacted WebCite?
:*Has anybody contacted the Internet Archive?
:These would seem to be logical first steps. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.40|64.40.54.40]] 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:* We see the first reaction from WebCite above, and WMF (for instance, Maggie) is aware of the existence of this page.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 17:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
::*I fail to see why Internet Archive needs to be contacted. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 13:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:::*Because '''maybe''' the Internet Archive could host it. That option would save the WMF '''a lot''' of money... --[[Special:Contributions/174.103.114.44|174.103.114.44]] 18:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

*During the [[en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Technology report|Google Summer of Code for 2011]], the Wikimedia Foundation worked for 3 months with the Internet Archive to have the MediaWiki software automatically archive all of our citations using [[mw:Extension:ArchiveLinks]]. Both the WMF and the Internet Archive were ready to do this, but there was never any follow up to actually get it running. Now seems like the perfect time to follow through on this automated archiving of citations so we don't have to worry about linkrot anymore. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.46|64.40.54.46]] 14:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*Just to clarify, this would be on-demand archiving to the Internet Archive (for WMF projects only, not the general public) and it would work automatically without us having to manually initiate it. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.46|64.40.54.46]] 15:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*Holy Holy Grail: Internet Archive on-demand ''automatic'' archiving? Yes PLEASE. All effort and resources should be put into this. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*Sounds amazing! '''[[User:Addshore|<span style="color:black">·Add§hore·</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Addshore|<span style="color:black;">Talk To Me!</span>]]</sup> 20:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
*WHAT. Why is this not at the top of every FA and GA page on Wikipedia??? Spend the $50k on this thing please! [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] ([[User talk:Axem Titanium|talk]]) 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
*Is this extension still being developed? Looking at the talk page and the extension code, it looks awfully experimental and possibly abandonded. The last update looks to be [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kevin_Brown/ArchiveLinks/status February 2012]. --[[User:Gee totes|Gee totes]] ([[User talk:Gee totes|talk]]) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*Yes please! Wikipedia articles in large part rely on web citations that have the ability to vanish without a trace at a moments notice- anything we can do to archive these references should be actively and thoroughly encouraged. --[[User:PresN|PresN]] ([[User talk:PresN|talk]]) 06:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
*{{Support}} - I would be absolutely thrilled to see this extension materialize, whether integrated with the Internet Archive, WebCite, or both. <span style="background:black;color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp;'''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C&nbsp;M&nbsp;B&nbsp;J'''''</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 13:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
*To what extent does Internet Archive (IA) have infrastructure in place to support on-demand archiving? If IA already has a lot in place, it would seem a cheaper option in the long-run than acquiring WebCite. I think a partnership would be a better choice than asking WMF to handle all of Webcite's infrastructure. --[[User:Odie5533|Odie5533]] ([[User talk:Odie5533|talk]]) 18:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
*:You would need a bookmark link and keep it up to date. See the following below.
*:Name: Wayback this page
*:Location: javascript:location.href='http:/<nowiki/>/web.archive.org/liveweb/'+document.location.href;
*:This ''should'' work in Firefox but I would advise you to test it first. – [[User:Allen4names|Allen4names]] ([[User talk:Allen4names|talk]]) 20:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
*Yes if we can get it to work. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 07:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
* {{support}} with [[User:Green Cardamom]] --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 12:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
* This doesn't solve the problem at hand. Even if this extension were already available, it wouldn't save our 100,000 WebCitation links. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 19:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
**Those links are NOT in danger; WebCite is NOT threatening to shut down; it's threatening to stop accepting NEW links.--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

====ArchiveIt====

*{{Support}} [http://www.archive-it.org/ ArchiveIt]: If I read [http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#293 the FAQ about it] correctly the person paying for the service decides what goes on it. Meaning: If some one were to link to a site that would otherwise be protected by robots.txt or something else that would deter the Alexa bot (Assuming that is what they are using.) the bot will ignore it and archive away. The most frequent update speed is once per day. Plus [http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#293 that tiny bit of wording], "Partners develop their own collections and have complete control over which content to archive within those collections." The literal meaning would put legality squarely on the shoulders of WMF, not unprepared WebCite and not the unwilling people at the Internet Archive. We aren't archiving pornography, we're archiving research data for an online encyclopedia. All that needs to be done is have a serious discussion, one business to another. Draw up a contract if they are that worried. Both sides win. WMF gets daily crawls of all on and/or off-site content, and the archive gets funding for their worthy causes. That having been said; if they won't have WMF as a client/partner, tell WebCite no merger and yes to a lot of funding to lawyer up fast as they may need it. [[User:Xannon|Xannon]] ([[User talk:Xannon|talk]]) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
**Clarification: If it would work the same way another web crawler I have used before does. All you would need to do is make it spider Wiki-What-Have-You, make sure it won't store the Wiki's data, then use the links to cache the external pages that the wiki links to. After the first pass all it should do is check for changes in any wiki page, then go onto caching external pages that haven't been cached yet. Check for redundancy with what you already have in [http://archive.org/web/web.php The Way Back Machine] and maybe WebCite, and it should work well. I know I am massively mistaken somehow. Comments? [[User:Xannon|Xannon]] ([[User talk:Xannon|talk]]) 18:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

===Accessibility===
==== Free / open source software ====
If the WMF is to fully absorb WebCite, then the software of a WMF-managed WebCite should be available for anyone to download, use, modify, and redistribute under the terms of a free ([[:en:GPL|GPL]]) or open source ([[:en:BSD licenses|BSD license]]) license. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:I agree. --[[User:RayneVanDunem|RayneVanDunem]] ([[User talk:RayneVanDunem|talk]]) 04:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::WebCite's existing software is said to be mostly open sourced, but that's a rather imprecise term. Perhaps Gunther would clarify.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 06:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

==== Data dumps ====
Should [[data dumps]] of archived webpages be made available? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:I should say not: much of the rationale for fair use would crumble if you made available database dumps (since that strips the ''context'' of the use which is one of the basis for Fair Use/Fair Dealings).  &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]]</sup> 14:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

=== Abuse ===
A quick search of the page pulled no mention of abuse so I started one. 
#'''''Identifying abuse''''' Is there the potential for abuse of the system and what is in place to avoid abuse. 
#'''''What are some abuses''''' I see people using this for their own means and wiki would be paying for someones pron site, corporate site, personal site archiving or something. Leaching?
[[User:Geremy.Hebert|<font color="DarkSeaGreen">Geremy</font><font color="gray"> Hebert </font>]][[User talk:Geremy.Hebert|<font color="MidnightBlue"> (talk </font>]][[Special:Contributions/Geremy.Hebert|&#124; contribs)]] 18:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:I think that we should only delete copyright violations. We should keep the range of content to delete as narrow as possible in order to prevent too much censorship. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 18:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:: I think there is an abuse risk if simply anything can be added. I recommend having a "What links here" type system in place so that identifying the articles that reference a particular page becomes possible. We should then have an automated process (either via client-side bot or server-side scripting) that would identify cached pages that have had no referencing articles (on any Wikimedia project) for a particular period of time, and delete them. &mdash;[[en:User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] ([[en:User talk:Gorgan almighty|talk]]) 20:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Isn't that a Wikimedia-centric point of use? WebCite is used by people outside Wikimedia as well. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 21:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

===General comment about new WMF project polls===
This comment is not meant to reflect one way or the other on the current proposal. It's just a general observation about straw polls asking the community if the WMF ought to start a new project or not. While the openness of such a process is laudable, it seems to me clear through past observation that the interpretation of the results requires some understanding of human nature. I put forward that given the option to start something new, the editorship will almost always end up supporting it. This is because people always want more but they do not fully consider the cost/benefit ratio when they are divorced from feeling the cost personally. Without personal cost to mitigate one's wants and desires, greed turns into support votes. Rare are those people who actually can consider opportunity cost of saying "yes" in a fair and reasonable manner by thoughtful consideration and perhaps even background study. This "gimme some more" attitude is quite apparent from past discussions on new projects. Any interpretation of editor feedback intended to support an outcome should weight this type of group-think bias. Again, this is not meant at all to reflect upon the merits of the current proposal. It's is just to aid in understanding the overall discussion. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 06:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::We just tossed out the feedback tools and a bunch of people opposed the WCA. Have many new projects have been started in the last 7 years? Yes two (wikidata and wikivoyage). The Wikimedia Movement is hardly one to jump on every new idea. Most proposals on meta languish and die as there is insufficient support. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 07:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The removal of tools may be a different situation: actual experience gives people a more balanced view of the pros and the cons so the situation is asymmetric. Regardless, I think a "keep the features" bias still existed ''for'' the feedback tools but tools themselves were so strongly disliked that support from the bias wasn't enough to ultimately keep the tools. (The effect of bias can be a subtle thing to discuss.) Back to the introduction of tools.... The ''introduction'' of the feedback tools did seem to have elements consistent with my view. A lot of people seemed to be quick to view the tools as some great idea but didn't seem to have considered its flaws and drawbacks to the extent they should have. The Wikidata and Wikivoyage discussions also exhibited fairly overwhelming support with many one-sided comments that I think demonstrates the bias. Valid criticisms do not seem to get their fair shake in those discussions. Sure, arguments could be made that the large support is directly related to the merits of the proposals themselves but I think this is an over-simplification. Every statistician knows not to wonder ''if'' bias exists in polls but rather to what extent it does. What I am suggesting is that reliable interpretation of support from these straw polls may be different from other consensus-establishing situations like article content disputes. The meaning of "sufficient support" is clearly an idea worth investigating. Without studies to fall back on either way, the only thing we have to go on is intuition and conclusions drawn from personal experience. In my experience, it is clear that this bias is at work. Lastly, if there's one thing I know for ''sure'', it's that sources of bias are not given much credence in these straw polls. A well-known source of bias is position in a list for a list of items to vote on. In the feedback tools, it's remarkable that GregJackP's position did as well as it did considering it was ''buried'' in the list. I take it as an unassailable given that straw polls have not been conducted in a scientifically rigorous manner on Wikipedia. The current discussion is just about one facet of that. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::@Jason, thank you for bringing up this issue. It is certainly a valid concern and one that we should be aware of. But as you said this is a general concern—unrelated to this (or any) specific proposal, wouldn't it be better to post it at the [[Wikimedia Forum]] rather than tacked on to the end of this proposal? [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.1|64.40.54.1]] 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Once upon a time and upon a small organization I belong(ed?) to there was a vote amongst some 10-20 people whether we should engage in "project X" or not. The vote was a overwhelming 80-90% yes! Then people were asked to get their hands on it. One person volunteered. And thus the project ended. (It was a fine idea, but resources are often scarce - even here) - [[User:Nabla|Nabla]] ([[User talk:Nabla|talk]]) 11:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

===WebCite being taken over by WMF not realistic - give them money===
''Disclaimer: I'm not speaking for the Foundation, but as a community member who happens to work for the Foundation, so please don't take this as an official declaration.''<br/>
Sorry to pour cold water on this discussion, but I don't think there is a very realistic possibility of the WMF taking over WebCite. WebCite is a completely different type of service than any existing Wikimedia projects with completely different software, completely different technical requirements, completely different legal issues, completely different goals, etc. The WMF has its plate full managing the existing projects and over the past year has been trying to address various scope-creep issues by focusing more on its core competencies. It wouldn't make sense for us to take on a project that has no similarity to our existing work. It would probably require either hiring a completely different set of staff or significantly distracting the existing staff from taking care of Wikipedia, Commons, etc. WebCite already has a home and people to care for it, it just needs money. The solution to this isn't adoption of the project by WMF, it's finding money to keep WebCite viable. The best course of action here seems to be for WebCite to apply for a WMF grant and possibly consult with the WMF on its fundraising strategy. If things are really dire (which it doesn't seem like yet), the project should talk with other organizations that are familiar with web archiving (like the Internet Archive) about possibly moving their services to a new home. I just don't think that adoption by the WMF would be ideal for either WebCite or the Foundation, and I would be surprised if the Foundation considered it a viable option. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 21:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
:Thank you for speaking out on this. I happen to agree, and am especially worried about the "completely different legal issues" component. I think that a lot of people who have commented thus far have a terribly unrealistic view of the limits to what the WMF is able or is willing to do. On the other hand, I can think of several ventures that the WMF has already funded that are (or have turned out to be) much worse ideas than supporting WebCite. [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard]] ([[User talk:Sven Manguard|talk]]) 05:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:Money would work as well. ''e.g.'' we give money to Freenode 'cos we utterly rely on their IRC network. Dunno if we give money to Open Street Map, we probably should if we can (the OSM Foundation is a nonprofit, but not I think a UK charity as yet). We use this service heavily, helping it with money would be appropriate (I have edited the section header to note Kaldari's alternate suggestion) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 08:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
::I don't believe we actively give money to freenode on a regular basis. I think we gave a one off donation a few years ago, but nothing recently. [[User:Thehelpfulone|<span style="color:red">'''The'''</span>]][[User talk:Thehelpfulone|<span style="color:black">'''helpful'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<span style="color:red">'''one'''</span>]] 13:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
:::I wholeheartedly agree with this. Let the WMF do what they do best: support the projects. Let WebCite do what WebCite does best: run WebCite. Giving them money is the most sensible course of action, be it in the form of a grant or any other form. In addition to that we could, if ops is not busy enough (ha!), offer in-kind donations in the form of infrastructure advice/consultancy or donate hardware if the possibility arises. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 10:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::::@Martijn Uhm, actually WebCite was never really stable or reliable (in sense of "online") nor was there are good communication to create a good API or help bot developers. Ask Sigma... <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</font></small> 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

===Automatic archiving===
I can't see the value in a project that archives only the citations that someone knew how to/has bothered to add code to. I could very much see the value in a project that automatically archived every properly formatted inline citation. Could this project, without breaking Wikimedia's bank, cope with that? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 21:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:I don't know the answer for WebCite. But I do know that when [[mw:Extension:ArchiveLinks]] was being developed to automatically archive all our citactions, the WMF contractors were working closely with the people from the Internet Archive and they said they could handle the traffic. Cheers. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.79|64.40.54.79]] 06:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
::Back in 2009 there was a bot that was doing automated archiving: [[WikiPedia:User:WebCiteBOT|WebCiteBot]], but since then it has stopped working. There is some discussion about it in its [[WikiPedia:User talk:WebCiteBOT|talk page]]. ([[User talk:Al83tito|talk]]) [[WikiPedia:user:Al83tito|user:Al83tito]]  22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
* There's a [//ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebCite_Archiver WebCite Archiver] bot on RuWiki which archived 507,240 pages on WebCite service at the moment. --[[User:Akim Dubrow|Akim Dubrow]] ([[User talk:Akim Dubrow|talk]]) 23:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

===So what to do?===
My reading of the discussion so far is that there is a broad agreement that linkrot is a problem for Wikipedia, but that ''taking over'' WebCite might not be the most practical solution. So in which direction should we proceed? Are the services offered by archive.is and the Wayback Machine a sufficient replacement for WebCite in case it goes black? Also, as someone who has mostly used WebCite for archiving sources so far, should I switch to using one of the other services (Wayback as soon as Wikipedians can do on-demand archiving on the service)? What about the links already archived via WebCite? Could we get some system in place to transfer all those links to one of the other services? And last but not least, how are the other services being funded? For example, if we decide on primarily relying on, say archive.is, how do we know that this service won't face issues similar to those WebCite is experiencing? [[User:Toshio Yamaguchi|Toshio Yamaguchi]] ([[User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi|talk]]) 09:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:That's a lot of questions, so I'll offer my suggestions one by one. {{talkquote|So in which direction should we proceed?}} We should encourage Gunther Eysenbach of WebCite to apply for a grant and to point to this discussion to show support for that grant. {{talkquote|Are the services offered by archive.is and the Wayback Machine a sufficient replacement for WebCite in case it goes black?}} I don't know, but I would suggest that we archive citations at multiple places if it's possible. {{talkquote|should I switch to using one of the other services (Wayback as soon as Wikipedians can do on-demand archiving on the service)?}} I would say stay with WebCite for now. {{talkquote|What about the links already archived via WebCite? Could we get some system in place to transfer all those links to one of the other services?}} I think that Gunther Eysenbach of WebCite said he was already sending his archived links to the Intrernet Archive as a backup, but we should check and make sure. {{talkquote|how are the other services being funded?}} I don't know, but I would say that funding problems could happen with any archive site so we should use miltiple archive services if possible. {{talkquote|how do we know that this service won't face issues similar to those WebCite is experiencing?}} I would say that all such services could face the same problems, so we should maximize our use of every available service as a backup if that's possible. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.69|64.40.54.69]] 15:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:Crowdfunding is ongoing. The [http://www.webcitation.org/6ETXRzMH5 initial attempt] (mentioned above) raised $803 from 35 donors. A [https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/aQMp7 second attempt] is doing rather better, and is presently at 35% of a $25k goal with 187 donors, midway through an 11 month campaign. Still, it could still use a big shot in the arm.  Gunther ([[User:Eysenbach]], or alternatively [[w:User:Eysen]]) doesn't seem very Wiki-active, so any correspondence to him should be by email. It seems he hasn't been on-wiki since February.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::Second attempt? Those both link to the same campaign, one is simply an old webcitation archive of the campaign when it hadn't been going for long.  [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

===Digital Signatures===
If the WMF does take over or bankroll improvements to WebCite a valuable enhancement would be a mechanism that adds a cryptographic [[w:digital signature|digital signature]] to the archived content and metadata so that readers accessing the archives can verify their integrity and check that what's reaching them hasn't been filtered or modified. --'''[[User:Struthious Bandersnatch|❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩]]''' 02:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:Surely better for them to introduce HTTPS. If people are worried about the integrity of their root certificate authority, they can always verify the wikimedia SSL certificate in the same way they're presumably going to verify the authenticity of the digital signature. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about digital signatures as related to the automated mechanisms within TLS or transport protocols or other infrastructure, I'm talking about functionality more equivalent to the real-world scenario of a notarized court deposition - along the lines of [[w:Pretty_Good_Privacy#Digital_signatures|PGP signing of emails]]. --'''[[User:Struthious_Bandersnatch|❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩]]''' 14:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

===If webcite survives, could we supply some robot support for contributors?===

I'd like to see the WMF's financial support be proportional to WMF's share of the service use.

If the service meets its finacial goals I'd like to see some technical support tool that makes using it easier.
The service's archive.php page has two required fields—the URL and your email address—and  some optional fields,
like the title, author, publisher, publication date.  These fields have a one-to-one correspondence with the fields in our {{tl|cite}}
templates.
What I would like to see would be something like the greasemonkey script F2COM, which helps automate
transferring a flickr image to commons.

A contributor with an article, they want to (1) archive; and (2) use as a reference to an article; would use this tool
to both archive the article, and populate a fully formed cite template ready to be cut and paste into their article.

Perhaps our contributor would fill out the form on the archive.php, more or less as usual—except they would enter
information like, author, publisher, publication date.  Then they would click on the button for the greasemonkey script,
which would both archive the URL, with the supplied metadata, but would also pop up a window with a properly formed
{{tl|cite}} template—one ready to be pasted into the article, as is, complete with the fields with the metadata we supplied, and the archiveurl field from webcite.

If a tool like this was written, it might trigger even greater use of this service, which, to be fair should in turn trigger a larger grant from the WMF.  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 16:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

===If the WMF decides not to support WebCite?===

Then, before the end of the year, a bot should be written to check every link to webcite, and check to see whether the original URL was also archived at archive.org.  If it was the bot should replace the link to the copy archived at webcite with the link to the copy archived at archive.org.  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 16:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
:I would like to point out that no grant proposal has been put before WMF so far, so no decision is pending.  Please see my earlier comments in this discussion about some of the concerns around this. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User talk:Ijon|talk]] 18:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
::[[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]], in [[WebCite#Response_from_WMF_Grants_Program]] you mentioned that for this to move forward we would need to get some input from WMF Tech on the ArchiveLinks extension already explored by WMF. I see a lot of excitement in [[WebCite#Internet_Archive_.2F_ArchiveLinks_extension]]. Can we get some feedback on this? I don't know who to contact. [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) 12:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::: Hi, [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]]. It looks like [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-September/071623.html the Internet Archive is already pursuing this] on their own and does not need to use the ArchiveLinks extension; does that help address this? Thanks! [[User:Sharihareswara (WMF)|Sharihareswara (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sharihareswara (WMF)|talk]]) 07:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Well that sounds fantastic if they get it to work. I hope they get the help they were looking for. Ping to [[User:Sj]], who I know cares about the linkrot issue. [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

::::[[User:Sharihareswara (WMF)|Sharihareswara (WMF)]], I don't know how this tech stuff normally works, but it appears that there is significant community support behind fixing the linkrot issue so could you follow up with Vinay to make sure they got the support they needed? Thanks so much. [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) 14:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
:archive.org is inferior to webcite; two things I've noticed is that archive.org makes all captures unavailable as soon as the robots.txt says to, and it doesn't cope well with cookies. [[User:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]] ([[User talk:Josh Parris|talk]]) 23:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

===Stats, Numbers, and Status===
In April, 2013 WebCite gave an interview to GiveWell. I pulled some random stats from [http://www.givewell.org/files/conversations/Webcite%20conversation%20notes%20%28public%29.pdf this report].
*The current size of the archive is 2 terrabytes.
*Approximately $20,000-30,000 of needed funds would go to pay for an engineer to do t[the migration] his work. Webcite also hopes that an improved system allows it to better track usage.
*Webcite is considering ways to build in some revenue streams to its service. If it does this, it would require approximately $10,000-20,000 in legal services to advise it on questions of copyright law.

From their [http://www.facebook.com/Webcite Facebook page] posted in September 2013: "Our primary aim at the moment is to make the system more scalable by moving it from a hosted server environment to a cloud-based service (Amazon). This needs to be done this year as we have reached certain limits on our current environment. Moving it to a cloud-based architecture will remove any such performance and storage limits. Secondly, we have to come up with a model that allows us to finance the operations in an ongoing basis. We plan to develop a few WebCite PLUS features (such as the ability to create a user account and view/download all snapshots you have taken). For these additional PLUS features we plan to charge PLUS users, to make the operations sustainable over the long-term. In this model, the basic functionality will remain free of charge....the aim is to implement a business model which guarantees SUSTAINED funding beyond 10 years."

Also from their Facebook page end of August: "...the server went down, hosting company didn't provide any explanation. We are in the process of migrating the service to Amazon. Due to the size of the archive this is neither a trivial nor an inexpensive task."

From their Fundrazr page dated Sept 2013:
"The money is going towards urgently needed infrastructure changes. We have already employed a contractor who is currently migrating the huge database to a new platform. It is currently undecided if WebCite will continue as a non-profit or as a for-profit entity. Our primary goal is to ensure sustainability, and a for-profit model with user fees (users paying for what we call PLUS features) may be the way forward. We understand that data portability, transparency and openness are certainly priorities. Depending on whether or not the codebase will be made open source also depends on future funding models."

Signed: mdawn, Sept 9, 2013. not affiliated with WebCite, just gathering info.
:Thanks for that update. [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) 08:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
::I wonder what these infrastructural needs really are though? If their claim above, to only hosting a few TB of data, is correct, I could run this from a corner of my home office. LOL.  That said, I value the service, and I did give them a monetary contribution, and even created a userbox (see my [[en:w:User:SMcCandlish#Putting my money where my mouth is]] userpage section) to encourage donations.  I'm kind of wondering if WMF shouldn't create a separate project for this sort of thing, since it already has more than enough resources, and just migrate the data over. BTW, the whole webcitation.org is down again; the DNS doesn't even resolve. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

[[Category:Link rot]]