A new rule for social media links?

[Antvasima]

Hello.

Given that social media links can easily be edited or deleted, I think that it seems better if we add a rule about creating cropped screencaptures and inserting them into reference sections combined with the original links.

Preferably in a similar manner to the following example:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Dagon_(MonsterVerse)?diff=next&oldid=8135248

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that it is, of course, also fine to use backups from the Wayback Machine or Archive.today, but it seems like Twitter/X protects itself from having its content backed up in such a manner nowadays, and other social media companies likely do so as well.

 

[Crabwhale]

This is fine.

 

[KLOL506]

I would rather both the original link and archived link be placed in the references. Even the archived versions can have weird "login" issues.

Of course, screenshots should be mandatory. They should be what's linked in the actual main justifications after all.

TL; DR, do all of the three.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, do all of the three options when possible, but only two of them often seem to be possible to perform.

 

[KLOL506]

Well, do all of the three options when possible, but only two of them often seem to be possible to perform.

Exceptions can be made in the case of already-dead links that people failed to archive in which cases there is no other choice but screenshots.

But in situations where the links are still there, they should still be archived and screenshotted, assuming the archiving sites haven't been geoblocked or the other sites made counters to prevent archival.

 

[Antvasima]

I meant that I have recently tried to archive Twitter/X pages with both the Wayback Machine and Archive.Today, and it consistently didn't work, combined with that Elon Must has stated that he has blocked content crawlers that were continuously greatly taxing their servers, presumably mainly to stop A.I. and cyber-attacks, but nevertheless this is a side-effect.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Some rule requiring a more stable scan of the statement would be ideal, yes.

 

[Firestorm808]

I meant that I have recently tried to archive Twitter/X pages with both the Wayback Machine and Archive.Today, and it consistently didn't work, combined with that Elon Must has stated that he has blocked content crawlers that were continuously greatly taxing their servers, presumably mainly to stop A.I. and cyber-attacks, but nevertheless this is a side-effect.

Well, that's disappointing.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with KLOL that some balance combined with the fact that I have noticed Wayback Machine having issues as of late.

 

[Flashlight237]

As much as I like backups, I personally disagree with the move of using FANDOM images as backup links, as Fandom image links have a tendency to straight-up not work regardless of whether one is logged in to FANDOM or not.

 

[Agnaa]

I strongly agree with not just linking to the original material. One should do at least two out of three of, linking to a screenshot, linking to the original, and linking to an archived version.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with KLOL that some balance combined with the fact that I have noticed Wayback Machine having issues as of late.

The site might also be driven out of business by absolutely greedy and irresponsible music studios who are suing it, and do not care how much damage they cause to society as a whole in the process.

 

[Antvasima]

As much as I like backups, I personally disagree with the move of using FANDOM images as backup links, as Fandom image links have a tendency to straight-up not work regardless of whether one is logged in to FANDOM or not.

That is not true as far as I am aware. You just have to use a little different coding.

[[Media:Filename.jpg|Like this for example]]

 

[KLOL506]

The site might also be driven out of business by absolutely greedy and irresponsible music studios who are suing it, and do not care how much damage they cause to society as a whole in the process.

Unlikely. Wayback Machine has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of donations every single year solely to combat lawsuits as well as keep it up in the air.

It's not as if other archival sites aren't at equal risk from it, and Fandom is even more prone to this.

 

[KLOL506]

As much as I like backups, I personally disagree with the move of using FANDOM images as backup links, as Fandom image links have a tendency to straight-up not work regardless of whether one is logged in to FANDOM or not.

Unfortunately this is out of our hands now. So disagreeing here about this won't mean jack anymore.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The site might also be driven out of business by absolutely greedy and irresponsible music studios who are suing it, and do not care how much damage they cause to society as a whole in the process.

Though based on some recent Emails, Wayback actually won against those lawsuits and it was the accusers who ended up having to pay the depts for wasting the lawyers' times. Off topic but some news related to that seemed generally positive.

But either way, I do recommend trying to back scans as much as possible whether it be screenshots on Imgur/Gyazo, Wayback, or Archive.

 

[Antvasima]

Unlikely. Wayback Machine has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of donations every single year solely to combat lawsuits as well as keep it up in the air.

It's not as if other archival sites aren't at equal risk from it, and Fandom is even more prone to this.

It is being sued for astronomical amounts by extremely unscrupulous and legally powerful people.

To me it is very much a battle of good (the Wayback Machine documentation greatly preventing constant manipulation of truth by the international oligarchy and their pet corrupt news media propagandists and politicians) versus evil (the music industry executives), but I still think that the Wayback Machine staff should have been far more careful to not risk the existence of the site as a whole.

 

[Antvasima]

Though based on some recent Emails, Wayback actually won against those lawsuits and it was the accusers who ended up having to pay the depts for wasting the lawyers' times. Off topic but some news related to that seemed generally positive.

That would be wonderful, but are you referring to the case of the music industry suing Wayback Machine due to backing up very old songs to hopefully be enjoyed by humanity far into the future?

But either way, I do recommend trying to back scans as much as possible whether it be screenshots on Imgur/Gyazo, Wayback, or Archive.

Yes, agreed. We need somebody to write up a draft for an official rule text though.

@ImmortalDread

Would you, Damage3245, Agnaa, or somebody else here be willing to handle it?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I suppose I can handle the matter.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. Please post the draft here and tell us where in our Editing Rules page that we should place the text.

 

[KLOL506]

Though based on some recent Emails, Wayback actually won against those lawsuits and it was the accusers who ended up having to pay the depts for wasting the lawyers' times. Off topic but some news related to that seemed generally positive.

Hilarious.

It is being sued for astronomical amounts by extremely unscrupulous and legally powerful people.

Donations for the Wayback Machine are nothing to scoff at either.

To me it is very much a battle of good (the Wayback Machine documentation greatly preventing constant manipulation of truth by the international oligarchy and their pet corrupt news media propagandists and politicians) versus evil (the music industry executives), but I still think that the Wayback Machine staff should have been far more careful to not risk the existence of the site as a whole.

Let's not be so pessimistic here. We haven't gone over that far yet with it.

It's not like the other archive sites won't face such a risk, they definitely will, but at the moment the issue is with 4 publishing companies regarding books, most of the cases so far have been with books, not music or any of the other more hotly-debated pieces of media.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Furthermore, in my opinion, utilizing external archive platforms seems highly impractical. Instead, consider safer options like Gyazo, Imgur, or even the built-in image system provided by Fandom. While you can choose to use external platforms if you prefer, I, personally, believe it isn't a practical choice.

As for my part

This can be added to the editing rules: (Organization)

When referencing social media content that may expire or have viewing restrictions for the public unless logged into the respective platform, it is mandatory to generate a cropped screenshot (using tools like Gyazo, Imgur, or the built-in system of Fandom) and include it in the reference section alongside the original links.

I suggest that you create a section on the References page. I possess some insight into the process; however, this is my personal recommendation.

 

[Antvasima]

Just to clarify, this is what I am referring to:

Music labels sue Internet Archive over digitized record collection

Universal Music Group , Sony Music Entertainment and other record labels on Friday sued the nonprofit Internet Archive for copyright infringement over its streaming collection of digitized music from vintage records.

www.reuters.com

 

[KLOL506]

Furthermore, in my opinion, utilizing external archive platforms seems highly impractical. Instead, consider safer options like Gyazo, Imgur, or even the built-in image system provided by Fandom. While you can choose to use external platforms if you prefer, I, personally, believe it isn't a practical choice.

Highly impractical as it may be, preservation is tantamount to keeping the quality in check and double-checking the veracity of the screenshots. You never know when someone can just dump in an edited screenshot and claim it to be real. Better safe than sorry.

 

[Antvasima]

Furthermore, in my opinion, utilizing external archive platforms seems highly impractical. Instead, consider safer options like Gyazo, Imgur, or even the built-in image system provided by Fandom. While you can choose to use external platforms if you prefer, I, personally, believe it isn't a practical choice.

Our wiki itself should much preferably be used for storing cropped screencapture images, combined with the original links and Wayback Machine or Archive.Today backups, as was mentioned here earlier.

As for my part

This can be added to the editing rules: (Organization)

"When referencing social media content that may expire or have viewing restrictions for the public unless logged into the respective platform, it is mandatory to generate a cropped screenshot (using tools like Gyazo, Imgur, or the built-in system of Fandom) and include it in the reference section alongside the original links."

I suggest that you create a section on the References page. I possess some insight into the process; however, this is my personal recommendation.

Thank you, but I think that the following text works a bit better.

"When linking to social media content as references for information in our wiki, there is a high risk that it will be deleted, modified, or have viewing restrictions for the public unless they are logged into the respective platform.

As such, it is mandatory to generate a cropped screenshot that should preferably be stored in our own wiki, or possibly Imgur if no other option is available, and include it in the reference section alongside the original links.

It is preferable if you also back up the original links to the Wayback Machine Internet Archive or Archive.Today, and include those links as well, fo safety reasons, but at least some social media companies have blocked this option."

 

[Antvasima]

Highly impractical as it may be, preservation is tantamount to keeping the quality in check and double-checking the veracity of the screenshots. You never know when someone can just dump in an edited screenshot and claim it to be real. Better safe than sorry.

Yes, exactly.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Thank you, but I think that the following text works a bit better.

This works too. Although, I always prefer it to be concise. Those details can be added to the References page, in my opinion + instructions.

As for archive platforms, as long as you are not required to log in to use their system, I don't mind. I still prefer gyazo for easier and practical usages.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is a better version, in my opinion.

When referencing social media content in our wiki, there is a high risk of deleted posts, content changes, or restrictions for visitors who are not logged in.

• As such, it's required to capture a cropped screenshot, ideally saved in our wiki or Imgur if necessary, and include it in the references.
• It is also preferably if you back up the original links via the Wayback Machine Internet Archive or Archive.Today for extra safety, although some social media platforms may block this option.

 

[Antvasima]

I modified your draft text into a to me acceptable wording structure. Thank you for helping me out.

 

[ImmortalDread]

No problem! Do we have sufficient consensus to implement it?

Is it a bad idea to utilize instructions in References page?

This is my idea

Backup Reference​

• [Original-Link Username's Twitter] [Date] | Backup image [backup-link here]

Any suggestions are welcome.

 

[Agnaa]

Here's a version with touched-up grammar:

When referencing social media content on our wiki, there is a high risk of posts being deleted, changed, or restricted for visitors who are not logged in.

• As such, it's required to capture a cropped screenshot, ideally saved in our wiki or Imgur if necessary, and include it in the references.
• It is also preferable to back up the original links via the Wayback Machine Internet Archive or Archive.Today for extra safety, although some social media platforms may block this option.

I'm fine with implementing that into our editing rules.

For adding something to our references page, I don't really care about the format it takes. Although I think the one Dread suggested is insufficient (due to explicitly specifying Twitter, and only having a section for backup images, yet not for archive links).

 

[Antvasima]

No problem! Do we have sufficient consensus to implement it?

Is it a bad idea to utilize instructions in References page?

This is my idea

Any suggestions are welcome.

I think that this seems like a good idea.

 

[Antvasima]

Here's a version with touched-up grammar:

I'm fine with implementing that into our editing rules.

Yes, so am I. I think that you can probably do so now if you wish, or should we ask for further administrator input first?

For adding something to our references page, I don't really care about the format it takes. Although I think the one Dread suggested is insufficient (due to explicitly specifying Twitter, and only having a section for backup images, yet not for archive links).

This makes sense to me. Feel free to suggest an alternative draft text if you wish.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, looking at the structure of the other references, I think my suggestion would be:

• [Position of person making the statement]'s [Name of the statement's source]; [Original URL] (If any); [Screenshot] (If any); [Archived backup link] (If any)

The first part would be something like "Lead Writer's Twitter" or "Creator's Discord". And may even be applicable to other forms of WoG, i.e. "Author's Interview in Newtype November 2013".

 

[Antvasima]

That seems fine, except for that I would replace the word "Place" with "URL" and "Archived" with the phrase "Archived backup URL" in order to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[Agnaa]

"Place" is more meant to encompass a written name of it, to identify which social media website it came on, or potentially, to identify which interview it came from.

I'll change the archived part.

 

[Antvasima]

A casual uninvolved reader is definitely not guaranteed to understand that though.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, how about [Name of the statement's source]?