The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more
archival gloss, and currently regularly breaks links where a slight
commitment to longer term reliably would preserve them intact. Nathan: long
term preservation is not yet part of the projects' raison d'etre. Perhaps
it should be.

For instance doesn't redirect where it should. We may
not even still have an archival dump online. Deleted articles and their
revs are no longer targetable by links, not even with redaction (like an
oversighted rev in a rev list), making for ephemeralinks.

A better phrasing might be: how are archives made and maintained, where are
full copies of each project, is there any overview of how this is working?
& How can interested parties add to the mirror count of a project?

IA and IPFS each mirror some things. I don't know of any full-wikimedia
mirror that includes all projects and files, and while there may be an
internal mirror including all private userdata, I don't believe there is
one offsite -- a delicate kind of mirroring that calls for some thought.


On Tue., May 14, 2019, 6:03 p.m. Nathan, <> wrote:

> The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally,
> the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its
> projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and
> media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a
> different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs
> to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to