Wikipedia:Café for non-Dutch speakers
You can also ask for assistance for your work on the Dutch Wikipedia.
Available languages. Please ping one or more persons by copying the text including {{...}}:
- Deutsch: {{ping|Dqfn13|StuivertjeWisselen}}
- Español: {{ping|Netraam}}
- English: {{ping|Ellywa|Chescargot|Dqfn13|StuivertjeWisselen}}
- Français: {{ping|Ellywa|Chescargot|Netraam}}
- Türkçe: {{ping|Chescargot|Styyx}}
Archives of this page: 2022, 2023
Interpretation of link policy[bewerken | brontekst bewerken]
@Ellywa, Chescargot, Dqfn13, StuivertjeWisselen:
We have received multiple reports from Mondo that InternetArchiveBot’s editing activity is violating Dutch Wikipedia’s policy on nonfunctional link changes:
- https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bij_twijfel_niet_inhalen
- “De ene goede variant door de andere goede variant vervangen is geen verbetering of verslechtering, maar een neutrale bewerking. Dergelijke bewerkingen zijn ongewenst”
Here are the reports:
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:InternetArchiveBot#Inaccessible_link
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:InternetArchiveBot#Archive.ph_%E2%86%92_Archive.today
The point of contention is that User:Cyberpower678 and I do not agree that these are nonfunctional changes. By changing a link from HTTP to HTTPS, the reader is ensured that they are directly accessing an unmodified, untampered version of that resource. The addition of one character belies the significance of the edit.
As for the other example, the reason we changed archive.ph to archive.today is because the operator of that archival service has requested that we do that. Since the domain of the underlying service can change, using the “archive.today” URL provides resilience against this disruption. For this reason we also agree that it is not a nonfunctional change.
Because this is continuing to be a source of conflict, I have disabled InternetArchiveBot on Dutch Wikipedia until this is resolved. I need clarification from the rest of the community as to whether the linked policy in fact prohibits upgrading HTTP links to HTTPS, as well as changing the domain to the archive provider’s preferred redirect service. Harej (overleg) 10 mei 2024 21:04 (CEST)
- Harej: fwiw, you have my support on both issues. Https is always better than http and archive.today is more reliable than archive.vn, archive.ph, archive.is, et cetera. Wutsje 10 mei 2024 21:18 (CEST)
- Https is safer, but not always. But my report on https was about the link I cited, not about https in general. But the issue with archive.today is more glaring. The issue is not so much that it changes archive.is to archive.today, but also archive.today to archive.is: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=67337586 Even if archive.today would be better, it doesn't know what to do with those links as it keeps changing them back and forth. Mondo (overleg) 10 mei 2024 21:20 (CEST)
- And that issue was also reported from IT:WP, so I was not the only one who noticed it. And @Harej also reported it on Phabricator where he stated “While archive.today is the preferred domain, an edit consisting *only* of this change is an unnecessary cosmetic edit.” So it's unclear to me while he now suddenly states otherwise in his post above. Mondo (overleg) 10 mei 2024 21:21 (CEST)
- That comment by Harej is repeating your complaint, as part of the ticket description, the reason for the ticket, not Harej's personal opinion on the matter. Harej creates tickets on people's behalf, based on their posts in the IABot help forum. -- GreenC (overleg) 10 mei 2024 23:56 (CEST)
- Ah, I didn't know that. I thought he agreed with me based on his wording. Thanks for the clarification. :-) But that doesn't negate the fact that the bot is having issues with the links, not just by changing them from .ph/.is to .today, but also from .today to .is. So even if .today would be better, the bot doesn't seem to think so. Mondo (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:01 (CEST)
- Per the Phab ticket: "As for IABot adding .is that will be fixed it's on my to do list". -- GreenC (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:05 (CEST)
- Alright then. I didn't see that in the phab ticket earlier, so either you added that later or it just wasn't clear because of the wall of text before it. Either way, thanks for looking into it. Mondo (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:08 (CEST)
- I didn't add it later. -- GreenC (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:13 (CEST)
- The one thing I do not really understand, though: if Harej only filed the bug because of me, then why did he make it sound like he filed the issue on his own and more importantly: why did he use a link from the Italian Wikipedia as an example? I didn't give him that link from IT:WP as I'm not active there and thus not aware of what happens there. If he wanted to file it because of me, it would've made more sense to only use examples from NL:WP.
And also, why didn't he tell me his stance from the beginning? I could've filed that bug myself if needed. Mondo (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:27 (CEST)
- The one thing I do not really understand, though: if Harej only filed the bug because of me, then why did he make it sound like he filed the issue on his own and more importantly: why did he use a link from the Italian Wikipedia as an example? I didn't give him that link from IT:WP as I'm not active there and thus not aware of what happens there. If he wanted to file it because of me, it would've made more sense to only use examples from NL:WP.
- I didn't add it later. -- GreenC (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:13 (CEST)
- Alright then. I didn't see that in the phab ticket earlier, so either you added that later or it just wasn't clear because of the wall of text before it. Either way, thanks for looking into it. Mondo (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:08 (CEST)
- Per the Phab ticket: "As for IABot adding .is that will be fixed it's on my to do list". -- GreenC (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:05 (CEST)
- Ah, I didn't know that. I thought he agreed with me based on his wording. Thanks for the clarification. :-) But that doesn't negate the fact that the bot is having issues with the links, not just by changing them from .ph/.is to .today, but also from .today to .is. So even if .today would be better, the bot doesn't seem to think so. Mondo (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:01 (CEST)
- That comment by Harej is repeating your complaint, as part of the ticket description, the reason for the ticket, not Harej's personal opinion on the matter. Harej creates tickets on people's behalf, based on their posts in the IABot help forum. -- GreenC (overleg) 10 mei 2024 23:56 (CEST)
- From the very same page you linked to, via GreenC: "It's not cosmetic. Archive.today uses 5 or 6 domains such as .is .ph, etc.. these are where the content is located. The domain archive.today does not contain content, it's only function is to route requests to one of the other domains. Thus if archive.is becomes unavailable, the admins only need to reroute traffic to archive.ph .. however if the incoming link is archive.is then it won't function. Note that "becomes unavailable" is a domain-level outage, because this archive provider has had problems with domain registars and/or DNS resolvers that blackhole it for policy reasons." Harej (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:00 (CEST)
- Another way to understand is with the analogy of a 5 line road (Road A) and a 1-lane road (Road B). If Road A has a single lane outage, 4 more lanes are still open and traffic gets through. However, if Road B has a single lane outage, no traffic gets through, it is entirely down. Thus we prefer the 5 lane solution because is is technically resilient and robust. This is why archive.today is not "cosmetic", it has real-world consequences. -- GreenC (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:14 (CEST)
- I don't think that's a good comparison, given the issues a 5 lane road in real life can bring. But I understand your point. Mondo (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:17 (CEST)
- So everything clarified I hope service will be resumed as soon as possible →bertux 11 mei 2024 09:04 (CEST)
- I don't think we're going to find an agreement on the http(s) issue, so I'm fine with resuming service as soon as the archive.today bug that @GreenC is working on fixing is resolved. Mondo (overleg) 16 mei 2024 19:14 (CEST)
- Another way to understand is with the analogy of a 5 line road (Road A) and a 1-lane road (Road B). If Road A has a single lane outage, 4 more lanes are still open and traffic gets through. However, if Road B has a single lane outage, no traffic gets through, it is entirely down. Thus we prefer the 5 lane solution because is is technically resilient and robust. This is why archive.today is not "cosmetic", it has real-world consequences. -- GreenC (overleg) 11 mei 2024 00:14 (CEST)
- And that issue was also reported from IT:WP, so I was not the only one who noticed it. And @Harej also reported it on Phabricator where he stated “While archive.today is the preferred domain, an edit consisting *only* of this change is an unnecessary cosmetic edit.” So it's unclear to me while he now suddenly states otherwise in his post above. Mondo (overleg) 10 mei 2024 21:21 (CEST)
- Https is safer, but not always. But my report on https was about the link I cited, not about https in general. But the issue with archive.today is more glaring. The issue is not so much that it changes archive.is to archive.today, but also archive.today to archive.is: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=67337586 Even if archive.today would be better, it doesn't know what to do with those links as it keeps changing them back and forth. Mondo (overleg) 10 mei 2024 21:20 (CEST)