From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

People interested[edit]

  1. I've already donated, but yes, we need this. I've used it at least 1500 times in my writing Crisco 1492 (talk)
    1. Services have gotten less stable recently. If the WMF is going to act, it needs to act soon.Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The proposal, initiated here, has my full support. I believe WMF should consider a cooperation with WebCite and support them with part of the WMF funds. In relation to this, the Spending section citing a criticism of money being spent on things that may be valid, such as photos of pop concerts at the German Chapter's wikimedia project, but should be lower on the WMF's priority list in comparison to such things as prevention of link rot, was also added by me to the English WP article on The Foundation, but was removed by editor The ed17 here altogether. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I absolutely support this, and I use the service all the time. There have been various proposals in the past that WMF start up their own online citation archive service in case sites like this disappear, but they haven't really gone anywhere. As this one is already very well established, I think this would be an excellent usage of WMF funds as this site supports our efforts to create an excellent encyclopedia. It would also be very useful to have a bot which crawled all citations in all articles and archived them automatically, then added the link to the archived reference. This would make all the online citations better and easily checked even if the original source died. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to note that I would also support the proposal that WMF not take over the service but instead helps to fund the service. My main concerns is being able to continue to use the service to archive references and being able to continue accessing references already archived. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see this as a win win thing, I have seen lots and lots of links lost due to linkrot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not only is it a good idea, but EVERY external link should be converted to WebCite. Who knows when a site will go down?Little green rosetta (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with the others. WebCite's fundraising goal is US$50,000. The closing date is "end of 2013", but whether that means December 31 is unknown. The fact that we are notified this early is a good sign that we have some time to work with them. Arsonal (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If the WMF has the money to spare, I could think of nothing better to do with it than to purchase a web-archiving service. Goodraise (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If the WMF can actually afford to do this, it would be great. ZX95 (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. An excellent idea. I too use WebCite a lot. But I also make much use of WebCite for purposes utterly unrelated to Wikipedia/WMF, and so, I venture to guess, do a large percentage of the people who have added or will add their names to this list. I therefore had both Wikipedia and business/personal reasons to throw some change into WebCite's hat. This was 20 hours ago (Fundrazr tells me), and I'm disappointed to note that since then only three people (from anywhere) have done the same. Personally donating to WebCite's appeal is in no way incompatible with asking WMF to offer to take over WebCite; indeed, it helps, because the more shallowly WebCite is in the red, the less money WMF would have to spend on bringing it up to speed. So yes, what Goodraise says. But also, please cough up, you (individual) people, and quickly. -- Hoary Returns (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Much needed. The foundation will greatly benefit from this. — ΛΧΣ21 06:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Doing something, anything, to save WebCite is important for Wikipedia and the internets as a whole.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Supporting, but noting that it is not necessary that WebCite is going dark after 2013, only that they won't accept links post 2013 if they don't get funded. But still, the idea of losing this service in the future is of concern givne much of our web page reliance and the difficulties with assuring archive.org backups. --Masem (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. This would be a valuable asset. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This is pretty much necessary if we've going to maintain the security of a number of references for articles. Not to mention that the lack of WebCite would be detrimental for quite a few places on the internet. Silver seren (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agreed with Goodraise. Archived sources is the foundation that support my contributions to Wikipedia; I have lost too many once-verifiable pieces of information when I started out editing. It only makes sense that WMF would have a hand in keeping sources verifiable, preferably for as long as WMF and Wikipedia exist. I have always wondered about what would happen if I lost WebCite, but it never occurred to me to make the project a part of WMF. Keraunoscopia (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm not sure WMF can take over WebCitation (and does the owner really even want to be taken over); besides, it has a significant reason for existing outside our own uses. That said, the WMF fronting them money to continue operation does help all Wikimedia projects. David Fuchs (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not sure about feasibility of taking over but wholehearted support for doing whatever we can to help. WebCite archive links are not just used in many thousands of article to save information from failing verification, but I would hazard that a high percentage of that use is in high quality articles for various reasons (at w:WP:FAC, for example, it is common to ask nominators to provide archived links for all web only citations). Even if we can't take over or save WebCite, the WMF should seriously consider starting its own similar service. Sourcing and what it is used for—verification, notability, determining OR, NPOV, etc.—is the keystone of the encyclopedia projects (and some others, e.g., attestation at Wiktionary), and the projects are still young. Taking a long view, most web-only sources will go dead while we (I hope) endure. It's not how many links will go dead this year, but how many over the next thirty years. We will continue to use web-only sources and if we don't have a stable platform and one we control to ensure they remain viable, the problem of link rot can only compound, with almost all links being dead eventually.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I think this would be a great idea! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Being able to validate free content with reference to non-free sources is essential and will be maintained/furthered by this proposal. While the WMF is all about doing this through a free-only mindset, using a non-free feature like WebCite to support the creation of free knowledge fits comfortably within my views. MBisanz talk 01:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, while still noting David's concerns. --Rschen7754 01:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support:Had a thought of something similar recently. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 06:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support:WebCite has been an invaluable resource in protecting claims made through long, hard research on a variety of topics and would be a critical loss for all Wikipedias if it were to no longer be available. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Of any of the new project ideas that have come along, this is one that flat out is not just useful but downright essential to the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'd agree that it shouldn't be a replacement to WebCite or Archive.org, but this has become a significant issue on the various Wikimedia projects where long term citations on many sources are desperately needed for critical pages. --Roberth (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support - The ability to preserve critical source material is of paramount importance for the fulfillment of our mission.   — C M B J   13:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support - I've used WebCite in my Wikipedia edits. It's also useful in academia and elsewhere. This is a critical resource that really needs to be preserved. I would be happy to help save WebCite however I can. Tucoxn (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak support for takeover (not my first choice, but if other options don't materialise, okay); I would have thought some form of merger with en:Internet Archive would make more sense. Strong support for WMF-WebCite collaboration to ensure the continued survival and development of WebCite, including WMF providing resources to WebCite. Rd232 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support—this is exactly the type of things that the WMF should be investing its funds in. At least, this is the kind of activity I would like to see when I donate, for what it's worth. This has a direct long-term benefit both for Wikipedia and for the free content movement as a whole. —Ynhockey (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support and what User:Fuhghettaboutit said. I'm not sure WebCite wants to be taken control over, but a collaboration is the future way to go. (I started using the WebCite servive for WP articles a year ago.) Sgeureka (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, at least based on an initial reading. Would be worth exploring what the Internet Archive is doing with the Wayback Machine as well. -Pete F (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. support, internet archive better fit, but if they won't. Slowking4 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support take over if possible. If not, is there any open-source archival tool that WMF could use to implement such a service? Automatic backup of all references is a must. Link rot is a terrible problem for verifiability. By the way, should WebCite change hands, current archived links not referenced by Wikimedia projects would probably best be exported to some other service (e.g. http://archive.is) and removed from Wikimedia-WebCite. --Waldir (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Wikimedia supporting an open-source archival tool. Ideally WebCite would become that. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Any WMF action that will keep access to this service running. I have zero preference as to how that is done as long as the WMF is willing.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support It certainly makes sense to take this as an opportunity to reconsider how we approach link rot. I would be in favour of any solution that would result in all external links from Wikimedia projects being archived automatically (allowing for a day or so to clean out spam links, and accounting for policies of sites that would forbid such archiving) in a system that uses open-source software and has a viable longterm-preservation strategy. It would be nice to do that with WebCite, since this has mostly worked fine on the Wikimedia end (e.g. the Russian Wikipedia). -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Comment It beats me why Wikipedia doesn't just offer its own archiving service. Surely it would be cheaper for the foundation to buy a few servers to host Wikipedia citations rather than funding a service that hosts far more web pages than Wikipedia itself uses. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Comment Archiving on WMF's own servers makes more sense. Harsh (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support For usage with external links on the wiki. Ideally, the WMF should have a bot that auto-archives links as they are added. This shouldn't be a major technical hurdle.Smallman12q (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Undoubtedly yes. WPTC relies heavily on this for archived government advisories Hurricanefan24 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Anything that the WMF can do to make our projects more reliable and more easily verified should be done without hesitation. While I'm not convinced that a WMF takeover of WebCite is in the offing, anything that can be done to help ought to be done.Evanh2008 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - this service is very much needed if we want to keep information freely available as source of Wikipedia articles. Romaine (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. WMF should do whatever it can. WP really depends on WebCite. I donated, and created a donation-encouraging userbox at w:en:User:UBX/WebCite2. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Comment Webcite needs to be supported. If Webcite is unable to raise the money, then WMF should provide the support or take over the work. I have donated a small amount, and I urge Wikipedians to do the same. WVhybrid (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Sure, why not. I am yet to figure out a probable adversarial outcome should this proposal be implemented. Michael (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Growing our mission is good, archival is a natural extension. Assuming, of course, it's feasible. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Link rot is one of our biggest problems, and would be insurmountable without archives. Takeover is best, if possible, because it would raise the possibility of creating tools without fear that they could be undermined by interface changes. --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support An essential tool for Wikipedia --Ita140188 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support - Yes, WebCite Seems A Worthy Service For Wikipedia - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support on the basis that mw:Extension:ArchiveLinks and the agreements with archive.org are reviewed to discern whether this is an appropriate and valuable usage of WMF funding. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Absolutely needed. Armbrust (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --LlamaAl (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support the WMF doing whatever is necessary to keep WebCite in business. It has become too important to lose. SpinningSpark 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose for the time being. This is a poor business case. What are the projected cost over the long and short term? What is the predicted revenue stream. If it is a bailout can the Foundation afford it? If funding is available, should it not be spent on existing projects? The Foundation income is mainly from fundraising and it seems unethical and possibly illegal to spend money on projects that were not named in the annual appeals. But I would not object to separate fundraising banners across the projects. GrahamColm (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Linkrot is a nagging problem, insufficiently covered by archive.org's Wayback Machine and Google's cache function. Wikipedia needs this service. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose I do not believe taking over the site is a good way of doing things. Surely the Foundation can marshal some support for getting WebCite's $50,000, which is paltry in terms of what a little determined promotion can generate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Link rot is a huge problem for Wikipedia and WebCite is so far the most efficient solution to the problem. If WebCite is having financial problems this year, they are bound to have it two years down the road. Of course, WMF can pay some money to get it out of the current squeeze, but perhaps WMF also can provide an organizational and technical framework which would secure the future development of WebCite. Arsenikk (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support Support Link rot is a huge problem not only for Wikipedia. --Morten Haan (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support Support I use WebCite for nearly all my links. Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support -- It's hard to have reliable references when Web Pages die. Greengreengreenred (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support the foundation providing WebCite the money it needs to continue operating. As someone who has donated to WMF, I want the foundation to spend money on things that benefit the projects. While I don't think every single link has to be archived through WebCite, the site is very useful for ensuring that pages from unstable websites can be preserved as viable sources even after going dead. This provides great value for the English Wikipedia at least, and I imagine other languages' Wikipedias have also been aided. For an organization that raised $25 million in 2012, I don't think $50,000 is asking too much for a proposal that will help us preserve our content. If we can fund a project that will save quality content from being delisted in the future, I strongly suggest that we do so. I'm sure other people who donated will understand the rationale behind this use of funds. Giants2008 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Obviously. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by TBrandley (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Intelligentsium (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support This is an important service. I've archived hundreds of references with it. It's crucial that this be kept alive. Jesse V. (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strongest support ever. WebCite is vital for Wikipedia. I've been using it for nearly a year after I some valuable links that I had added on some pages died out over night. ComputerJA (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Had a suspicion that a lot of those donations would be from editors. This would be a great way of spending WMF funds. Kithira (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support --Alan.lorenzo (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support This is a good way to avert linkrot. --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - WebCite is a brilliant service, and it is one of the best things that the Internet has to offer. Losing it would be devastating, and I believe that having the WMF as backers to the project would be the best way to go about it. This proposal would be a win-win-win for WebCite, WMF, and the Internet. X! (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. I oppose the proposal to take over WebCite, because I view the project as a potential legal liability. I do support the idea of the WMF funding a large portion of the project though. Not 100%, because I want the project to be able to have independent funding, but I'd have no problem with 75%. Sven Manguard (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support We do need to be able to rely on such a service, whether it is WebCite or a different one. If WMF decides to support webcite, I'd just hope that they take over a project they are able to comfortably fund in the long term. I would not want a money-losing enterprise to undermine the long term sustainability of WMF. User:al83tito (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support WebCite is an invaluable resource for anyone who has written articles with dozens of references to preserve against linkrot. I say, given them whatever funds they require from our donations. Russavia (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support My last 500 or so edits have been spent replacing dead links, so I can easily see the necessity of ensuring a service like this survives. User:Bms4880 20:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Qualified support I think the problem of linkrot is an extremely important problem, and I've been unhappy we are mostly relying on a single service with financial questions. The WMF should treat this as a high priority problem, and investigate a number of solutions, of which this is one. I don't know for sure that this proposal is the best solution, so my support is for the broad concept of solving the link rot problem,. If WMF decides this is the best of the alternatives, then full support.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. OpposeWebCite should seek a grant from WMF and donations from concerned internet citizens. WebCite itself wants ideally to remain independent from WMF--Gee totes (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. If WebCite can't manage to raise enough donations on its own, it's best that it is taken over by the WMF. If, of course, its owners would even be willing to agree on this. --Eleassar my talk 08:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Seeing that many good citations in articles has been link rotted, taking over WebCite should be a good idea. If the owners agree, of course. --Vincent Liu (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Sounds like a good use for the money, assuming that the WMF can work out the legal wrangles. If WMF thinks that the best way to do things would just be to donate, then I would support that as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Conditional support – If the WMF takes over WebCite, the WMF should develop and use free / open source software. If not, then I can't support this. I personally prefer a grant to a take over, but I can tolerate a WMF-owned WebCite if its software were free / open source. Having free / open source software would allow anyone who dislikes how a WMF-owned WebCite is being managed is create their own alternative. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. I have been pointing out that link roat is a serious problem for many years, and even though Wikipedia is barely a decade old, we already rely on the Internet Archive and Webcite to a massive degree - it's only going to get worse, people. Gwern (talk)
  79. Support: Full support! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 17:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Support without takeover --Tito Dutta (Talk) 23:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support – If there is no other feasible alternative.Bill william compton (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, I have an alpha script coded which does create archived links by click and there is defacto no free alternative to WebCite. By creating/overtaking an own archive system the WMF will get more independent of 3rd party systems and allowing the contributors to be on the safe side. It is only the logical step after creating WikiData! mabdul 22:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support the WMF helping WebCite through grants and possibly technical support. I do oppose an outright take over, but that doesn't mean the WMF can't assist WebCite. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support sats (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support WebCite is invaluable in combating linkrot on Wikipedia and must be kept running. Kollision (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong support A sort of "background" archive of information similar to Wikidata, Commons and Wikisource which can do nothing but support Wikipedia citations and references. Let's do this. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. A useful website which helps eschew link rot. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Support We need this ability to preserve source material.--Wakowako (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong Oppose There are extensive legal liabilities in assuming control of copyrighted material hosted by WebCite. Wikipedia's emphasis on citation is correct, but its privileging of web-based citations (especially when there are non-Web resources available for verification) is not. - 14:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong Support Extremely useful and lacks faults of other archive sites. Also, don't want to break the thousands of links on Wikipedia archived there. Teammm (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose I have battled link rot on several dozen articles, and I found WebCite to be only minimally helpful for this task. Few take the time to ever archive their sources, and I don't see how that would change if the site was taken over by the WMF. I also agree with #88 that it would probably bring a heap of legal issues.--Underlying lk (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. oppose taking over Webcite I think that Wikimedia hosting the "sources" that are supposed to verify content in Wikipedia articles simply ends up as a conflict of interest. 03:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support subject to legal opinion (unfortunately). I don't see a COI as expressed in the comment above me -- this is purely an archive of material that should be hosted elsewhere (and usually is, but publishers keep changing their links). A question: How is this expected to handle changing versions of a news story at the same URL -- sometimes that is part of the story. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose - I am concerned about the potential legal liability but I support support the idea of the WMF funding a large portion (up to 75%) of the WebCite.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Some sort of WMF - Webcite hook-up sounds like a superb idea which will aid WP in the long term. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strong Support As WP depends on many, potentially ephemeral, web-only sources for citations, a takeover of Webcite may be the best answer to securing them & preventing linkrot, but, that could be problematic, as mentioned by Antidiskriminator. Talks should be pursued with the Internet Archive & Webcite to secure emergency funding, via a grant of money &/or services in the short term, & to explore the best way of securing that resource for the long-term. It could be that some kind of new arms-length organisation is the best home for Webcite, but without urgent discussion we won't know. Dick (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support concept that WMF support archiving of material cited in wikimedia projects for reasons given in proposal. Don't think funding another organization is necessarily best way to do that. NE Ent (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose - WebCite's fair-use case is much weaker than ours, its legal footings less sure. They've not been sued because they're low-profile and penniless; WMF is the opposite. Absorbing WebCite is an existential hazard to WMF and Wikipedia. Fund WebCite, lend it staff and legals, but maintain a firewall: no takeover, no colo, no hosting. -- Finlay McWalter (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strongest possible support. Linkrot is a serious problem to Wikipedia. It can make a well-written, well-researched and perfectly sourced article dubious, even to the point of qualifying for deletion, for no fault of its authors. @Finlay McWalter: WebCite [have] not been sued because they're low-profile and penniless; WMF is the opposite. That remains to be seen. Obviously Google is neither low-profile nor penniless, has been sued and has won hands down (see Field v. Google) due to the DMCA's "safe harbor" provision. If Google, an immensely rich for-profit organization, qualifies a "safe harbor", so does WMF. -- 12:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support The opposes are concerned about legality and relation to Wikimedia's mission, which are valid concerns. But the service provided is too valuable to not find some arrangement of benefit to both WebCite and Wikimedia. Maybe we can also work out something so that urls gets archived automatically by a bot when cited in Wikipedia articles.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Qualified support I would like to help keep WebCite alive (and have contributed), but we should proceed with caution. In general, Wikipedia and it's sister projects have been careful not to push the boundaries of copyrights, and I think that is wise. Possible legal issues should be assessed by legal professionals at WMF. In the interim I would support helping WebCite with fundraising and giving them a grant and/or technical assistance.--ArnoldReinhold (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support as long as it doesn't expose us to serious legal liability. Adjwilley (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. I am a repeat financial supporter to Wikipedia, and this is an ideal project to lend financial support to in return. Wikipedia NEEDS this service to survive! DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Sounds like a worthy goal. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong Support as archiving is vital to Wikipedia. If this service were to disapeer, many issues' regarding FA and GA (on the English Wikipedia) will come up as the articles would no longer be verifiable.--Dom497 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support – Online sources are the only kind were you don't have to own a specific book, magazine, etc. to verify a reference. HueSatLum (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I think this could definitely benefit Wikipedia. Camyoung54 (talk)
  107. Quantified Support – I support WMF acquiring a major share in WebCite, but not a full purchase. I think that is enough to protect WebCite without getting in too deep with financial and other support. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support unreservedly. It would be terrible if all those links broke. Neo Poz (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support some form of archiving in principle. If not this website than the internet archive idea. We need to look at the options and see which is best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I think it is perfectly reasonable for the WMF to own and control any service that it relies on to provide its service Mebored81 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose Wikimedia Foundation stands to gain very little and potentially loose a lot by taking over WebCite. Argument of linkrot, while a valid one is very, very rarely seen these days, or to be more expressive and correct - in the 21st Century. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - WebCite is unrivaled in its utility and it would be a shame to see it go. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - Great idea! Thanks a lot. - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support (in principle). I've found WebCite to be an incredibly useful resource, and I must have used it hundreds of times when writing articles. I welcome any attempt to keep in progressing, whether that is simply donating to them the necessary funds, or taking over the service altogether. Obviously, I realise that issues regarding legal implications and any other costs need to be considered... A Thousand Doors (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support I find WebCite very useful, and support from the WMF is a win-win for Wikipedia's credibility. Miniapolis (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Slight Support- I agree with the absorbing of WebCite as a Wikimedia Project, and it would certainly be very beneficial, but I believe that a service such as the Wayback Machine would be a better alternative.
  118. Qualified Support Ephemeral links are a huge problem and I'm glad there is so much interest in doing something about them. Using bots to automatically archive most links that are used for citations on Wikipedia sounds like the best solution. Making sure that the bots always work will require close co-operation between the WMF and whomever ends up hosting the links. I would like WebCite to be supported by WMF but still maintain some autonomy to make sure there is no conflict of interest. Now I must admit that I have never archived one of my links on WebCite before. With dead links that I have found, I was lucky enough to find them on the Internet Archive. If this merger fails for whatever reason there is another approach one could take to use the archive automatically. Add an extra field to the "cite web" template called "certificate". When a citation is created, "certificate" would be set equal to a fairly uncommon string that must appear on the page being referenced. Periodic checks by bots would reveal that certain URLs used in citations no longer contain their certificate strings and are in need of an archive URL. 07:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose. While giving some sort of grant or monetary/in-kind donation to WebCite is an alternative worth discussing, absorbing WebCite as a WMF project simply exposes the Foundation (and consequently, the Projects) to too much legal liability. Titoxd(?!?) 07:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose getting involved in *being* Webcite. Support supporting them financially. I have used the service and it is a good solution to the link rot problem. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong Support Because WebCite is not free as in freedom (The software used to host WebCite) and this would hopefully make it free. --俺はバカ (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Qualified Support Linkrot is a real problem that needs to be addressed. However, how much time is spent removing horrible, self-serving, commercial and low quality links from articles? I can foresee something like edit wars over the topic of whether some gawdawful personal website gets stored. There should be a system for filtering what goes in to the cache.Ehusman (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support if legally feasible. If not, award WebCite a grant through the Wikimedia Foundation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Hmlarson (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Seems like a good idea.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Strongest possible oppose This is nothing but copyright violations on a massive scale. Arguments that this is fair use are spurious at best. Our citations do not require live links to copies of the content, only to cite publication and date, so there is no practical, encyclopedic reason for the archives themselves. Wikipedia rules prohibit linking to copyvios, so we should not even be using WebCite in the first place, and we certainly should not *be* WebCite. This is another example of Internet activism going not only beyond but counter to Wikipedia's stated goals. 03:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose this particular proposal, but Resoundingly Massive Support for the Foundation supporting WebCite and/or furthering the ArchiveLinks extension. Archived links combating linkrot is simply too significant an issue for the projects. Huntster (t@c) 08:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support any appropriate measure by the WikiMedia community, including taking over the service if that is the the best option, to ensure the continued services of WebCite. __meco (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support whether it be a takeover or financial support. Legal issues could come up, but as others have pointed, what WebCite does should still fit into US copyright laws. As long as WMF supports and develops the service, I'm fine with a takeover. Maky (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose 1) It needs 25k for it to stay up. That is a substantial amount of money.
    2) It has numerous journals as its members, who will take responsibility for the service and maintenance of WebCite, is WMF going to hire someone?
    3) It 'charges' users (in the form of 'voluntary' donations), that's not the ethos of the WMF. As a not-for-profit organisation (as it is now), collaborating with WebCite is beneficial, but WebCite, with its revenue structure (don't know how to phrase this), should not be incorporated into the WMF framework
    4) Linkrot is a major problem, but for most articles - if we lose one web citation, there'll be another one. Yes, 5 years ago news articles may be lost, but now is the age where everything is on the internet, and many people are reporting on literally anything, I am reluctant to say that WebCite, although very helpful, is worth 25k it is required, and possibly more for its upkeep. Kinkreet (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - Reliable sources are the lifeblood of all Wikimedia projects, and we are bleeding. From what I can gather from this discussion, archiving our references should be a core function of the foundation. We cannot allow our work to be like sandcastles with the tide coming in. It is true that many references can probably be swapped out years later, but many articles rely on sources that are unique, and once they are gone, the foundations of the article are swept away. This is serious, and should not be outsourced. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Strongly Support. I've only used this service a few times but think it's a highly needed service, especially for the Wiki project. I don't know the figures but presume it'd make financial sense too. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 20:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support giving them money, oppose takeover due to copyright issues. -- King of ♠ 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Strongly Support - Service provided by Webcite is extremely important.Chrishmt0423 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Weak support - The cause is worthy; the service to Wikimedia projects is obvious; there are advantages to associating this service with Wikimedia. OTOH as the service becomes better known, the cost of maintenance may increase too rapidly, and there may be legal issues. The WebCite fundraising campaign seems to have been low-key so far. I recently discovered the service but had heard nothing about its financial woes until reading this page. Maybe they just need help with publicity — a partnership, not a takeover. — Alarob (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support, fine idea, many complexities, do what needs to be done. Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Excellent. We need more archiving systems like this! True Skepticism (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support giving them money; weak support for takeover, should it be found feasible for WMF. — Ivan Shmakov (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, this is a great cause. Dead links weakens any statement in wikipedia. For encyclopedic purpose, it is one of the most needed feature. ..... Onimesh (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose, for a few reasons. I understand that link rot has become to be an expanding issue with verification for citations on the net, however, the problem of "link rot" is countered by the growing "bust" of internet expansion. A new link may "rot", or, point to a dormant server or dark domain name once a week, but countered by the fact that there is a new one created to take its place daily. I also agree with #90, in that webcite is only minimally resourceful. To expound upon this, it is because most net-authors, if they may be called that, do not have knowledge of "webcite", and if they do, are to busy or lazy to utilize it. Most have no knowledge of the site, but most b know about such resources such as The Way-back Machine. As far as the legal implications; they are unlikely as the utilization of it is totally voluntary, but a valid point was brought up in that a conflict of interests may well ensue due to the verification of Wikipedia factual resources being substantiated via a Wikipedia-funded archive. Citations do not "require" live links at any rate. Logicaltheology (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support, per Onimesh comments. Haseo9999 (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Strong Oppose take over. I can support funding, but considering that the WMF can't come anywhere close to managing what it already has, just no. The "management" is just spread entirely way too thin as it is. There's a complete lack of any common-sense at commons, and relations between commons and en.wp are tenuous at best. And that is just two of the all too many projects already on the plate. Get your own house in order before you start taking over others. Ched (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support This is an invalileuble tool for us to use to keep Wikimedia sites to keep their sources alive. In many ways this website is "too big to fail". Peter.C (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support ask newbies like me how lost we feel when our citations are bad or links rot... It's a great initiative and will simplify a lot of work for all. Besides, what is being stored is not just website content but raw info in its original form... But after what I read from my good friend and mentor Ched's comment I see that a lot of people are a little (lot actually) disappointed with WMF's management.. So please clear their doubts by suggesting some good solutions to the management issue!!! The Wikimon (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strong support if the "takeover" or "funding" of WebCite (be it made in any way deemed the best for both entities) by the WMF wouldn't imply or require any additional restrictions on the archivable content apart from the existing rules that WebCite may already have in place. (I.e. WebCite should stay open to non-WMF, fair-use archival requests, and should disregard the topical/legal/political nature of the content being archived /except for selected, highly controversial situations/, without using any censorship for any reason whatsoever. It would be desirable to disregard robots.txt too, since we should archive citation sources verbatim.) If there would be additional restrictions, my stance would be only a Weak support... Anyway, WebCite is a really nice thing to have around, for the WMF and for other projects too... -Rev-san (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Weak support: I'd prefer to see WMF supporting WebCite via grants etc to a full take-over, but I'd prefer a full take-over to WebCite disappearing
  147. Support. Fully. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 13:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support, strong. The electronic nature of the Wikipedias means their articles often need to include URLs in citations. Actually, as web-based encyclopaedias, they should always provide URLs whenever possible to ease the availability or referenced information for readers. An on-demand archiving service best serves our needs. While the Wayback Machine is great, it often misses webpages due to its large scope. On-demand archives means we can always have fall-back versions of any webpage cited in the Wikipedias. If WebCite is dying, WMF should save it. Also, if the WMF takes over the service, then it can be treated by the Wikimedia sites as a safe service that will never suddenly vanish or be taken over undesirable management.Sowlos (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support financially without takeover per Eysenbach below. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Conditional support. I love the service, but money don't secure its future availability. 50% of businesses fail in the first year and 95% within 5 years. Poeticbent talk 18:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Support I think the takeover is an important part of the idea: Even if the WMF donates money to WebCite, we have no guarantee that it will continue to exist. On the other hand, taking it over will virtually guarantee that WebCite continues to exist as long as Wikipedia does. I agree with Rev-san above that a takeover should be low-key and not change the nature and conditions of WebCite's service. Regards SoWhy 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Support We ought to be involved, but I have no expertise as to what the right way to execute it would be.StevenJ81 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Strongly support. It's absolutely critical for preserving valuable references. The Wayback Machine does not save them all; I've used WebCitation very often as insurance. Hergilei (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support I think it is important to support this, after all, without this, where would we all be? There are things that need support, and if we can help, we should help. Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support significant ongoing funding by, but not management/takeover/adoption by, WMF. As an independent non-profit entity, WebCite provides a valuable service to many organizations. Since WP drives traffic to Webcite, WMF could certainly contribute to costs. So, aid, but don't adopt. Afterthought - should run the numbers to see if there would be bandwidth cost savings by moving WC's servers into WP datacenters. --Lexein (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support – I think this is a good idea, since link rot is such a big problem and WebCite, as well as Wayback Machine (Archive.org), are both great tools to use to archive links. WebCite and Wayback Machine are used on MANY Wikipedia articles, and I don't know where we'd be without them. With WebCite's funding issues, it would make sense for WMF to takeover WebCite, at least partially, and provide it with technical support and server space and hardware. This would be a win-win situation, so I support it. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose, WMF should spend money in improving MediaWiki's WYSIWYG interface firstly.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Take over the internet. Once we are the only repository of information then free speech will be safe, the world will be pure, children will laugh and the sun will shine brighter. Oh... wait... - Nabla (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support - I can't afford to donate for it, but this service cannot be allowed to die - it's far too valuable. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support - It must be all or nothing - just throwing money at an already ailing project makes no sense. Kiltpin (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support – simply giving them a one-off grant now will be no use in the future should they need money for some other venture, modernizing or not. This move would allow them much greater financial security. Also, common sense from the WMF should stop any prospective Daniel Brandts trying to remove dirt on themselves. Sufur222 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support giving them funds. I'm not in favor of a take-over but this service is important and if that's the only way, fine. Hekerui (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Strong support. One of the best proposals in the recent past. I use WebCite a lot for most of the pages I watchlist.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support due to obvious necessity to preserve references for the reliability of our encyclopedia. Obtaining WebCite is superior to providing a grant per Sufur222, in my opinion. I think that combining the two projects could result in reduced overhead, and I outright reject the notion that Wikimedia cannot manage what it has; of course there will be problems with any organization such as this, but, all things considered, we're doing alright. Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support - This is a brilliant idea and a very defensive and necessary measure to take for us to protect Wikipedia. We should have had a system in place for this years ago. Thanks Jenova20 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Strongest possible support - this is a valuable service for WMF users, and it would be a major loss for Wikipedias in particular if WebCite were to fail. Wer900 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - Linkrot is a real problem, if Wikipedia is able to acquire or persist a service like this, then that option should be considered. If Webcite is not willing, perhaps a WMF service for Wikipedia only be created. The value of news in almost all forms shows very little monetary value for the vast majority of all media, but for academic work, that early 2000's report on a flood or the designation of a new historical building is important to Wikipedia. Considering most news content doesn't last three years, Wikipedia's references begin to fall apart as soon as they enter historical relevancy. Examples include national elections, major court cases, hurricanes and even the whole 'Arab Spring'. Webcite as a company is valuable, but the service is under utilized and even if this plan doesn't work out, the need to prevent link rot through some form of archiving is important to the future of Wikipedia's web content references. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. WebCite is a valuable tool to deal with linkrot and dead links and used in many citations on the Wikipedia articles. There are a lot of editors who use WebCite when they are adding or editing sources/references. So WebCite supporting by WMF will be a good way to help both Wikipedia and WebCite. Zheek (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Good idea. I support it very strongly.Ferdinandus (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Strongly Support as many good and featuread articles use it (Idot (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  171. Support. +1. ADDvokat (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Strongly Support. Wikipedia articles need to be sourced, so there should be as many sources as possible. --Синкретик (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support. This is useful idea. --SkоrP24 13:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support - Provided only mass decisions at Meta can alter the functioning of WebCite. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support I'm very encouraged to have found this thread, I had stopped using WebCite due to lack of confidence from service outages and financial concerns. I hope the WMF can find a way to partner with the specialists at WebCite, it would be beneficial to have the funding (donations) for both WMF and WebCite go through a single interface. 23:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support A great idea. Kf8 (talk)
  177. Support very good deal. --Pessimist (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Dulamas (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Since financial needs of WebCite service are rather small and its importance so strong I would Support Support the proposal. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Strongly support friendly takeover, WMF subsidy, or (most appropriately) in-house archiving service: perpetuating a reliable archiving function is absolutely critical to cornerstone verifiability. And at this point WebCite is too big to fail. RCraig09 (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support finacial assistance, less enthusiastic about takeover (unless Mr. Eyesenbach wants it). I don't see anything wrong with the way WebCite's being run at the moment. RainCity471talk 14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support this thoughtful and sophisticated idea. It will beneficial to many. Best. WorldTraveller101 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Oppose Wiki is short of money as it is, and needs to focus on core tasks. Strongly support webcite and wish it well in its vital function, but this is not something for WMF.Cpsoper (talk)
  184. Support further collaboration, perhaps funding rather than takeover. Linkrot is a serious problem and verifiability is a core principle, this makes this invaluable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK  ▎enWiki 17:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Strongest possible support This guarantees the long term future of most articles and enables them to be improved upon - please implement this WMF, we will forever love you. :) Acather96 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support further collaboration, perhaps funding rather than takeover. I hope it is not too late for me to chime in. A longer version of my 0.02 can be found here. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: actually, (the URL in) the above link (displayed as "here") is out of date now. It was probably valid as of "17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)" but ... things change. Now the part of the URL that used to say "/Community_review" needs to be updated ... to instead say "/2014-2015_round1/Community_review"; ...resulting in (( this new link)) ... which (as far as I know) works OK "as of" about 24 July 2017 (UTC) [i.e., the date of this "UPDATE"].
(PS: Is there a Wikipedia discussion forum for comments about those Wikipedia customs and policies which [it seems] actively promote link rot? Just wondering...)
Thanks for listening ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]