There’s websites that even Bypass Paywalls Clean can’t bypass. That doesn’t mean an alternative to archive.is shouldn’t be found, but we also shouldn’t pretend that nothing is being lost by losing access to unpaywalled sources. For practical purposes, a paywalled source means no source for most readers, unless a non-paywalled alternative can be found to replace it.
I’m still deciding how much I agree or disagree with this. It’s true that they do cite books which you often can’t read online, but adding information backed up by a paywalled proof feels a bit “trust me bro”. E.g. I could find/create a site with an impossibly large paywall and no-one would realistically able to check my sources.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
But Wikipedia doesn’t need to bypass paywalls, and you can bypass them yourself with a bit of work.
Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
There’s websites that even Bypass Paywalls Clean can’t bypass. That doesn’t mean an alternative to archive.is shouldn’t be found, but we also shouldn’t pretend that nothing is being lost by losing access to unpaywalled sources. For practical purposes, a paywalled source means no source for most readers, unless a non-paywalled alternative can be found to replace it.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
That’s good for you, and it is okay for you to use archive.today personally, as long as you block their DDoSing.
But Wikipedia does not need to bypass paywalls, and they don’t require the source to be freely (or easily) viewable to verify the info.
Deebster@infosec.pub 1 day ago
I’m still deciding how much I agree or disagree with this. It’s true that they do cite books which you often can’t read online, but adding information backed up by a paywalled proof feels a bit “trust me bro”. E.g. I could find/create a site with an impossibly large paywall and no-one would realistically able to check my sources.