Wikipedia has blacklisted Archive.today links after editors concluded the web archiving service engaged in behavior that violated the platform’s standards. The move affects more than 695,000 links across the online encyclopedia and marks one of the largest coordinated link removals in Wikipedia’s history.

The decision reflects concerns over security, reliability, and transparency, raising broader questions about how Wikipedia handles archived content, paywalls, and digital preservation.

This article explains what happened and why Wikipedia blacklisted Archive.today links, and what it means for readers, editors, and the wider internet.

Why did Wikipedia blacklist Archive.today links?

Wikipedia editors reached a consensus to remove links to Archive. today, also known as archive.is an archive.ph, following a public discussion about the site’s conduct. The central issue was an alleged distributed denial-of-service, or DDoS, attack.

Editors agreed that Wikipedia “should not direct its readers toward a website that hijacks users’ computers to run a DDoS attack.” That language reflects a serious concern: if true, it would mean visitors clicking on Archive.today links could unknowingly contribute to malicious traffic.

In addition to the DDoS allegations, some editors raised concerns that archived pages on Archive.today may have been manipulated. If an archive cannot be trusted to faithfully reproduce the original content, it undermines its value as a citation source.

For a platform built on verifiability and neutral sourcing, that is a red line.

What was the alleged DDoS attack?

The target: Jani Patokallio and the Gyrovague blog

The reported DDoS attack targeted blogger Jani Patokallio, who writes at the Gyrovague blog. According to Patokallio, since January 11, users who opened Archive.today’s CAPTCHA page was unknowingly executing JavaScript code that sent search queries to his site.

In simple terms, visitors were trying to prove they were human on Archive.today were allegedly used as traffic generators against his blog. The goal, Patokallio suggested, was to increase his hosting costs and draw his attention.

If accurate, this tactic would amount to weaponizing user browsers without their knowledge. That is not just a technical violation. It is a breach of user trust.

Why this matters to Wikipedia

Wikipedia does not host external content. It links to it. But those links are endorsements of a kind. If Wikipedia directs millions of readers to a site that engages in hostile behavior, it risks reputational and ethical damage.

The blacklist signals that editors believe the risk outweighs the archival benefit.

Is Archive.today a reliable archive?

Archive.today has long occupied a controversial place in the online ecosystem. Unlike the nonprofit Internet Archive, which runs the Wayback Machine, Archive.today operates with far less public transparency.

Allegations of page manipulation

Some Wikipedia editors claimed that Archive.today’s operators have manipulated archived pages. Even the possibility of alteration is problematic.

Wikipedia relies on archived links to preserve access to:

• Paywalled news stories
• Deleted web pages
• Content that may change over time

If an archive can be altered after the fact, citations lose credibility. That strikes at the core of Wikipedia’s sourcing policy.

The ownership question

Patokallio described Archive.today’s ownership as “an opaque mystery.” In a 2023 blog post, he said he could not identify a specific owner but believed it was likely operated by a single individual with technical expertise and access to European infrastructure.

That lack of transparency contrasts sharply with established archival organizations, which typically disclose governance structures, funding sources, and operational policies.

Transparency is not just cosmetic. It builds accountability.

How did Archive.today respond?

After Patokallio declined a request to temporarily remove his blog post about the site, he said he received what he described as “an increasingly unhinged series of threats.”

On a blog linked from the Archive.today website, the apparent owner defended the service. The site’s value to Wikipedia, the post argued, was “not about paywalls” but about “the ability to offload copyright issues.”

That statement is revealing.

Archive.today has often been used to access paywalled content without subscribing. Critics argue that this undercuts publishers’ revenue models. Supporters counter that it ensures public access to information.

The webmaster later suggested that things had turned out “pretty well” and that the DDoS activity would be scaled down.

Even so, Wikipedia’s decision suggests the damage was already done.

What does this mean for archived links on Wikipedia?

Immediate impact

More than 695,000 Archive.today links are being removed or replaced. That is a massive editorial effort.

Editors will likely substitute:

• Original live URLs, where available
• Links to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine
• Other reputable archival services

This cleanup will take time. Readers may temporarily encounter dead links during the transition.

Long-term implications

The blacklist sends a message: Wikipedia will not compromise on user safety or source integrity.

It may also reshape how editors think about archiving:

• Greater scrutiny of third-party services
• Preference for transparent, nonprofit archives
• More attention to digital preservation standards

Why does the Archive.today blacklist matter beyond Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world. Its policies often influence broader internet norms.

This decision touches on three bigger debates:

1. The ethics of bypassing paywalls

Archive services can make paywalled journalism freely accessible. That may expand access, but it also raises copyright and revenue concerns.

The Archive.today operator’s comment about “offloading copyright issues” hints at this tension.

2. The trust problem in digital archives

We often assume archived pages are static snapshots. But if an archive is opaque or unaccountable, that assumption may be misplaced.

Reliable archiving underpins academic research, journalism, and even legal proceedings. A compromised archive can distort history.

Academic sources from .edu domains discussing digital preservation standards would add authority here.

3. Platform responsibility

Wikipedia’s action reinforces a principle: linking is not neutral. Platforms bear responsibility for where they send users.

In an era of misinformation and cyberattacks, that responsibility extends to security practices as well.

TL;DR

Wikipedia has blacklisted Archive.today links after editors concluded the service engaged in behavior that allegedly used visitors’ browsers in a DDoS attack and raised concerns about reliability and transparency. Over 695,000 links are affected. The move highlights deeper issues around digital archiving, paywalls, and platform responsibility.