Talk:Internet Archive

message: The main subject of this article seems to be the 501c3 nonprofit organization that runs the Internet Archive digital libary and other products/services. The first 2 paragraphs of the article focus on both at once. Would it make sense to slightly rephrase the lede so that the organization is clearly distinguished from the products/services it produces? -- Oa01 (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarify lede 

message: Some of the referencing here seems unusual for Wikipedia. The sections on the number of pages archives by year and the languages of the books archived are based on searches. We wouldn't reference YouTube with a search of YouTube on a certain date. With websites that constantly change, the numbers get outdated immediately. If a book said that X million articles on the Archive are in French, that would be fine to cite; using a number found through a search of archive.org on a certain date seems like original research to me. Epa101 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had no response, I'm going to remove the sections that I believe constitute original research. Epa101 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding late, but I agree that's appropriate removal. Masem (t) 14:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text:  Those numbers were not based on searches. They were based on the text on archive.org's front page as it appeared on previous dates. It was no different than citing to any other archived source from the past. Particularly, the YouTube comparison was inapt to this application of the Wayback Machine because you cannot use YouTube's search to find out how many videos YouTube had one a previous day. Neither could you use the Internet Archive's item search to determine this information. This is more like citing old issues of a newspaper that announced its circulation to establish a timeline. I think presenting this information in tables was a bit garish, but they were not OR and removing them on that basis was inappropriate. lethargilistic (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Lethargilistic Hello. I've had another look. I see your point on the first table, with the archived pages in billions. This took me a while to find the right number in each case. However, I also deleted the tables by language and century scanned, and those figures are not on the front-page: they only come up through searches and the numbers presented are outdated now. Epa101 (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Epa101 Oh, somehow I didn't see the removal of the language/century ones. That's definitely OR. But the first table ought to come back, IMO. lethargilistic (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Lethargilistic Yes, I'm happy to agree with you on that. I'll reinstate them after work. Epa101 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: On 2024-02-04T10:36:30 User:2001:ee0:4bca:fd50:b50c:773b:1a40:16ba "Updated the statistics", replacing 
* 
with 
* 
I'm concerned that the new 990 no longer matches the number of employees in this article: PartI "5. Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2019 (Part V, line 2a)" says 169, but the same field on the 990 for 2022 says 0. 
That number changed to 0 in the 990, but the number of employees is still listed at 169. The number 169 does not make sense to me, which is why I haven't changed the number in the infobox. However, something is not right here. 
Might someone care to suggest what to do about this? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: One possibility is that the 990 from 2022 that lists 0 employees has been later amended with more accurate numbers, and Nonprofit Explorer doesn't always show amended returns. My suggestion is to revert back to an earlier 990 until this is figured out. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of employees? 

message: Not resolving for me. Anyone else experiencing the same? Tuvalkin (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, AI did it:this is our second blast of abusive traffic from an AWS customer today apparently from an AI company harvesting Internet Archive texts at an extreme rate Tuvalkin (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive.org down?