Talk:A Bittersweet Potion

Please do NOT use "archive" links. We have it stated EXPLICITLY on the website, as a basic TOS, to NOT TO ARCHIVE our webpages. Until recently, archive sites like archive.org respected Robots.txt; as they now no longer are doing so, and other archives (archive.is etc) are being used by "fans" that disrespect basic wishes such as these, we are following all these leads as we learn about them and sending Take Down Requests, so these links should hopefully rot soon anyway. If you know of other archives that are ignoring the ROBOTS.TXT and the TOS of our website, please contact me privately so I can deal with their violation against this, and possibly the numerous other non-fannish websites we own/host that have recently had personal data and original work illegal;ly copied. Thank you. Alchemia (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alchemia, thanks for taking the time to write up an explanation of your deletions. Please contact the Wiki Committee directly - as far as I am aware Fanlore is not linking to any of your non-fannish websites. Since link rot is an ongoing concern for most Wikis, the cite tool is pretty much standard. But there may be issues I am not aware of, so you and the Wiki Committee can sort through the best way to proceed. The page is temporarily frozen to avoid conflicting edits. --MeeDee (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been a repeated, recent problem; I've been sending Take Down notices for multiple websites we run (not just intertexius/fannish ones but personal and professional sites), to Archive.Org (since they suddenly stopped respecting robots), Archive.Is, webcite, and others. Regardless of OUR reasons, some fans have had to leave fandom for safety or disassociate themselves from their work (eg: when the Australian law on child porn was suddenly interpretted as including fictional writing (see the skyehawke archive debabacle)), and by including links to archives that retain the association between fan and work, it puts the burden on the fan to track all these down and send take down notices, and hope they are respected, when they may be racing against the clock.

In this particular case, Intertexius, has been around since 2003. It was stated on the splash page and the top of the index of our stories page to NOT ARCHIVE anything on the website- this is basic TOS. Linking to archived pages that have a "do not archive" notice at the top should clue people / fanlore in immediately that someone violated our TOS, and that the archived link should not be permitted on the wiki, just like (i would hope) if they saw the archived page showed it was a screencap of a 'friends locked'/'private' page, it likewise should not be linked to, as it never should have been made public in the first place.... someone's rights were violated, and by permitting links to these violations, Fanlore is enabling people to act against the creator's wishes and rights, at best, out of selfishness (In this case, I can't see ignorance when it says "Don't Archive" in bold letters at the top of the page), at worst, it could be done out of malice (hey, this person I don't like moved to a country with restricive laws, I can reveal their ID by drudging up Archive.is/Webcite/etc pages to reveal they wrote chan etc and get their kids taken away)

LINK ROT is NOT an issue here- Intertexius is NOT livejournal taken over by Russians with a mass migration resulting in journals being deleted after so many months of non-use. It is not like the creators behind Intertexius went AWOL and connot be contacted to find out if their work can be archived, underwhat terms, etc, in case the domain isn't renewed.

Intertexius has been around since 2003, and as was stated in the "Do Not Archive" TOS stated at the very top of the webpages, we've no intention of taking it down, and if it came to it (eg: death) we have a person selected who has explicit instructions on maintaining the site and/or where to archive it, according to our wishes. Strangers thinking they can just ignore our TOS and archive our websites just because they can, is not just inexcusable, its illegal.

I really don't know WHO to directly contact, nor do I have the spoons to go look it up, as I'm dealing with numerous issues offline at the moment, and now having to waste more time chasing down who to send Take Down notices to numerous 'archive' sites that think they can just suddenly ignore robots.txts and violate people's copyright because someone else decided to submit our entire site, for archival against our explicit TOS- and I have to do this for like I said, almost a dozen different sites... You want to update the page and resolve this issue, you please draw the attention of whoever to this discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, this page can stay locked forever, until/unless Fanlore figures out how to respect fan's safety, their websites' TOS, and their copyright for the original material that may be archived on the same page(s)/site(s) alongside their fan works. Alchemia (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Alchemia. We have discussed this topic within the Fanlore committee. Fanlore’s policy is to provide a link if there is a link accessible, but I see that you’ve contacted the Internet Archive and they’ve removed their stored version of the pages — I’ll remove protection on this page and remove the links that are now empty. --Oxymora (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Will you remove the archives to Telanu's work (see The_Tea_Series) or other authors who took their work down? (if for some reason they permit it, despite saying otherwise everywhere else, provide that proof when posting archives of their taken-down work, or work with 'no archive' TOS on it, or original work that hs copyright (which need not be written on the work, unless you go back several decades) People take work down for a reason and they do not need to justify why to Fanlore, if they are even aware of FanLore (If you lack the world-awareness or imagination to know why some of those reasons may be, see my [Dreamwidth Post on the Subject]. I find FanLore's policy sickening and selfish; the excuses it gives poor. I find Fanlore puts growth ahead of the personal safety of fen, and is damaging to the fannish community as a whole (again, see link if you can't fathom how/why). Alchemia (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Fanlore, like Wikipedia, has a citation and linking policy. Our policy is to look for a copy of websites in the Wayback Machine and add the backup link to prevent link rot. If both the live link and the WBM link are dead, we leave the cite there but make a note that the cited link goes to a dead page. In your case, because most of the content on Intertexius is password-protected, I removed those links (in line with our citation policy, which states that we do not link to restricted content) and we also removed the WBM machine link ahead of time, because we had been alerted to the fact that it no longer served its purpose. If and when your website goes down, the remaining link to your website will remain for citation purposes, with a notation: “(website offline, not archived in the Wayback Machine)". For practical reasons, we do not verify the "live" or "dead" status of any of our links, but will respond to requests asking us to look into the matter. We protect fen's safety through our identity protection policy, which is separate from our linking policy. We make sure to prioritize identity protection issues when we are alerted to them. --Oxymora (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)