This is somehow related to Future broken Links and Best practice for dealing with link rot?.

In a recent answer I referred to an online article that was very sloppily written when it was posted.

Problem here is now that through the article's feedback system, the editor's quality control or maybe even this answer on SkepticsSE some changes to the article were pushed without making them transparent.

That makes those parts of the answer that took these sloppy parts as circumstantial evidence into the area between no longer verifiable and/or invalid.

As far as I can see that page is indexed on archive.org but that crawler came too late to catch the very first version of that article.

The changed parts in this case are not really central to the claim in question – therefore I did not bother to quote all those little things in my answer.

But how can anyone try to ensure that online content that deserves skepticism will be verifiable in the future? Link-rot seems not to be the right description for this, more 'silent link-evolution'?

Quotes are our weapon of choice of course. But those might get quite too long or even less deserving of being placed into an answer.
Saving page-archives have no infrastructure on SE. Screenshots may get quite large and are often not very readable (screen readers are excluded from that start).



You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .