The tiers of archiving

[Hellwalker]

(Or something. I don't really know how to title this)

I've been thinking back to these posts that I made in the Skibidifarms thread and have been wondering if the way that I archived the autism was a good way to do it (Screenshots and one archive of the board page). I'd like to know when it is the best time to go all in when archiving something or if it is even needed. Like pulling out "the big guns" with archive.is, Ghostarchive, or just simply sticking with more simpler forms of archiving like local screenshots. I'm also talking about this in terms of verifiability (Unless that was obvious) since I've seen screenshots be an accepted form of archiving but a full webpage archive would be a better choice in terms of proof.

I've also been thinking if it is really necessary to archive everything. I know that statement is antithesis to what is one of the Farms' defining characteristics but this is dealing with one off pieces of evidence to, say, answer a question that could be perceived as not that important. Like this post I made in the Mutahar thread where I linked a post in his own subreddit as proof of a Twitter screenshot being him. Would it have been better if I went through Muta's old tweets and archived them with something like archive.is (Like another user did)?

My apologies if this was a bit confusing to understand.

 

[CallmeCicada]

Would it have been better if I went through Muta's old tweets and archived them with something like archive.is (Like another user did)?

Yes, because reddit deletes posts constantly. Also, it keeps people liars like Muta from deflecting and saying it's doctored/fake. So it depends on where the content is hosted and who the subject is. If it's on reddit/xitter archive it because those get yanked constantly.

I've been thinking back to these posts that I made in the Skibidifarms thread and have been wondering if the way that I archived the autism was a good way to do it (Screenshots and one archive of the board page). I'd like to know when it is the best time to go all in when archiving something or if it is even needed. Like pulling out "the big guns" with archive.is, Ghostarchive, or just simply sticking with more simpler forms of archiving like local screenshots. I'm also talking about this in terms of verifiability (Unless that was obvious) since I've seen screenshots be an accepted form of archiving but a full webpage archive would be a better choice in terms of proof.

If it's a post on the forums it doesn't need an archive imo unless you think the thread will get deleted by a janny. I lost a few threads with a lot of funny posts when I first started using the site.

 

[Markass the Worst]

Archive sites are the highest tier of truth, since they are trusted to not alter or fabricate content. At worst they will just censor content like Internet Archive. Screenshots can be acceptable, sometimes the only option (like content in Discord servers) but the person posting them has to be trustworthy enough because many screenshots are easy to fake.

 

[Hellwalker]

If it's a post on the forums it doesn't need an archive imo unless you think the thread will get deleted by a janny. I lost a few threads with a lot of funny posts when I first started using the site.

That board where the sperging occurred was one of those temporary shitposting boards that are made during the holidays. Specifically, the one made during last Christmas.

 

[We Are The Witches]

For me I generally prefer to archive everything if it's supposed to count as some form of evidence for anything, unless it's so trivial that it would most likely be posted for a joke or a funny observation (like a shitpost as a Tweet or similar).

Think about it this way: always assume that there will be a time where you'll be required to verify that the evidence you presented is/was legit.

That way, if it was something important, you'll have the receipts, if it wasn't, then you not being able to verify might not be a big deal.

---

For important things I'd say to use archiving sites & screenshots (both, and if it's really important, several archiving sites); if it cannot be done, like if within a Discord server, besides the screenshots & extracts, if it's at all possible, you may invite others to the server or let it be known so that more people verify by themselves. You'll of course have to judge if this is viable/the server is private/you'll expose your account/you'll set its users into panic mode due to an influx of new people/etc.

 

[Tari]

sometimes the only option (like content in Discord servers)

There's Discord Chat Exporter for Discord. Screenshots are the only option for things like Telegram or other app-only messaging sites.

 

[We Are The Witches]

There's Discord Chat Exporter for Discord. Screenshots are the only option for things like Telegram or other app-only messaging sites.

Yeah, but you have to be careful with that, because at the end it's an HTML file, which can be edited.

In such case, the one getting the file would act as the "trusted entity", that all info in it has not been modified.

 

[Scorpion From MK]

I've been thinking back to these posts that I made in the Skibidifarms thread and have been wondering if the way that I archived the autism was a good way to do it (Screenshots and one archive of the board page).

You can archive temporary guest boards on KF with archive.is (if they are public and if archive.is isn't slow like it is in the current moment).

I'd like to know when it is the best time to go all in when archiving something or if it is even needed. Like pulling out "the big guns" with archive.is, Ghostarchive, or just simply sticking with more simpler forms of archiving like local screenshots. I'm also talking about this in terms of verifiability (Unless that was obvious) since I've seen screenshots be an accepted form of archiving but a full webpage archive would be a better choice in terms of proof.

Personally, I use the "big guns" every time I can because while screenshots are a good way of archiving, the downside is that they can be faked. That's why using the "big guns" for verifiability is important. If the website you're trying to archive blocks the "big guns" then your only option is a full page screenshot (you can learn how to do this here) or using extenstions like SingleFileZ which store a webpage as a HTML file. Also, when using SingleFileZ you should use exifcleaner to remove metadata from the HTML file because it stores data that can be used to find your browser or the device you're using.

Like this post I made in the Mutahar thread where I linked a post in his own subreddit as proof of a Twitter screenshot being him. Would it have been better if I went through Muta's old tweets and archived them with something like archive.is (Like another user did)?

If you can't find the original tweet using archive sites (e.x. Wayback Machine, Archive.is, GhostArchive etc) you should just archive the source you found the screenshot from (e.x. Reddit or Twitter post). You can use the WM to find old tweets when a twitter account is privated by using the date of the tweet and searching the URL section (like this or like this). Despite the Wayback Machine's flaws when it comes to censorship, it's still a good repository of information in general. You should mirror web.archive.org links with archive.is and ghostarchive because you never know if a link will be excluded from the WM in the near future.

 

[Markass the Worst]

There's Discord Chat Exporter for Discord. Screenshots are the only option for things like Telegram or other app-only messaging sites.

Telegram has first party chat export options on desktop and other apps do too (third party or otherwise). They are better than screenshots (they contain many more details harder to fabricate) but you still have to be trustworthy.

 

[Azdy]

Download a screen recording app on your phone and use that instead of screenshotting.