Talk:Anna's Archive

Another source

tarnkappe.info/artikel/e-books/z-library-annas-archive-macht-schattenbibliothek-durchsuchbar-259286.html - tarnkappe.info has a page on German Wikipedia - de:tarnkappe.info VintageVernacular (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done at 20 November by Drbogdan – reported by 83.28.217.24 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@VintageVernacular@tony ~2026-38803-2 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Related reference

Possibly relevant (and useful?) reference from Gigazine News (10 October 2023) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done at 10 January by Drbogdan – reported by 83.28.217.24 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna's Archive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BruschettaFan (talk · contribs) 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kovcszaln6 (talk · contribs) 12:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this article within the next few days. This is my first time reviewing a GAN, so please excuse my mistakes. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	an injunction to curtail the site's operations One might interpret this as an injunction against the operation of the entire site (not just the scraping of WorldCat), however, the injunction is only against the scraping of WorldCat. Fixed. BruschettaFan (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No issues found here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Passed.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citation 8 seems to be a blog; but regardless, where it is cited, there are already 3 other citations, so I suggest removing this one. I considered it to be reliable since it's not self-published but published by the London Review of Books, a well-known literary magazine. BruschettaFan (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC) It's fine then. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC) OCLC, one of WorldCat's maintainers This implies that there are multiple maintainers of OCLC, but the cited sources doesn't seem to mention this. Either cite a source that verifies this, or just change it to something like "OCLC, WorldCat's maintainer" Fixed. BruschettaFan (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)	Pass
(c) (original research)	The article uses the word "censorship", however, the sources do not seem to explicitly state this. I thought that internet censorship ("the legal control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet") was an appropriate page to link to with regards to the site being blocked in various countries. The only similar page I can find is internet filter, but that isn't explicitly referenced in the sources either. Is there another wording you would prefer? BruschettaFan (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC) I'd suggest "blocked". Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Changed to "government blocks". BruschettaFan (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Nothing found.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	No issues here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	No problems here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
See 2(c).	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
No signs of edit warring.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No issues here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	They're good.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The article passed. Thank you for your work and cooperation.

Potential book source

Noting this for future reference - the German "Lexikon der Informatik, Datenverarbeitung und Kryptographie (HC)" has an entry on AA on pg. 33-34. I'm not sure whether it would be worth citing because it doesn't mention anything not covered here but it could demonstrate notability. BruschettaFan (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 11:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an illegal search engine for books and scholarly articles has been blocked in several countries?

• Source: "Issued by the Rotterdam District Court, the order requires a local Internet provider to block two well-known shadow libraries; “Anna’s Archive” and “Library Genesis” (LibGen)." (https://torrentfreak.com/dutch-court-orders-isp-to-block-annas-archive-and-libgen-240322)
  "With no counterclaims received from the contacted parties and having determined mass infringement on the site, an order to disable https://annas-archive.org through a DNS block was issued to Italian ISPs, to be completed in 48 hours." (https://torrentfreak.com/silenzio-annas-archive-shadow-library-blocked-following-publishers-complaint-240104)
  "The order will continue the blocking of sites first blocked in 2015 (AvaxHome, Ebookee, FreeBookSpot, FreshWap, LibGen, Bookfi and BookRe), as well as extending to "copycat" domains, sites linked to the original targets and a number of newly added domains and networks including Library Genesis, Z-Library and Anna’s Archive." (https://www.thebookseller.com/news/publishers-association-wins-high-court-bid-ordering-internet-service-providers-to-block-pirate-websites)

• • ALT1: ... that an illegal search engine for books and scholarly articles has been used to train large language models? Source: "Prominent AI companies including DeepSeek have used its library of books and articles to train their AI models." (https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-urges-ai-copyright-overhaul-to-protect-national-security-250201)
    "Newly unsealed emails allegedly provide the 'most damning evidence' yet against Meta in a copyright case raised by book authors alleging that Meta illegally trained its AI models on pirated books... The new evidence showed that Meta torrented 'at least 81.7 terabytes of data across multiple shadow libraries through the site Anna’s Archive'..." (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-over-81-7tb-of-pirated-books-to-train-ai-authors-say)
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by BruschettaFan (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

BruschettaFan (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - For Hook 1; by naming illegal in the hook it makes it no wonder that it is blocked. IMHO, you should go for Anna's Archive search engine. Hook 2 IMHO doesn't look interesting, as AI models are trained with all the internet (copyrighted or not).
• Other problems: - I think the title of the article should appear in the hook.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: C messier (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

How about ALT2: ... that the search engine Anna's Archive has been blocked in several countries for copyright infringement? BruschettaFan (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I was think more of twinking a bit the main hook; that the search engine Anna's Archive for books and scholarly articles has been blocked in some countries? C messier (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Another option ALT3: ... that the illegal search engine Anna's Archive has said it aims to "catalog all the books in existence"? (from https://www.laweekly.com/free-z-library-e-book-download-search-engine-annas-archive-launches-amid-arrests)

ALT3 Hook looks good to go. C messier (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@C messier and BruschettaFan: Where is ALT3 written and cited in the article? Also, does ALT3 need quotation marks? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Written in the lead section - it's a direct quote from the LA Weekly article linked above. BruschettaFan (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Characterization of Books3 may be incorrect

It seems like this Ars Technica article is wrong to say that Anna's Archive was part of Books3 -- other reporting describes Books3 as simply derived from Bibliotik, and to the best of my knowledge, Anna's Archive was only named in the legal proceedings as an example of a "shadow library". Is it still worth mentioning that Nvidia explicitly defended Anna's Archive alongside other shadow libraries or should the section be removed altogether? BruschettaFan (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Anna's Archive

Listed for peer review because I'm considering attempting to bring it to FAC (first time!). I'm fairly confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness but feedback on organization, prose etc. would be especially appreciated.

Thanks, BruschettaFan (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

The hot topic these days is sourcing so (despite the request to concentrate on the prose), I'll mostly stick to sourcing. Since this will be your first FAC, starting here at PR was a good move, and I recommend that after this you move onto WP:GAN to get another round of review.

• TorrentFreak is a blog, and thus unlikely to be accepted as a WP:RS. You've used them for almost half of your citations. I'm afraid that's going to exceptionally hard to sell at WP:FAC.
• It's not clear to me where TNW falls. I see [Next Web for ProProfs] which is mostly positive, but I suspect you will still get some pushback at FAC about the quality of that source.
• London Review of Books appears to be a WP:RS in general, but you are using something from a blog they run, so that's probably not a RS.
• Per WP:VICE, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. Not encouraging.
• I don't have a good feel for walledculture.org, but my first impression is that it's more of a blog than a RS.

Well, those are the sourcing problems that stand out to me on a quick look. Overall, the elphant in the room is TorrentFreak. I just don't see any way that's going to be accepted as a WP:RS at FAC, and given that so much of your article is sourced to them, unfortunately I think you've got your work cut out for you to find better sourcing. RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The Walled Culture source was also republished on Techdirt (a blog, but apparently a fairly well-respected one for tech news) and the author seems independently credible as a tech writer. If citing TorrentFreak is an issue I don't think there's really any acceptable replacement because there's no other source with an equivalent breadth of coverage. Most of the information they have isn't available anywhere else. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Per perennial sources "most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing". In general this is a fairly niche topic without much coverage so TorrentFreak can't be removed without excising most of the article. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Reading the various RSN discussions, I come away with the impression that it's a bit of a grey area. I do note that this thread says "There shouldn't be a problem with using articles from TorrentFreak on a limited basis and with limited weight". You are using them as the (by far) most used source in your article. I really think you're going to have a lot of trouble with this at FAC. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah in that case FA might be infeasible, at least until better sources are available. Thank you for your help! BruschettaFan (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Query from Z1720

@BruschettaFan: It has been over a month since the last comment: are you still looking for comments, or can this be closed and nominated to WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Close it without nominating please. BruschettaFan (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Paid editing

The site admin offering payments for editing this article, however no one declared they're getting paid.

See https://software.annas-archive.li/AnnaArchivist/annas-archive/-/issues/250 Throat0390 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Throat0390: Are there any parts of the article that are problematic? If not, then I see no point of the banner in the article. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't review the article, I added because no disclosed their paid editing. This isn't compliant with Wikipedia's policies. If this isn't enough to template then it can be removed(?) Throat0390 (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The only potentially dodgy edit I can see is 8 June, since the post asked people to add from their website, but it seems to have been an improvement. I’ll give them a warning Kowal2701 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone else may want to look through the article history (the post was made around January/February IIRC, page isn’t loading for me anymore), if there’s nothing more then the tag can probably be removed Kowal2701 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

They also said Any edits that will get reverted will result in the membership being cancelled. Please only make edits in accordance with Wikipedia policies., despite not realising the whole endeavour was against Wikipedia policies Kowal2701 (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK it should be fine as long as the paid contributors are disclosed the connection but in this case not. Throat0390 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This one was written almost entirely by BruschettaFan, who started work on it well before that post. It appears to be translations into other wikis that got paid. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I had a small part in writing this article, but I have not been – and have never intended to be – paid for it, nor for any edit in any article. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 [failed verification] for the number of books

Our article claims "As of July 2025, Anna's Archive includes 52,875,045 books and 98,598,895 papers". I don't see this number or anything similar at . It says "We estimate that we have preserved about 5% of the world’s books", and this sentnece links to their 2022 blog which provides an estimates for 11,783,153 files. Where do the more recent books and papers estimate come from? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The number came from the top banner text (the sentences just below the logo) here: https://web.archive.org/web/20250801212845/https://annas-archive.li/faq

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting Fair. But why two months later - i.e. now - the numbers they report are 10 times SMALLER? I see now " 4,467,402 books, 8,439,181 papers"... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It happens with all their domains (.li, .org, .se) — every time you refresh the page, you get one of about 3 or 4 very different numbers. For example, right now at https://annas-archive.org, the banner says 53,622,165 books. Refresh the page, and it's 4,467,402 books. Refresh a third time and it's 17,874,111 books. Fourth time, back to the 4 million number. Fifth time, 40,215,069 books. Sixth, back to the 4 million number again....

Maybe it is a caching issue?

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting Wow. That's wild. Have you tried emailing them and asking about this? I recently emailed them about another topic and they got back to me quickly. If the numbers jump around so much, maybe we should use some kind of range rather than citing one datapoint? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't contacted them. Perhaps another reference is here: https://annas-archive.org/blog/worldcat-editions-and-holdings.html

'...there are 53M books distributed in our torrents...'

That backs up the number that initially shows on their website banner text (53,622,165 books) and the one that was cited in the wiki article. Perhaps also providing archived links to both would be beneficial:

- https://web.archive.org/web/20251004145136/https://annas-archive.org/blog/worldcat-editions-and-holdings.html

- https://web.archive.org/web/20250801212845/https://annas-archive.li/faq

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting Yes, that's good, I think we can use number 53m for books at that time. What about "other papers"? Any reliable estimate for these? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus I think if we accept that the number of books listed on their banner is correct, then by the same logic we should accept their number of papers. Right now the banner says 53,622,165 books and 101,300,806 papers. Here's an archived link that could be used in the citation: https://web.archive.org/web/20251006171109/https://annas-archive.org/

I also feel the number for papers is valid because it's in line with what others have been reporting over time. For example:

• A Dec. 2023 lawsuit by the Italian Publishers Association said in their complaint that there are "nearly 100 million" scholarly articles. (https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/annas-archive-blocked-following-publishers-protest-over-piracy-accusations)
• An Oct. 2023 article in TorrentFreak has a screenshot of their banner from then and it shows 97,847,479 papers (https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-scraped-worldcat-to-help-preserve-all-books-in-the-world-231003/)
• In Dec. 2022, London Review of Books noted the end of Z-Library, which had 84 million papers... that are now part of Anna's Archive. (https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2022/december/in-the-shadow-library)

What are your thoughts?

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting These other sources are probably getting their data from AA. Which would be fine, I am just still puzzled by why sometimes they report much smaller numbers. I think the only way to be sure is to email them and see what they say. Emails are not RS but they'll justify treating other sources you mentioned here as RS. I recently emailed them myself and got a reply within 24h so it seems they are not very busy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus, I'm curious about what you learned....

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus, it looks like Anna's Archive fixed whatever issue they had with the display of number of books and papers, if you'd like to update the text and revisit your "failed verification" flag. As of today, for me at least, it shows the same number even when refreshed: 59,467,170 books and 95,525,430 papers. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The numbers seem stable now, so I updated to "as of December 2025" with the new numbers and removed the verification tag here. StereoFolic (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked in Spain

The website is blocked in Spain (ISPs make it redirect to a Government page with the text "You're trying to access an illegal website"), but I can't find any reliable source for it. The closest thing is S2CPI's list of domains "subject to final resolution" in the March 2025 quarterly report (p. 7), but other domains in the same list are accessible, at least for me. MrPotato1010 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I just looked at OONI and for .li it returns 200 OK. Maybe this was temporary? ~2026-13063-23 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

.io domain likely fraudulent

The currently listed annas-archive.io sends to a nearly identical page that asks you to login and demands a payment to download. I guess it should be removed. ~2026-27174-58 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

A .io domain isn't listed? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It was removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna%27s_Archive&diff=prev&oldid=1351571967 Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It was a cam, and I fell for it. We need to find a way to discriminate which domains are legit. Anyone ha some kind of official source?

Because on reddit they say the currently listed domains are scams as well... PrimematuM (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The official source is cited/footnoted in the article's text; it's this: https://annas-archive.pk/faq#mirrors.

u/Educational_Fire8263 on the reddit thread was well-meaning, but did have a misunderstanding in my opinion: wikipedia editors cannot be responsible for independently verifying domain ownership (and because of the nature of this situation, it would be hard to verify the legit Anna's Archive sites). I appreciate their trust in wikipedia, but our writing is reactive—we write what's already been reported.

On that same reddit thread, when u/Salute-Major-Echidna reported that they couldn't download from the .gd and .gl sites, I suspect they are experiencing something different: these are legitimate sites, and the search results come up fast, but the download times are extremely long. I believe these super-long download times started when Anna's Archive changed to DDoS-Guard and also lost multiple domains.

The only thing I can think of is, we can add a comment in the markdown for the infobox—basically, a note for wiki editors reminding them to double-check any URL with the list at https://annas-archive.pk/faq#mirrors before making any changes. That wouldn't be visible to readers, though, and wouldn't help with anyone who is maliciously adding scam sites to the wiki article.

What ideas do you have? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Source for annas-archive.is domain

I recently added a citation from Anna’s Archive’s official X/Twitter account for the already-listed annas-archive.is domain in the URL/mirrors section, but the edit was reverted. Before making further changes, I wanted to ask for consensus here.

Source used:

https://x.com/theannasarchive/status/2054195885542678990

The intention is only to provide a source for an already-listed domain, not to promote or replace the primary website link. Would this citation be acceptable for verification purposes? AdeeptDholakia99 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No, as it is obviously fake; it is not linked to anywhere on the site plus it was created this April. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Please also see the above thread; seems to be the same website just with different domains. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought @Gadfium had come up with a clever solution; I'm curious why you didn't agree with using the SLUM website as a citation? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not see how it is in any way reliable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

We're on about the third or fourth revert. Let's have a discussion about the best way to handle citations of the URLs in this article. @Frost, @Eleanorsilly, @Gadfium, @TZubiri, @AdeeptDholakia99 .

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Also @AirshipJungleman29 Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I opine that OpenSlum is a source, might not be the best, but it's better than nothing.

The current state of the article is there's 3 urls without a citation needed tag, which was presumably reverted by @AirshipJungleman29 as a reversion to last stable version. I think we all agree that this is the worst possible option.

I'd argue that the last stable version is with the citation needed tag, as the dispute seems to arise over the version with the citation needed tag, or with the open slum source.

I propose the following non-binding [ranked| ranked voting] vote just so we can know what the position's of different editors are:

1- URLs without references or citation needed tag.

2- URLs with citation needed tag

3- URLs with open slum reference

4- No URLs at all.

My position would be:

3

2

4

1

Notably 1 is the worse because it allows Wikipedia to be used as a de facto Start of Authority over the domains involved, which for one is a cybersecurity vulnerability as it allows any potential impostors to submit their mirror urls, and second it would not be neutral to the topic of the article, as it would be benefitial to the shadow library by enabling its distribution.

So better settle on any of the other three options. I don't much care which, but it's better to settle in discussion than with edit wars, as always --TZubiri (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You and I were posting at the same time. :)

I started a new discussion here if we want to have a fresh go at it, instead of buried in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna%27s_Archive#Proposal:_We_should_remove_URLs_to_Anna's_Archive_sites_from_infobox_and_text Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I opened a new discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna%27s_Archive#Proposal:_We_should_remove_URLs_to_Anna's_Archive_sites_from_infobox_and_text Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Kovcszaln6, the .is website is a scam website as is the twitter account. My reasoning:

• As mentioned, the twitter account was created a month ago.
• The .is website misses important elements, like a list of official mirrors on an FAQ page and a link to recover the secret key on the sidebar.
• The .is website is not listed on the SLUM website.

Scammers mean for it to be tricky to know, and it is tricky.

This is an example of why, in my opinion, it's a bad tactic for Annas Archive to direct users to depend on wikipedia to verify correct URLs. We're not meant to do original research and verifying unverifiable URLs is part of that. I think it would be better suited if they would direct their users to the wiki page attached to their subreddit, because I do believe the mods there are legitimately affiliated with the Annas Archive project, so the subreddit's page is a great place for them to publish the valid URLs. Unfortunately, it just doesn't get the traffic that wikipedia gets. If they would post the correct URLs on their subreddit's wiki page, then we could always cite that here, and that would circumvent the problem that may occur if they lose their current domains (which list the valid mirrors). Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Side note, but the Twitter (X) account clearly mentions the .io subdomain as being theirs too, meaning this is likely the same scammer who made the .io domain. This clearly shows this is a fake. Eleanorsilly (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I added citation needed tags on all of the domains for unrelated reasons. This is a contentious and security sensitive topic, but I'll try to maintain a NPOV, in essence, Anna's Archive domains are often taken down, and their strategy is to rotate domains, so the question is how can their users know that they are consuming a genuine AA website and not an impostor?

I believe the citation mechanism may provide a reasonable solution, and is in fact quite lenient towards AA, constantly changing domains represent a risk to users, the next best alternative is to remove them altogether, not to become a root of trust for domains of a website that is constantly evading the law.--TZubiri (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: We should remove URLs to Anna's Archive sites from infobox and text

Anna's Archive has a necessary problem: they must sometimes change domains and being anonymous makes it difficult for them to assert which domains are current. Thus, scammers and well-meaning editors alike make changes to the article that may be incorrect. Unfortunately, Anna's Archive have taken to asking their users to find valid URLs in this article—shifting a responsibility to us when we don't have the means to do it.

Our text should be verifiable, and we cannot possibly verify Anna's Archive URLs. This must come from them or a third party like a news source; they have the means to do so (by posting valid URLs on their subreddit's wiki page, for example), but don't. Because we try to accommodate this unusual circumstance, though, we've opened ourselves up to numerous changes to the infobox alone, with incorrect and sometimes malicious URLs passing through. Instead, we should require a solid citation for the URLs or else no URL at all. That would mean wikipedia is no longer responsible for validating URLs and providing our assurances of their validity to the larger public.

Below is a summary of what's happened in just a few years, and just in the infobox not the body of the article—note that almost every change was without any citation (and the first citation unfortunately was victim to a scam):

• 2022-12: Drbogdan adds a citation to the URL in the infobox, citing the AA website, About page, and the separate Anna's Blog site.
• 2023-01: Drbogdan adds another citation for "and related" URLs, citing a tweet from the AA twitter account.
• 2023-11: Drbogdan updates the second citation for "and alternative sites" to AA's website.
• 2024-01: LightNightLights removes first citation since both point to AA's website.
• 2024-04: Thumperward removes the remaining citation, commenting "rm excessive primary sources and non-policy extlinks".
• 2024-04: BruschettaFan changes URLs to .org, .gs, and .se; no citation.
• 2024-07: 83.28.217.24 removes .org from the URLs, leaving .gs and .se; no citation.
• 2024-07: 83.28.217.24 updates the URLs to .se, .li, and .org; no citation.
• 2024-07: H177013 removes the .org URL, leaving .se and .li; no citation.
• 2024-07: LightNightLights reverts the change, returning .org to the list of URLs; no citation, comment includes ".org works for me".
• 2025-02: Article is given a Good Article icon; three URLs listed, no citation.
• 2025-03: BruschettaFan removes .se and .org URLs from infobox leaving only .li and adds the other URLs to the article text, with this comment: "apparently one external link is preferred under WP:ELMIN so i incorporated it into the body of the article".
• 2025-04: Juwan changes URL to .gl as "copyediting and cleaning up references"; no citation but entry is now linked to WikiData for editing so changes don't necessarily show in the Wikipedia article's change log.
• 2025-06: 122.129.67.134 deleted the WikiData link and added .se, .li, and .org URLs in the infobox; no citation.
• 2025-06: Kovcszaln6 reverted the change, so that infobox again had WikiData link and only displayed .gl URL, with comment "WP:UCR"; no citation.
• 2025-06: 122.129.67.134 returned the .se, .li, and .org URLs to infobox and removed the WikiData-supplied .gl URL with the comment "per https:www.reddit.com/r/Annas_Archive"; no citation in infobox.
• 2025-07: BruschettaFan removed all URLs except .li from infobox giving the same reasoning as his action in 2025-03, "one URL is still preferred WP:ELMIN"; no citation in infobox.
• 2025-10: Μινγκ_κε_μινγκ adds back the .se and .org URLs with the comment, "They are mentioned at the bottom of each website"; no citation.
• 2025-11: Debate about URLs continues in the External Links section, with people sharing which URLs worked and failed for them; no citations.
• 2026-01: 2026-60651 adds .pm and .in URLs to the infobox and article text; no citation.
• 2026-01: Finnders2207 duplicates .pm and .in URLs in the infobox so they display twice.
• 2026-01: 2026-60651 removes the duplicates from Finnders2207 but keeps one set of .pm and .in URLs in the infobox.
• 2026-01: BruschettaFan removes the .org URL but leaves the others.
• 2026-01: 2026-60651 returns the .org URL.
• 2026-01: BruschettaFan again removes the .org URL with this comment: "since the FAQ cited now lists 4 mirror sites and not the .org domain this is an accurate representation of the current domains"; no citation in the infobox.
• 2026-01: 2025-33620-60 removes all URLs from infobox.
• 2026-01: BruschettaFan adds .li, .pm, and .in URLs to infobox with this comment: "until .in is officially reported as down or removed from AA's own list we should leave it"; no citation in infobox.
• 2026-01: Asbestossupply removes the .in URL with this comment: "removed .in domain as it's no longer in use"; no citation.
• 2026-01: BruschettaFan reverts, to return .in in the infobox with this comment: "Waiting until it's conclusively removed from their list"; no citation.
• 2026-02: 2026-70423-6 removes the .in URL with this comment: "deleted the .in domain since it's deactivated by the registry".
• 2026-02: AndryDavies removes the .pm URL.
• 2026-02: BruschettaFan adds the .gl URL to the infobox; no citation.
• 2026-02: 2026-82844-3 removes the .li URL.
• 2026-02: Gadfium reverts to return the .li URL to the infobox with this comment: "rv, unexplained removal of content"; no citation.
• 2026-02: 2026-98803-7 removes the .gl URL.
• 2026-02: 2026-10109-65 returns the .gl URL with this comment: "Link added: annas-archive.gl | This mirror is listed on annas-archive.li as an alternative." No citation.
• 2026-03: 2026-13751-35 removes the .gl URL.
• 2026-03: 2026-13607-14 modifies URLs to be "annanas" instead of "annas" and makes four URLs: .gl, .pk, .vg, and .gd.
• 2026-03: 2026-80539 corrects the typo but keeps the URLs for .gl, .pk, .vg, and .gd only; no citation.
• 2026-03: Madstilt removes .vg URL with this comment: "not working link removed"; no citation.
• 2026-04: 2026-25936-18 adds .io URL; no citation.
• 2026-04: Buckbidoof removes the .io URL with this comment: "Undid revision (fake scam website)".
• 2026-05: Justinn1431 removes the .gl URL with this comment: "Removed URL is no longer accessible".
• 2026-05: 2026-26961-17 returns the .gl URL; no citation.
• 2026-05: AdeeptDholakia99 adds the .is URL with this comment: "Added annas-archive.is as an additional verified domain for Anna's Archive, supported by references from official social media channels and publicly associated sources." No citation.
• 2026-05: Kovszaln6 reverts the change, thus removing the .is URL with the comment: "Unsourced".
• 2026-05: AdeeptDholakia99 returns the .is URL with this comment: "Added source for annas-archive.is domain referenced in official Anna's Archive communication". Adds first citation for a URL in the infobox.
• 2026-05: Hysocc reverts the change, again removing the .is URL with this comment: "this guy looks like global scammer. Better be safe".
• 2026-05: AdeeptDholakia99 again adds the .is URL with this comment: "I added a citation from Anna's Archive's official X/Twitter account referencing the annas-archive.is domain. The edit was reverted, so I wanted to discuss whether this source is sufficient for a brief factual mention of the domain in the listed mirrors/URLs section. The source used: https://x.com/theannasarchive/status/2054195885542678990 I am not proposing promotional c"
• 2026-05: Kovcszaln6 reverts the change, removing the .is URL without comment.
• 2026-05: TZubiri adds "citation needed" flags to the remaining URLs in the infobox, which are now .pk, .gd, and .gl.
• 2026-05: 2026-30959-34 removes the "citation needed" flags with this comment: "rvt. - try going to the website? it's self-documenting..."
• 2026-05: Eleanorsilly returns the "citation needed" flags to the URLs with this comment: "self reference isn't a good idea - else, scam sites would be as valid as the real ones."
• 2026-05: Gadfium adds a citation for one of the three URLs and removes all the "citation needed" flags; they cite the SLUM website.
• 2026-05: Kovcszaln6 removes the citation and returns the "citation needed" flags with this comment: "Not WP:RS".
• 2026-05: 2026-31960-59 returns the SLUM citation and removes the flags.
• 2026-05: Kovcszaln6 again removes the citation with this comment: "Unexplained revert; see Talk:Anna's_Archive#Source_for_annas-archive.is_domain".
• 2026-05: AirshipJungleman29 removes the "citation needed" flags from all three URLs.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Good job on the summary. As I noted in my other comment, having the urls themselves is a cybersecurity incident and a neutrality issue.--TZubiri (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

One concern if the URLs themselves were banned, would be how to enforce it. I suspect that people will start uploading the urls anyway, even if you block the infobox url field, they will upload the url's elsewhere.

In that sense only, using some external source for the URLs would be better.

However that only addresses the cybersecurity issue (somewhat, it mostly passes the responsibility to an external source, but that's standard Wikipedia).

The issue of neutrality is ironically not solved at all by pushing the source of domains to an external reference, it just adds one layer of indirection, but allows wikipedia to remain as a source on what the (source to what the) Shadow Library address is.

Consider that this is at the core of what the Shadow library is and what it's legal dispute was about, the libraries claim that they don't host the content itself, they merely point to where it is hosted, yet their domains are seized by international law enforcement after judicial processes, the act of pointing to a shadow library, isn't that far from being a part of the shadow libary itself. And pointing to a website like OpenSlum, which tracks the shadow libraries, is again no different, no matter how many layers of indirection you add, it doesn't seem like at some point it materially changes the legal and judicial implication of the participation in the distribution of the material.

So yeah, if you like the URLs up there, I recommend you find a source and like it, or you'll just have the URLs removed altogether and potentially the article semi-protected. TZubiri (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

For the ranked voting you proposed above:

1- URLs without references or citation needed tag.

2- URLs with citation needed tag

3- URLs with open slum reference

4- No URLs at all.

My vote would be:

3 is my preferred choice with a note that I think their subreddit's wiki page would also be an ok citation

2

4

1 as last choice, considering how it's worked out so far

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I looked to see how other similar Wikipedia articles were handling this.

• Library Genesis: Same: Their subreddit's wiki page asks people to find verified URLs on the Wikipedia article, and the Wikipedia article has confusion with editors trying to verify and URLs posted without citation. Recently, "citation needed" flags were added. An editor on that article's Talk page suggested citing this nonprofit which might be a good citation solution for all these Wikipedia shadow library articles.
• Sci-Hub: Same; recently "citation needed" flags added. Discussion on their talk page pointed to this consensus discussion. Their subreddit's wiki page lists verified URLs and also trusted facebook account.
• Z-Library: Their infobox gives two TOR links and a URL that has two citations (mastodon and twitter). Their subreddit's wiki page lists valid URLs and their socials for confirming.

Of course, this is also an issue on the wikipedias in other languages (which I didn't look at), and the problem was illustrated recently when one (now blocked) editor added scam URLs to the infobox to the Anna's Archive and Z-Library Wikipedia articles in multiple languages. A good solution could help the other articles as well.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the best option is to cite AA itself, as we already do in the body, and we should use third-party sources (e.g. TorrentFreak) to choose what domain to use for the citation (so we avoid self reference isn't a good idea - else, scam sites would be as valid as the real ones). If this isn't supported, then let's just rely on third-party sources. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Since only 3 editors have commented, and 2/3 have a first preference for citing OpenSlum, and since as you note we already cite AA itself in the body but there's TorrentFreak for another source, I've added OpenSlum and TorrentFreak for citations in the infobox.

Is there any allowed way to add a warning in the infobox itself that these URLs may not be valid? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that came to my mind was to maybe include some kind of "verified as of" date, although if we cannot come to a consensus about the sourcing, we might have to consider just simply not linking to AA at all.

About the citations you added, I still do not see how slum is in any way reliable. Who even runs it? Secondly, could you explain why you added the TorrentFreak citation? I don't see it mentioning any of these domains. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I added the TorrentFreak link because you mentioned it: 'we should use third-party sources (e.g. TorrentFreak)'. I was unsure why you linked to that article, but assumed it was because of this passage:

Leaving no room for interpretation, the order specifically names more than twenty companies and organizations. This includes familiar names like Cloudflare, Njalla, and DDOS-Guard, as well as the domain name registries of the site’s current active domains:

– TELE Greenland/Tusass (managing the .gl domain)

– PKNIC (managing the .pk domain)

– National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (managing Grenada’s .gd domain)

The names include some intermediaries that were already listed in the Spotify default judgment, as well as new ones.

We were informally taking a vote and that's how we got the SLUM website. I don't know the protocol here—do we move the conversation to a RfC to get better concensus, and maybe bring in editors interested in similar articles like LibraryGenesis and the Annas Archive articles in other languages? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I linked to that specific article as it lists AA's domains, but the one you cited in the infobox doesn't, so I'm still unsure why you chose that.

An RfC would be too hasty in this case. The correct thing to do would be to discuss this. So I ask again: how is open slum WP:RS? I would also like to reiterate that I'm fine with citing AA for the domains (as we already do so in the body); is anyone against that? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. That was my mistake—I got the two TorrentFreak articles mixed up. I'll update the link with the article you're mentioning here.

SLUM is not necessarily a reliable source. We don't know who runs it. But, we don't know who runs AA, Library Genesis, Sci-Hub (to an extent), and Z-Library, or any of their github, socials, etc. That's part of their whole deal, which creates a problem for them, which they've pushed onto wikipedia editors.

In truth, we have no high-quality sources to cite. I'm not necessarily "pro-SLUM" so much as I'm pro-citation, or at least anti- wiki editors taking on the role of verifying domain safety and veracity. At least a SLUM citation is something, better than nothing, and it gives the reader a resource to consider when they are evaluating the trustworthiness of our article. A similar site with a known publisher is the list from Verts-Luisants. What are their credentials for deciding what's on their list of valid domains? I don't know.

I feel that what we shouldn't do is what we're doing now: sometimes having scam sites listed in the AA, Libgen, Sci-Hub, and Z-Library articles, with the shadow libraries telling their users to trust what's here... and getting scammed because we weren't fast enough or skilled enough. It's something that has been discussed on their associated Talk pages for a few years now. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that.

WP:ABOUTSELF is different from simply using unreliable sources.

I'd support adding the slum site to the External links section; that can include any website deemed relevant. The reliability of Verts-Luisants is also questionable, but I wouldn't object to citing that.

I agree. If the addition of scam sites becomes more common, we should consider protecting the article or removing links altogether. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

When you mentioned Verts-Luisants, did you mean as an inline citation in the infobox or in External Links? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I meant as an inline citation. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's very reasonable. It looks like we have only 3 votes cast, and all 3 of us would like to cite one of the monitoring sites in the infobox—if you prefer Verts-Luisants over SLUM, let's go with that. I'll make that change. Also, to keep it tidy and easier to update going forward, I'll remove the specific list of current domains from the "Website and operations" section.

One thing I'd still like to raise, and I'll leave it with you to decide how to proceed: the same URL sourcing problem also has been recurring on the talk pages for Library Genesis, Z-Library, and Sci-Hub for years. I don't think any agreement we reach on this article will be visible to the editors on those talk pages, and without some broader documented consensus, the cycle is likely to continue across all of them.

Would you be willing to open a short thread at WT:Verifiability or WT:Reliable sources to get wider input... not to reopen what we've agreed on here, but to see if there's existing guidance or appetite for a consistent approach across this class of articles? Given your experience and familiarity with the policy landscape, a post from you would reach the right people far more effectively than one from me. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The dispute over the website could be solved by giving the original as a non-clickable link, e.g., |website=example.org (original). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The question isn't about being clickable, though.

Here's an example:

1. Anna's Archive (AA) tells redditors to always look at this article to find the currently correct URL.
2. Wiki editors update the URL based on what's showing on a website that we guess is probably not a scammer site.
3. AA moves to a different URL. Or, a scammer sets up an entire ecosystem (website, twitter, etc.) and tells everyone this is the new URL.
4. Wiki editors update the URL based on what's showing at some new website (scammer or not). There's no way to verify that it's correct, so editor reasoning is "trust me bro" or "I clicked it and I think nothing bad happened" or "I found this on Telegram and it feels legit to me", etc.
5. Readers trust wiki editors to not provide scams on our articles, not understanding that we don't know anymore than they do. They click, and get treated to either a valid site, or a scam site that swindles them out of money, or porn.

So the question is this: Usually, an organization's website is pretty easy to ascertain, and it usually remains the same for long periods of time, and it's low-stakes if we have it outdated. In this case, though, we have no way to validate (because they are impossible to trace, by design), they change more frequently and without notice, and it's high-stakes when we get it wrong—for the reader, but also for wikipedia, whose reputation is hurt when we give harmful URLs. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me try again:

• Our problem is that two places in the article are endlessly and sometimes erroneously being changed.
• We could make our problem be smaller by making only one place in the article get endlessly and sometimes erroneously changed.

One way to make our problem smaller is to put only the original website name in the infobox (and make it non-clickable plus marking it as "original") so people don't think it's the current one).

We will still have the problem of people endlessly and sometimes erroneously changing the other place in the article, but we'd have reduced the problem space to one place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I think our problem is that we are being asked to do original research when we try to verify URLs for shadow libraries, for something that's not verifiable by us. But either way, your proposed solution is one way to address the problem, if I understand it correctly?

In the article right now, there are links to AA's website in the cited references under Anna's Archive#Primary sources (21 citations), and three links in the Infobox. For the Infobox, you propose changing the https://annas-archive.pk/, https://annas-archive.gl, and https://annas-archive.gd links to https!://annas-archive.org (original, defunct) or http!://pilimi.org/ (original, defunct).

Extending the same proposed idea to the Primary Sources citations, we could cite webpages that are at defunct domains; for example, the link to their Datasets (currently shown as https://annas-archive.gl/datasets) would instead go to https://annas-archive.org/datasets or possibly better a link to the Internet Archive of the defunct, original page.

Have I understood it correctly? Or close? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite see how trying to verify the URLs of shadow libraries counts as "original research". It doesn't actually seem all that different from, say, finding the new location of webpages that have changed URLs due to site redesigns, or noticing that an old URL now points to a dead domain and needs to be replaced with an archive copy. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. Let's take a concrete example: If you were updating the URL in the infobox, which of these two URLs would you enter, and how did you come to your conclusion?

• https://annas-archive.is/
• https://annas-archive.pk/

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

A domain change is fundamentally different from a URL change. To read up on the technical differences see Domain_name_system and Hypertext_transfer_protocol. To summarize the technical difference and the policy implications, a domain identifies the organization in charge of hosting the content, while the non-domain part of the URL identifies the resource, so as long as the domain is the same, the author or publisher of the source is guaranteed to be the same. However if the domain changes, there is no guarantee that the author or publisher has not changed, and by extension the content being linked to cannot guaranteed to be the same.

For this reason, policies like WP:LINKROT which are designed for changing URLs are simply not appropriate for this case. TZubiri (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the URL section with external references has achieved stability for around a week, thank you @Wikipedian-in-waiting. --TZubiri (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

How often do these links change and how do people know that these are the correct AA links? Some1 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

They change sporadically and without advance notice, moving when there's been something like an unfavorable outcome in courts. The fact that they can't announce it in advance contributes to the confusion about who is legit and who is a scammer. I would say, it doesn't change too often, but a lot compared to a personal website or business. Since 2022, there have been about 12 (but they often have several at the same time).

There is truly no way to know which links are legit. You must decide who you trust and have a bit of savvy about scam sites, then make a judgment call. As I wrote earlier, you can test this for yourself: If you were updating the URL in the infobox, which of these two URLs would you enter, and how did you come to your conclusion?

• https://annas-archive.is/
• https://annas-archive.pk/

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Do the official Anna's Archive owners announce the new links via social media or some other official AA website? The reason is I'm asking is because if it's via their official website, then the "reliable source" for the URL could be that official social media announcement post. Some1 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Anna's Archive is a shadow library: they provide links to books that people download for free, including books still under copyright. Publishers took them to court and won a $20 million judgement against them. This was always a risk, and happened to Library Genesis, a shadow library from which Anna's Archive sprang. So, Anna's Archive is run by an anonymous collective of people to avoid prosecution. They (suddenly, without advance warning to the public) change domains to evade lawsuits, and also because some registrars complied with court orders to suspend service thus forcing them to move.

There's not an official website per se, a stable place that doesn't move around and that has an identity that can be completely known. They have a blog, that's at their current URL, but scammer websites are set up to look similar and they just copy the blog. They have a subreddit and I believe the moderators there are in communication with the AA team but that's just a matter of personal belief and trust, there's no way to know (but I've argued that the moderators there could update the subreddit's wiki page with their current domains, as other shadow libraries do on their subreddits without problems from reddit administrators). They used to have a twitter account; that's gone but the scammers create "official" twitter accounts to direct people to the scam sites. This is the crux of why Anna's Archive points people to this wikipedia article for the current domains—they don't have another stable, dependable, trustworthy platform. However, doing that just shifts the problem to wikipedia editors without providing the editors with tools to verify. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Would applying pending changes protection to prevent editors from directly updating the page reduce the possibility of shady links being added as official ones? Whenever my bookmarked AA link fails, I just come here and mindlessly click on whatever link is listed as the current domain (in incognito, assuming Chrome will block anything suspicious). I don't really see a way for us to ensure that a link is valid just by looking at it. Paprikaiser (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'll request that. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I have enabled pending changes for 1 month. Not sure what duration to put. Let's consider it as a trial. Let me know if it should be a longer duration (I am looking at no more than a year though on a trial basis). If it helps with the situation in the future, we can consider indefinite duration. – robertsky (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The month trial of pending changes is expiring soon. Will it be extended? Trailblzr99 (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

PSA: COI

https://software.annas-archive.gl/AnnaArchivist/annas-archive/-/work_items?label_name%5B%5D=2-Bounty&show=eyJpaWQiOiIzMjAiLCJmdWxsX3BhdGgiOiJBbm5hQXJjaGl2aXN0L2FubmFzLWFyY2hpdmUiLCJpZCI6NzIzNjl9

The subject of this article is actively paying editors to edit articles about subjects relevant to the subject

--TZubiri (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Let us know if you find any part of the article problematic. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a different set of bounties. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

My bad. This should probably be brought up at WT:NPR so they're aware. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@TZubiri and @Kovcszaln6, I found at least two accounts that might've been responding to the bounty, and so I opened a post at AN about this.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)