[dogma1138]

You both need to generate the hash at the point of archival correctly and store it in a way that cannot be modified later on.

Doing that with a blockchain like tech is one of the few use cases where the tech itself actually adds value.

Heck you might be able to store the entire pages on a blockchain or a blockchain linked storage.

The problem with these sites is that we implicitly trust them and unlike a book or other handprint media where editing or destroying all unedited existing copies is effectively impossible if a shady actor can easily start editing archived news articles and other sites that are no longer publicly available.

[dpark]

This is getting to blockchain for the sake of blockchain.

If Wikipedia recorded the hash of every referenced page you could verify that the archive.is page is unchanged.

You could certainly argue that archive.is isn’t the right place to store archives (I have no idea) but attempting to move all this to the blockchain would be very expensive.

[AlienRobot]

You only need the hash of the original content. No blockchain is necessary. The problem is that there is no source for that hash except for the scraper that archives it since people don't put the hash in a hyperlink.

If you download an ISO for a Linux OS for example, they give you the hash of the file so you can check it. They don't build an entire blockchain whatever to validate the hash.