zlacker

I disagree with the sentiment, the IA is a very useful source, but, as shown here, it provided the wrong answer. In general, you can't trust it to tell "how old is something", only to show that it is "older than".

>>ezst+(OP)
"Since at least 2005" is not a wrong answer. It's imprecise, but perfectly accurate. And since there is no oracle of absolute truth to consult, it's not like it's wrong to seek out empirical answers like this, it's just one fairly general approach to find a new upper bound. Of course, in this case there is a better answer, but still, there's nothing weird or wrong about the approach.

>>ezst+(OP)
I am not commenting on the accuracy or value of the information provided by Internet Archive, I am speaking concerning the phenomenon that not citing Wikipedia is "weird".

>>jchw+h4
I mean.. it took more work and produced a sub-optimal answer?

>>smabie+fl
More effort has been made to argue that it's a bad approach than the actual effort it takes to go to archive.org, enter a URL, and see the first capture date. That all to say, it's not any appreciable amount of effort. It's really at worst a similar amount of effort to searching Wikipedia for an answer.

>>jchw+h4
I think the "5 * 9 is at least 40" from Rick and Morty is relevant here : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxqcYJEXr6I