Are these durably archived (whatever that means)? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone could print the webpage out and place it in Wiktionary's office (wherever that is)? Wiktionary needs to set up a digital archive for website snapshots to "archive" things as photos, considering that we're into the web age. Archive.org has this video recording: http://www.archive.org/details/20120112NewWorldNextWeek
 "Obamney's indie blues" (2012) -- is Politico.com considered durable?
Oh I agree with you, durably archived ought to mean just that, but to us it seems to mean "published sources and Usenet", and I have no idea why. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Mediawiki already has the capability of automatically archiving webpages when needed (but I don't know the precise necessary conditions). Therefore, if we want any webpage to be durably archived, we can. Lmaltier 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I find that weird, can you point to the MediaWiki documentation page for that? It sounds intriguing. (are you sure that doesn't mean the automatic storage of page revisions of MediaWiki wiki pages of the wiki running the instance of MediaWiki? (ie. page history) ) 126.96.36.199 06:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
And, on fr.wikt, I've already seen external links transformed into two links (normal link + link to the archived page). Lmaltier 18:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Another issue beyond durable archiving is that of manipulability. Web pages can be introduced with usage instances sufficient to meet our usage criteria by a single person with access to multiple web pages. Thus, completely imaginary words supporting any ideological, political, personal, or other objective can gain whatever measure of legitimacy a Wiktionary entry would offer. Our entries could thus have less credibility than Urban Dictionary in which definitions at least bear the record of the votes by users, often a large number of them. DCDuringTALK 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
In almost all cases, there can be no suspicion. In exceptional other cases, when there might be a doubt, when manipulation is suspected, it's better not to include the word. Lmaltier 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm googling several forum posts contrasting Obamney with Obama, clearly using it as an epithet for Mitt Romney specifically:
Obamney, or obamney, come see, come saw. It will not matter who steers the ship into the ground nevermore to sail as the USs America again if either of these two cronies are the emperious head-puppet.
I boggled at this four-headed monster:
2011 December 22, BOBKATT, “Ron Paul 2012”, NorthEastShooters.com:
I'm not one of those fools who thinks anything is going to be better if we have Romney or Gingrich. We've already had 3 terms of Newt W. Obamney and I'm not fooled into believing that anyone of the Patriot-Act supporting, big government, socialist tyrants, in the establishment is any different than the next.
I guess some people would rather regard all their political opponents as a single enemy, rather than recognize any differences between them. ~ Robin 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)