Thread:Dizzycomputer/@comment-3182821-20200427212843/@comment-3182821-20200428114847

Yes, we definitely do need to address the mis-naming, and it is interesting to find this old site. However, a 20-year old LONG defunct webste full of glaring errors, when labelled "Official Site", is lent an air of authority which is not supported by the evidence. It's an interesting foot-note rather than a primary source. Also, "Wayback Machine" annoyingly runs really poorly for me, more often than not it fails to show any results. And I doubt I am alone in that, so as a reference it is of limited use for people to check up and follow the link. That means our writing needs to be more informative - perhaps rather than mentioning "Official website" we should use something like "long defunct website Catsvideo.com(ref link to wayback machine, 2000 results)"

Also, it is of passing interest that the Wayback Machine only has results for the year 2000, not 1998 or 1999. It undermines the suggestion that information there could not have been influenced by fansites, as while we didn't have google, I certainly had my first fansite by 2000 and I was not an early adopter.

In general it is frustrating how RUG do not consider their websites to be informative authorities, but rather transient advertising. They seem to have a policy of clearing out everything and rebuilding from scratch every few years, rather than maintaining an updated accurate archive. They will temporarily have all sorts of useful information, but then delete it all! This is why I have been in the habit of copying articles, interviews, etc, into this wiki and crediting as fully as possible rather than just linking to an external source, that external source could disappear any time.