BTW, we archive all outlinks from all Wikipedia articles from all Wikipedia sites, in near-real-time... so that we are able to fix them if/when they break. We have rescued more than 10 million so far from more than 30 Wikipedia sites. We are now working to have Wayback Machine URLs added IN ADDITION to Live Web links when any new outlinks are added... so that those references are "born archived" and inherently persistent.
Note, I manage the Wayback Machine team at the Internet Archive. We appreciate all your support, advice, suggestions and requests.
Anyway, the fix should work even with plain HTML. I'm sure there are a bunch of corner cases and security issues involved..
Well as mentioned by others, there is a browser extension. It's interesting to read the issues people have with it:
Citation needed? Eg something like http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=http://haskell.cs.... produces lines of the form:
edu,yale,cs,haskell)/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/haskell-report-1.2.pdf 20170628055823 http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/haskell-report-1.2.pdf warc/revisit - WVI3426JEX42SRMSYNK74V2B7IEIYHAS 563
Oh, sorry, I don't think the WM supports this today. I only meant that it could support it "trivially" (I put that in quotes since I don't know how WM is implemented. But in theory it would be easy to hash all their content and add an endpoint that maps from hashes to URLs).
My point was that you could add an addressing system that is both independent of the Wayback Machine, but which you could still (theoretically) use with it. But you'd have to add the facility to the WM.
Not for the sole reason that it leaves some control to the content owner while ultimately leaving the choice to the user, but also because things like updates and erratums (eg. retracted papers) can't be found in archives. When you have both, it's the best of both world: you have the original version, the updated version, and you can somehow have the diff between them. IMHO, this is especially relevant in when the purpose is reference.
Link rot isn't the only reason why one would want an archive link instead of original. Not that I'd want to overwhelm the internet archive's resources.
Replace https://example.com from the URL above.
I try to respect the cost of archiving, by not saving to often the same page.
It might be an interesting use-case for you to check out, i.e. keep an eye of those rarely used legal sublinks for smaller companies.
How do you think about it?