Change all uses of "durably archived" to "archived". ("Durably" is redundant, because an archive isn't much of an archive if it isn't durable.)
Change the one use of "permanently recorded" to "archived", for consistency.
Replace the paragraph under the bullets at WT:ATTEST with a new subsection, "Archived", to read as follows:
Sources that are cited to fulfill the attestation requirement must be accessible to future readers. For Internet sources, this means that the source in question must be archived; for the Web in particular, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine is recommended. Internet sources are not required to be formally published, because informal language is within the remit of Wiktionary. Do not quote other Wikimedia sites (such as Wikipedia),[6][7] but you may use quotations found on them (such as quotations from books available on Wikisource).
Acceptable non-Internet sources include published print media, such as books and magazines, and recorded audio or video. When copies of these materials are legally available on the Internet, they should be linked to in the citation. Citations to books should include the ISBN.
A Wiktionary editor must not cite their own utterances.
Support. Our current CFI is far too restrictive when it comes to slang and new usage. There are senses of words I've had a lot of trouble citing because they are dwarfed in the Google Books results by the more common or older senses of the word, but are easily found in other places online. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support(weak). Though this proposal removes the redundant word ‘durably’ from ‘durably archived’, which is welcome, it still doesn’t change the fact that archived links are required. This means that things such as YouTube and Twitter are still banned, even though I think we should be allowed to link to them. There wouldn’t be as many problems if people didn’t challenge senses just because they haven’t personally heard of them, don’t like them, the links have died, they link to non-archived sites or they’re mentions not usages. People should only challenge if they ACTUALLY doubt a sense exists. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This means that things such as YouTube and Twitter are still banned" — I don't follow. You can archive tweets and YouTube videos on the Internet Archive just as well as other web pages and their contents. —Kodiologist (t) 12:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think this is the perfect solution, but we need to do something as the current rules are becoming unworkable. If we make this change, and we start seeing abuse, we can change things to target the type of abuse we are seeing. At the very least, I would like to see online magazines count. Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Kiwima and per DTLHS, but I do share the concerns of the opposers. By the way, does someone keep track of words which have failed RFV but which are not nonsense and would definitely be included here were it not for the durability issue? Maybe it would help to see which words that would actually deserve entries our current criteria force us to miss out on. We would have something to work from. PUC – 12:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for the same reasons as Kiwima. I'd prefer a better and more thorough way of dealing with the problem of CFI being exclusive of most types of online sources, but, alas, I think any change right now is better than none as CFI is in quite dire need of change, as language use is switching more than ever to the Internet specifically and dipping away from printed publications, and the old-timey Usenet... PseudoSkull (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WordyandNerdy said it best on the talk-page: "There needs to be clear and firm guidance on what constitutes a reliable source. An anything-goes approach would be an absolute disaster. It would make it easy for anyone to game protologisms or jokes into mainspace, or to fill entries with quotations that serve no purpose but self-promotion or the dissemination of fringe material." We need reform, but it has to be smart reform. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds23:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The current criteria are badly in need of revision, but the new proposal is by far too permissive. A better idea might be: 1) at least seven separate uses 2) across at least three of the largest public social media sites in the language 3) over a period of at least two years, with the majority of the uses not being from within a period of three months. This would allow for inclusion of most popular Internet slang while excluding terms limited to minuscule communities or short-lived neologisms, and limiting the possibility of gaming the site.--Tibidibi (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be adverse to some stricter criteria along such lines, but would add that for verifiability, only public social media sites that have posts which are readily searchable and can be linked to individually, and which are unlikely to close down in the near future should be allowed. This would exclude Snapchat and its ephemeral posts, and perhaps even Facebook – it seems really difficult to find past posts on this site (correct me if I’m wrong). — SGconlaw (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Meta (i.e. oppose per myself). I've long advocated for an overhaul of CFI's "durably-archived" standard. This is a noble attempt at moving Wiktionary into the Digital Age. But the way it is currently constructed presents a fatal flaw. This is very much a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater situation for me. The need to safeguard entries from the detriments of low-quality citations is a more pressing concern for me than the much-needed benefits this proposal would offer. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weakly. On the one hand, we should interpret our policies with "common sense and discretion." So some of the concerns raised above may not be so problematic. Then again, if we're writing the policies de novo, we might as well aim for clarity and precision. So I oppose per Metaknowledge, Tibidibi, and WordyAndNerdy. Imetsia (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to Oppose this for the reasons that I have mentioned on the discussion page and elsewhere previously. In my opinion the current wording of this section is not satisfactory, but if we are to change it then I would like to see stronger safeguards to prevent people being able to add crap because three hits exist in Google search. Mihia (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A further reason for my opposition to this particular wording, which I will mention again here for the record, is the demotion of books to secondary mention as "acceptable non-Internet sources". IMO the wording should mention traditional media first and then go on to deal with Internet-only sources. Mihia (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version per Wordy and per Meta. I have come around towards the idea of allowing (archive-backed-up) news articles and other things that are subject to enough editorial oversight that we wouldn't be flooded with Brazilian aardvark hoaxes. Perhaps with a higher required number of citations and/or possibly a higher required timespan (than the current "spanning one year"), even allowing archived tweets and random websites could work (meaning, not result in a flood of hoax words and crap like highschoolers using ashleyvaughnesque to mean "extremely fugly and retarded" in a handful of tweets to get a bullying dig at a classmate into the dictionary), but I'm more sceptical of that. - -sche(discuss)21:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I feel we need to limit the types of websites that would be permitted to be used. I would not object to well-established online-only news websites like BuzzFeed and Vice being referred to (and archived using the Internet Archive), but I'm doubtful about whether it is advisable to permit personal blogs from Tom, Dick and Mary. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I don't know if this is the best solution, but for goodness sake let's come up with some solution. I feel battered by editors on one side who prefer sources easily accessible online, and editors on the other side who insist that most of the World Wide Web (and all of social media) are out of scope. Recommending Internet Archive and cautioning against Wikimedia seem perfectly reasonable to me. Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I feel like we need to do some experimentation with this. Maybe for a period of a year, without anything being quite so set in stone as this vote would imply. DTLHS (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: At present I am using only tangible sources for quotations, publications in my possession, stuff which probably hasn't found its way into Internet pages. I have used Google Books in the past, but would never use social media for quotations, whichever source it is. I have no social media accounts myself. On the point "A Wiktionary editor must not cite their own utterances.", editors should only include these as usexes. DonnanZ (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-09/New standard for archived quotations
Support. Our current CFI is far too restrictive when it comes to slang and new usage. There are senses of words I've had a lot of trouble citing because they are dwarfed in the Google Books results by the more common or older senses of the word, but are easily found in other places online. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. WordyandNerdy said it best on the talk-page: "There needs to be clear and firm guidance on what constitutes a reliable source. An anything-goes approach would be an absolute disaster. It would make it easy for anyone to game protologisms or jokes into mainspace, or to fill entries with quotations that serve no purpose but self-promotion or the dissemination of fringe material." We need reform, but it has to be smart reform. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Abstain I don't know if this is the best solution, but for goodness sake let's come up with some solution. I feel battered by editors on one side who prefer sources easily accessible online, and editors on the other side who insist that most of the World Wide Web (and all of social media) are out of scope. Recommending Internet Archive and cautioning against Wikimedia seem perfectly reasonable to me. Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)