Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

There are 98 posts on Stack Overflow that link to

The domain is now dead, our work on the wmd editor lives at

During work on my link validation stuff I found it quite easily to remap most of the links that were broken in tons of places, but feel this is particularly tricky.

What should we do here?

share|improve this question
There are apparently 99 now! – Ernest Friedman-Hill Jun 7 '12 at 2:51
ahh I probably reviewed one ... – waffles Jun 7 '12 at 2:51
@jmort253 I am saying there is a broken link in 99 places and would like to know what we should do about it, I have the ability to do a batch remap if the community sees fit – waffles Jun 7 '12 at 2:53
Seems like a slam dunk to me, that you'd want to do it. Can you explain why it's not so cut and dried? – Ernest Friedman-Hill Jun 7 '12 at 2:55
@ErnestFriedman-Hill our work is a reverse engineered version of the original. Also, we are in a position of power here and do not want to abuse it. – waffles Jun 7 '12 at 3:09
Point 'em to this meta post then... – Shog9 Jun 7 '12 at 3:12

It seems that the original WMD project is still accessible under, all links (including the download link) are dead however. So it might be better to change the links into instead - it's still obvious that the link goes to a dead project but at least that page has more information and the download works.

I don't think that pointing the links to a different project is justified, even if it is equivalent. If I were reviewing an edit like that I would likely consider it a radical change:

This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.

Edit: In the light of the answer by Sha Dow Wiz Ard, a more differentiated approach might be a better idea. When I look at the posts mentioning WMD editor I see the following types:

  • Questions about issues with the WMD editor: Here the link here should definitely be changed into a Web Archive link, these questions have no relation to the fork. Further, maybe these questions need to be closed ("unlikely to help future visitors").
  • Answers mentioning WMD as the editor used by Stack Overflow: These can be updated with a link to PageDown, that's what Stack Overflow is using now.
  • Answers recommending several editors: Removing the part about WMD sounds like the best solution given that the project is dead and its downloads unavailable. Alternatively one could remove the link and add a note:

    (Update: this project is dead and no longer an option)

share|improve this answer

I can't see any point linking to a dead project.

It still should be clear somehow what was the project used at the time so my suggestion is leaving the text, remove the link to the dead site and instead add explanation about the new project.

Example might make my idea more clear.. instead of such thing:

Stackoverflow uses WMD Editor

We can have this:

Stackoverflow uses WMD Editor (Now dead, see pagedown Editor instead)

share|improve this answer
Actually, Stack Overflow uses the pagedown editor now - so linking to it when the answer is talking about Stack Overflow makes sense (it just updates the information). Most answers give recommendations however and changing a recommendation for one solution into a recommendation for another changes the intent of the answer too much IMHO, even if the former is abandoned. – Wladimir Palant Jun 7 '12 at 12:15
I get what you say but still.. link to dead website or some ghost image of it sounds just wrong. – Shadow Wizard Jun 7 '12 at 12:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .