It was completely counter-productive too, several orders of magnitude more people learned about the blog post via the DDOS controversy than ever would have without it. And plants a seed of doubt that anything they archive could have been silently modified to satisfy a personal grievance.
Vs
One has paywall, one doesn't...
Sorry man, people will keep DDoSing some random guy's blog. It's a service problem lol
But despite this I feel like what he did was very counterproductive to this goal. If he did nothing, people would just forget about it. Wikipedia would still use his service because they don't want to deal with copyright.
Besides if western intelligence really wants to find this guy, they could probably do it without the journalist's help.
Like if a very infamous site, KiwiFarms can have their own archiving engine, why cant multimillion dollar site like Wikipedia can't? He's absolutely correct that Wikipedia is a freeloader that doesnt want to deal with copyright.
However, I'm not sure if the archive guy is paying it out of his own pocket. It's a massive ad-free site servicing tons of requests everyday, and it has a very impressive technical abilities.
That has to be quite expensive, like he must've some seriously rich sponsors. And his sponsors might be okay with Wikipedia using the site, but this is all just my guess lol.
In the end, it's also perfectly valid for him to refuse servicing Wikipedia: it's his site.