At least plain URLs can be manually passed to the internet archive for a lookup, but I'd love if publishers/authors made a habit of maintaining their source links (via shortlinks, published errata, etc).
That said, even with how easy it is to update, Wikipedia suffers from this immensely. I can't count how many times I've tried to track back a source from a wiki and end up with a 404.
Furthermore, archivist is a full blown profession with its own professional society. I’m sure IA will always be able to hire people who are serious about preserving and cataloguing information.
I wouldn't be shocked if, if IA is around in a few decades, they start expanding into educational partnerships to ensure the vision continues. Or institute fellowships. Or they may just inspire more people; IA's work was one of the things that convinced me to pursue an MLIS (as a girl, I was discouraged at the time from CS). Or we'll start seeing more degree specializations that mesh the two, like HCI concentrations.
Yes, that's really frustrating. I often have the situation where I click on a reference for a claimed fact and get redirected to the front page of a news website.
Has the added advantage that anyone who goes to the link sees exactly what you saw when you linked to it, with no modifications.
1. Archive.org follows robots.txt rules - also used to remove content on request from owners (not sure if still do but I suppose they do) making it less sure than webcitation.
2. webcitation could also provide other services like - export citations for book or collections of books into one book of citations.
3. Similar citations tracking stuff that you can get on google scholare, how many other publications were citing this text or part of this website.
on edit: obviously this is if webcitation or a similar service was still a going concern, pragmatically yes archive.org is better because functioning and taking new content to archive.
The most egregious cases is when the author references their own web content!