Talk:ALIWEB

Deleted comment

Restoring a deleted comment

Hello, Aliweb article editors!

For your reading pleasure, I am restoring my 25 November comment to the Talk page, which was just deleted by an anonymous contributor. Something could be in the air, because User:Aliweb deleted a similar comment of mine over at Talk:List of search engines, leaving the history comment 'Misinformation deleted'.

Dear User Aliweb, please be patient with us and explain the nature of the misinformation so that it can be corrected. And don't delete other people's comments from article Talk pages, it can get you in trouble. It will also help us if you sign your comments using four tildes, like ~~~~, which makes it easier to follow discussions. You may also want to check WP:COI which cautions users about editing articles about their own businesses. See my closing comment below (after the restored item) which invites your response.

Aliweb no longer seems to be a bona fide search engine

When I type 'wikipedia' or 'google' into the search box at www.aliweb.com, it can't find either one!

Also the links one can find on the web that seem to associate Aliweb with the Nexor Co. in the UK are not working at this time. (web.nexor.co.uk is not operational). It seems possible that Aliweb might have sold their domain to an American company called Advertising Technologies Corporation, based in Lexington, Kentucky. The relevance of www.aliweb.com to Wikipedia's article on the original Aliweb project now seems questionable.

The situation appears to justify Bill Slawski's earlier comment (above):

I've done a little cleanup of this stub, including removing the link to aliweb.com, which is not related to the original ALIWEB in any way other than by name.Bill Slawski 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

(End of restored comment)

Your replies to my observations are invited. Does anyone have any data that suggests that www.aliweb.com is a bona fide search engine, that in any way reflects the original Archie developments of the early '90's? Please provide reliable sources, if any are available, per WP:RS. If there is no way of backing up the claims made in the article, I think that the WP:SPAM guidelines may apply to http://www.aliweb.com, since at first glance it seems that the only search results it returns are paid placements. EdJohnston 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page history

→ Details of the deletion itself:

• 25 November 2006 19:12 (UTC) (diff) EdJohnston posted the message which he restored above.
• 14 December 2006 09:21 (UTC) (diff) 74.140.187.28 deleted EdJohnston's post.

• 14 December 2006 09:40 (UTC) (diff) 74.140.187.28 posted (with "Bit of sarcasm added to offset deleted misinformation" edit summary) the following:

"I guess the database needs to be updated to so when you type wikipedia or google in the search box you will find wikipedia or google in the search results. Also the outdated link to nexor needs to be updated to nexor.com / Anything else need to be fixed? Let me know. aliweb@aliweb.com"   (Emphasis added.)

• 14 December 2006 17:54 (UTC) (diff) 74.140.187.28 deleted (with "minor edit" edit summary) own post.

→ Comment: The early history (May 2004 - July 2005) of Aliweb shows a variety of editors slowly building a small and increasingly encyclopedic article. In August 2005 the first of several apparently associated anonymous IPs began to step in. 74.140.187.28 is only one of them. The list (so far):

12.203.102.190 (talk) (contribs) 11 August 2005

12.202.236.138 (talk) (contribs) 25 November 2005

12.202.236.233 (talk) (contribs) 6 December 2005, 20 April 2006

74.131.81.181 (talk) (contribs) 27 May 2006 - 24 September 2006

User:Aliweb (talk) (contribs) 13 June 2006 - 6 January 2007

74.140.187.28 (talk) (contribs) 20 November 2006 - 2 January 2007

→ [Retrieved and contributed by Athænara ✉ 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)]

was/is

I am open to correction here, but why the consistent and insistent use of "is" rather than "was" in the first sentence? The statement refers to a point in time in the past, hence my preference for the use of "was", which is the past tense. Using "is" is unnatural in this instance and, as stated in the comments of one of my earlier edits, the use of "was" is not some sort of statement about the current incarnation of Aliweb or some sort of statement that they "lost" first place. (After all, if you were the first, you are were still the first.) I am neither involved in, interested in, or knowledgeable on the subject of the current Aliweb's connection to the original Aliweb. My beef is with grammar. For example, you can refer to a team in some sort of ongoing tournament or competition saying, "Team A is in first place." If you are referring to the same point in time in last year's competition, you would say, "Team A was in first place." The "competition" to be the first search engine is in the past. Get it? Craig (t|c) 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

the user named Aliweb changed my edits, but with no proof or sources showing that it is actually the first search engine... I am new so I will leave it to others to look into this, but I feel its a bit odd. CrazyRob926 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)(talk • contribs).

Since we are discussing a major internet event as the supposed FIRST web search engine i feel there should be more the one source, especially when the current source has HIGH potential to profit from the claim. CrazyRob926 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC) • contribs). 28 December 2006.

This is completely idiotic. It is a known fact that Aliweb was the first search engine. Can't anyone find anything else relevant to add to the article other than discredit the fact that it is the first search engine (and then not back that claim up with any facts - like name just one search engine that is older). It doesn't matter if I profit from the claim or go to the poor house. Its not a "claim" its a widely known, accepted, and rarely disputed fact. Nothing I do is going to change history no more than I can make the world flat or make the sun orbit the earth.

Next thing we'll be debating is whether Al Gore invented the Internet. Give it a rest. Add something to the article or just leave it alone. Its a waste of time. aliweb 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:V, the person who wants to include a controversial statement in an article needs to provide a reference. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If you're not able to provide a reference, the statement should be removed. EdJohnston 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" . . . that's the key isn't it? So, if Aliweb was not the web's first search engine then provide some proof of what was the web's first search engine . . . there isnt' anything controversial about it. Its a known fact. You can spend about 2 minutes on any search engine that tries to index the entire web and figure this out. The next person who changes the article please at least have some fact/research/clue before changing it. Its as if this article is posted and checked hourly by the powers that be and as soon as it is fixed a new name pops up to change it. Again, nothing substantive has been added to the article. Nothing new. There are numerous references on the Internet about this search engine. I have a verifiable reference of November 1993 that also aludes to an earlier announcement (hint hint). Anyone care to actually do some research? aliweb 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And further . . . how do you know then it is "one of the first". Maybe it was the 100th. Perhaps the 1000th. Quantify "one of the first". So first 3? first 5? So I guess delete all that - its a "non bonafide" search engine. If you spent as much time actually doing some research instead of changing the article and citing whatever references -- now its the "its a controversial statement" argument -- to use as an excuse to vandalize the information perhaps the article would be longer than the discussion over this trivial and universally accepted fact. The only controversy about this has been generated by you. aliweb 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So tomarrow I'll come here and it will again be "one of the first" instead of "the first" and there will not be one shred of evidence to the contrary given and we'll go back and forth as long as it takes for you to get tired or to finally get some energy to do some research. Unless -- again -- there is some "hidden agenda" as to why it is more important to discredit the fact than to do research to either confirm or discredit the fact. aliweb 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I spent the 20 or so minutes doing the research that nobody wanted to bother with. So this should put this "controversial" argument to rest. aliweb 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

None of the above hot air addresses the topic of this section, that being the tense used in the opening sentence. I have fixed it again until Aliweb's roving censor addresses the topic. --Craig (t|c) 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Aliweb has improved the sources. Still need checking against WP:RS

Although I still doubt that a user having the same name as a company should be editing an article about the company, due to our conflict of interest rules WP:COI, I don't object to the goal of improving the sources. (Though these changes were incorrectly marked as being a minor edit). The new sources are indeed better, though they are all from web forums or blogs. I think that Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ is a good place to look when deciding if web sources are reliable. Other editors who are still following this article may want to look at that file, and study the new references. I'm not sure yet, but may look at the issue further. EdJohnston 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia expert. This is the first article, and the only article that I have submitted or edited (and through this experience I certainly won't be contributing or starting any new articles - this is just excruciatingly painful and a waste of time). I thought that this information would add to the body of information that is already here and I was a bit surprised that this subject matter had not been covered extensively and that it had not been even mentioned. I didn't start or contribute to this article for advertising purposes - and my prior comments show that actually its contridictory to that goal. This is important subject matter as to how the web developed and I am only interested in presenting facts here no matter who does the contributing/editing.

I simply copied the format of the previous reference which I did not submit (I didn't know how to do them). Many of the minor edits happen to be from formatting problems. I'm sure at some time I can find some actual physical in print references as I know I have seen them in the past. However, I believe the references I have provided are genuine and accurate. As I have stated earlier the existance of and the fact Aliweb is the first search engine for the web is widely known and I've never heard of it disputed except here. That's why my surpise at this whole discussion. I thought by now we would be discussing some sort of fine detail of some fact instead of debating something that with a few minutes research is so obvious and widely known to most people who know anything about Internet search engines.

It would be nice to see some actual contributions to the article instead of this debate going on forever. aliweb 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What about in June 1993 Matthew Gray introduced the World Wide Web Wanderer, which was introduced 3 months before aliweb? check http://www.search-marketing.info/search-engine-history/ CrazyRob926 13:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't searchable - it was designed to measure the growth of the web. However, it was the first "spider" that I know of. aliweb 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way Aliweb, there is always a debate on the first "anything in the world" as far as i have seen in generalCrazyRob926 13:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the above comments to improve indentation. Thanks to everyone for the improved tone of the discussion. EdJohnston 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Web site http://www.aliweb.com has no documented connection to the original Aliweb

That's like saying Google has no documented connection with the original Google. Does it need one? Hello? Can a company or a program be bought and sold, given and taken, deals made, things transfered? Its still the original with upgrades. Stupid argument. The link is back. aliweb 08:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the exernal link to www.aliweb.com be removed from the article, as not germane. None of the supplied references even mentions www.aliweb.com, a site operated by Advertising Technologies Corporation. There is no reference to Advertising Technologies Corporation in the article. Two web sites mentioned in the references as containing Aliweb information are http://web.nexor.co.uk/aliweb/doc/aliweb.html, and http://aliweb.emnet.co.uk, but neither of these web sites exists any more. A quick look at www.aliweb.com suggests it's a promotional site.

The 2002 blog posting at searchenginewatch.com, one of the article's references, asserts "...Aliweb no longer functions as a search service.." That would imply there is nowhere you can go on the web to perform an Aliweb search. If true that would appear to exclude www.aliweb.com. The latter's search capability, while feeble (since it can't find Google) is nowhere explained or documented as having any connection to Aliweb. EdJohnston 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Martijn Koster explicitly repudiated the site on his Historical Web Services:

"Note that I have nothing to do with aliweb.com. It appears some marketing company has taken the old aliweb code and data, and are using it as a site for advertising purposes. Their search results are worthless. Their claim to have trademarked "aliweb" I have been unable to confirm in patent searches. My recommendation is that you avoid them."

The many disservices which the aliweb.com partisans have visited upon what originally began as, and should again become, a small encyclopedic article of historical interest about the early web browser ALIWEB, have included the removal of excerpts from this quote and the removal of the link to Martijn Koster's website. Athænara ✉ 05:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I started this article. It was about aliweb. Not about a historical aliweb exclusively or a current aliweb. It was about aliweb. All inclusive. The good, the bad, everything. Just the facts please.

As I have said in the past, I don't mind the reference to Mr. Koster's website - but to escalate this quote to such prominance in the article just futher emphasizes that the goal here of discrediting the aliweb.com website and developers. Is every opinion that someone writes negative or positive going to be included in every article on wikipedia? Is this suddenly about critics and not facts? The aliweb.com website doesn't reference Mr. Koster at all, positively or negatively. It is true he has nothing to do with the current aliweb.com. The rest is assumptions/opinions. Here's a quote for you - the current Aliweb developer says the current aliweb.com site is just wonderful. The quote is true - I just typed it - but it has no place in the article. In fact, I would personally delete that too.

You guys will stoop to any level - unbelievable. This article has to be watched EVERY hour of EVERY day for vandalism and negative non-factual and non-researched postings. If you can't discredit aliweb.com one way, you'll find another.

This article was started about one aliweb. The same one that has been around since the beginning of the web. The exact same one. Think people - where did aliweb.com get their database from? How was it compiled? They just get it out of the air somewhere? Of course not. Do some research. I've already pointed you in the right direction. Prove that you don't have a conflict of interest. Actually do some real research on the subject. These posts are so blatently negative and biased against the aliweb.com website that they don't pass the smell test. aliweb 08:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I have posted on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about the six aliweb.com-partisan IPs which have disrupted editing here for more than a year. As per standard procedure on that notice board, the section heading there is "Aliweb (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]" which seems impossible to format in a direct link to the section. It will not be difficult to find, though. Athænara ✉ 05:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This diff [1] will hopefully lead other editors to the information. EdJohnston 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If my post on the WP:COI Noticeboard was not clear enough about the key facts,

(1) the Aliweb article is about the historic ALIWEB browser

(2) the disruptive socks are pushing the very site the original ALIWEB developer repudiates

then, please, consider a concise post there yourself! —Æ. ✉ 08:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

Athaenara, thanks for your recent improvement in the article, and the restoration of Martijn Koster's comments! With regard to capitalization of Aliweb, note that it is not an acronym (so far as we know), and thus WP:MOSCL#All_caps encourages us to avoid the use of all caps. Also, since Aliweb is not a currently-working search engine (the service is not available anywhere, according to the blog posting by Chris Sherman in the reference list), I don't think it is necessary to link to List of search engines. EdJohnston 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation, feh, that was probably part of an allergic reaction to the lower-case website-pushing socks and, no, the article doesn't need to be moved merely to accomodate the all-caps version of the name as it appears in key publications.

I don't think linking the list is strictly necessary, either, but I do think it is useful for readers that it's there when they're exploring related subjects. Such an inclusion in a "See also" section does not endorse or define aliweb as an active search engine. Athænara ✉ 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)