Talk:ALIWEB

Archived sections

Talk page sections moved to Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1:

• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Article
• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Cleanup
• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Employee
• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Links
• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Misinformation - Hidden Agenda - Going Backwards
• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Was vs is
• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Sources still need checking against WP RS
• Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#COIN has exhaustive diffs of aliweb.com socks' disruptive and tendentious editing.
  • The Aliweb (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] section on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard has been archived on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1.

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)]

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.

promotional site - more of the same old arguments that don't hold any water. Smoke and mirrors. aliweb 08:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Or it might be that the person doing the research (or lack thereof) didn't simply type aliweb.com into a browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliweb (talk • contribs) 08:33, 18 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.

→ Article created 07:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC) (diff) by 64.253.96.252 (talk) (contribs)
→ "Believing that an article has an owner ... is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia." (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles)
      (Factoid & pertinent reference contributed by Athænara ✉ 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

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. That fact has nothing at all to do with the legitimacy of 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 (the so called conflicted of interest one).

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)

The article was started and still is about "aliweb". Not a historicl Aliweb or a new Aliweb or one in another dimension. The attempts to discredit aliweb.com without any facts whatsoever (again I suggest you do some research instead of laborously spending time figureing out one way or another to discredit aliweb.com) Again, it doesn't pass the smell test aliweb 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of disruptive editing

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

(Excerpt from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing provided by Athænara ✉ 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Clarification

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article.

This includes promotion of oneself or other individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for, and their products, as well as suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors.

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
2. avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality
3. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
4. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

(Excerpt from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest provided by Athænara ✉ 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Advertisers

"What about advertisers?"

There are basically three forms: adding excessive external links to one's company, outright replacing of legitimate articles with advertising, and writing glowing articles on one's own company.

The first and second forms are treated as pure vandalism and the articles are reverted. Most Wikipedians loathe spam, and spammers are dealt with especially severely.

The third form is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view or by deleting the article.

(Excerpt from Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Advertisers contributed by Athænara ✉ 04:14, 19 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)

The service is available at aliweb.com aliweb 08:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Aliweb is listed in a number of acronym databases on the web. I really don't have a preference as to whether it is capitolized or not - only that the captiolization or lack thereof is proper. Also a seperate section noting the use of it as an acronym might be a more structured and informative way of doing it with seperate references amd only having it with capitols in that small section. aliweb 08:24, 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)

Removal of correctly-sourced information is vandalism, per WP:COI/N

Per this comment by User:MER-C at the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, if well-sourced information is removed from an article, it is appropriate to revert it and then leave the vandal warning {{test1a}}. The recent removal of a reference by User:203.94.240.90, with no edit summary or discussion on Talk, appears to fit this criterion. However this particular removal appears to be just nutty vandalism rather than POV vandalism. I had already left a conventional vandal warning. EdJohnston 18:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)