Talk:ALIWEB/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article

The information on this page disagrees with info on the page 'search engine' - which page is correct ? tommylommykins 14:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Aliweb searched for idx files and those files could be changed by their owners. It did not spider html pages but did spider idx files but only after owners notified Aliweb of their presence. It was a very unintrusive way of gathering information compared to wandex which it was an answer to as wandex killed bandwidth on servers and did so without permission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.202.236.233 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

Cleanup

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)

Aliweb.com is very related to the original Aliweb. It has the update of the original database and still uses the same code as was used originally with some fixes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.131.81.181 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC).

Restored article to edit before Bill Slawski changed it back to the wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.81.181 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am currently the lead programmer working on Aliweb - and I have edited some of the current article. I would appreciate Mr. Slawski not deleting any more sections from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliweb (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as anyone can tell, you are an anonymous user of wikipedia. You don't need to sign in to make edits here, but they are prone to being edited. Perhaps some citations that can be referenced to back your statements would be helpful. The only statement that I see about ALIWEB is on the original developer's site which says that the present day pages are unrelated to the original site. As it stands now, this entry in the wikipedia is promotional rather than informational. Help it become something that won't be edited away. Bill Slawski 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Employee

I really can't understand this logic. If I work for Aliweb then it should follow that I know a little about the subject. Can you point to anything that is NOT factual about the current article? Further - since the current site states it is the web's first search engine, and gives the date that it first started in the title, and has the same name, I think it would be quite obvious that the original Aliweb, and the current Aliweb are one in the same and of course have something more than just the name in common. Obviously Mr. Koster is no longer involved with the Aliweb project, and his personal web page is not very complimentary of the current web site or owners. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. I have no animosity towards Mr. Koster and have not deleted nor intend to delete any of the references to him or his achievements as they relate to Aliweb. His contributions to the web speak for themselves.

As for being promotional, nothing stated is not factual to my knowledge. It just seems rather odd to delete a url to a page that states to have substantial ties to the subject matter, I state otherwise and then when you are corrected, to then delete the url again. I would suspect that at least a negative disparaging factual statement that aliweb.com with a link is not related to the original aliweb would be in order if you believe that the current site is not related and certainly would be more accurate than simply deleting it entirely.

The bottom line is I am the lead programmer for Aliweb, and I have done extensive research into the history of Aliweb. I know this subject, backwards, forwards, inside out. So please, please, unless you have a real factual inaccurate mistake to fix or something factual to add to the article, stop deleting my additions to it (I'll just repost them anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliweb (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (diff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliweb (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue with you. Make it easy for people to verify your statements, who your are, etc. Use some citations, create a user name, expand upon some of that history here that you know so well.Bill Slawski 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Links

Alksub - What exactly is the point of deleting the links to Aliweb throughout the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.81.181 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to link over and over again to the same site. One link in the most appropriate place in the text is the normal Wikipedia practice. In this case the most appropriate place seems to be the paragraph about the current site. I also agree with Bill that citations are required. --Genie 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

These constant negative and inaccurate edits are getting very old. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliweb (talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation - Hidden Agenda - Going Backwards

"Aliweb no longer seems to be a bona fide search engine" -- exactly what is a "bona fide search engine"? Apparently if you can type in a search box the word "wikipedia" and get wikipedia.org or type in "google" and get google.com then it is officially "bona fide" and a search engine.

These facts are self evident to anyone who has been involved with the internet and world wide web for any length of time:

1. Aliweb is the web's first search engine. It's in the text books. (what text books??? -- do some research and figure it out!) 2. Aliweb.com uses the same code (with some corrections due to the size of the database growing beyond what was orignally anticipated) as the aliweb seach service used originally and on a number of mirror sitss all over the internet. 3. Nexor no longer does anything with Aliweb because the lead programmer went somewhere else and the owners of Aliweb.com took over - thus the link for nexor's old aliweb service to aliweb.com when you search for the old site (which by the way was not aliweb.com - ".com" addresses at this time 1993 wasn't such a big deal) Obviously Nexor does other things (military messaging services) than advertising agencie services which is the major component of revenue for companies that run internet search engines.

So of course when I see comments such as Ed's or Bill's stating very negative things and giving unreasonable or untrue reasons that the article should be deleted or untrue facts be stated or that the facts as stated which are quite basic and widely known are incorrect and need to be changed -- I am very suspicious that there is some other agenda going on here by perhaps people that don't have the best interests of simply writing an article of facts that people can rely on as truth.

NONE of the results from the aliweb are paid advertising. The banners are largely from the parent company or affiliated companies. The link list has no paid entries. Basically it is largely as it was in the beginning except with an added link list that took about a year of research to get the format correct.

I don't think that the article as it is written is an advertisement for aliweb.com. It states clearly and correctly that the search results and the link list are outdated (thus the fact that google and wikipedia as well as many other existing websites do not appear in the results). I'm sure that would make lots of people want to click immediatly and see and use the service. As I have stated before, the original programmer has stated some negative things on his website, and he is entitled to his opinion which I do not agree with - but his contributions to the web are substantial and he deserves credit for those accomplishments (robots exclusion standard, etc.) and I have not deleted any references to him or his opinions. If this article was about advertising and putting a positive face forward, then perhaps mentioning him or his comments would not be in the Aliweb's best interest. However, this article is not supposed to be in anyone's best interest or slanted in any way other than to report the facts about the subject matter in a clear and concise way. I don't remember if I or someone else started this article, but that certainly is what I have tried to do here. Aliweb's historical significance to the web is substantial and laid the foundation for much of what followed and I believe that others can learn from that.

So if you are not with some competitor without some hidden agenda, then obviously I apologize. However, I think it would be far more helpful to try to add information that is relevant to the subject matter instead of trying to discredit the article and the information that is contained within which is obviously factual.

That's why I just deleted the information because it appeared to be more a "trolling" expedition rather than a sincere attempt to improve the article with factual and relevant information.

For instance, how about some links to the IAFA standard papers, and facts about who formulated them and whether they were accepted or not and by what organization? There is tons of information out there that IS relevant and would be factual, informative, and add greatly to this article. Where are the facts or references regarding the results being paid advertisements? Did you call the company and get rates as to how much those cost or find a web page with that information or find one person who has paid to be in those non-existant paid results? Aliweb might has sold their domain name to an american company . . . what domain name? Aliweb.com? How do you know that aliweb.com existed then? Who created it? When? Why does the site say "directory data supplied by Nexor . . ." so they could have changed their domain to a .com instead of co.uk? What is a mirror site? Why were they necessary? Instead of spouting a bunch of questions about the credibility of the article, uncover the facts and report them truthfully here. Again, I don't think your initial "observations" and comments are helpful, relevant, compelling, or necessary. They are easy and quick observations - not investigative facts.

I'm spending more time defending obvious facts than I am adding interesting facts and references to the article. aliweb 10:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)~~~~

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 vs 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)

"Subject is" meaning presently as in now. "Subject was" past tense in the past. Aliweb is the web's first and oldest search engine. Aliweb was the web's first and oldest search engine. How can it be "was"? Did the place in time change? So it was first, but now it is something else. Doesn't make sense to me. I obvioulsy want it to be proper and perhaps no one is wording this very well. Perhaps it doesnt' need "is" or "was" it needs to be reworded so that it indicates it "is" still in existence, and is the first search engine in some other way. It is written. It was written. Clinton's according to what the definition of "is" is. hmmmmaliweb 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, OK, but I don't know where someone named Clinton comes into the picture. I see that the version that pre-dates this debacle has been restored and I like that wording even better: "ALIWEB ... can be considered the first Web search engine...." Then again, I suppose it could sound a little "weasely". That said, I still stand by my assertion that using the present tense with the previous wording is simply incorrect. You are mixing up two different things in your example above, which was not the wording used. Yes (assuming the fact itself is correct), ALIWEB is the oldest search engine, but that is the same as saying ALIWEB was the first search engine. And, for the record, I did try a couple of times ([1] and [2]) to qualify the wording as you suggest, but you chose to delete my efforts. --Craig (t|c) 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

aliweb.com has no documented connection to original Aliweb

(Interjection.)   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.

(Interjection.)   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

→ WP:COI/N Aliweb section in Noticeboard Archive 1 as of 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

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 [3] 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))

COIN

→ Aliweb (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] was the original section heading on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

As originally posted 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC) on that noticeboard in re:

• 12.203.102.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) August 2005
• 12.202.236.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) November 2005
• 12.202.236.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) December 2005, April 2006
• 74.131.81.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) May 2006 through September 2006
• 74.140.187.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) November 2006 through January 2007
• Aliweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) June 2006 through January 2007

Contribs

→Contribs subsection duplicated here 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) for noticeboard brevity.

12.203.102.190 (talk) (contribs)

• One edit: (diff) Removed link to Historical Web Services where the ALIWEB developer's descriptions of web services he developed 1993-95 include this statement:

"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."   (Martijn Koster) (see below, 74.131.81.181) **

12.202.236.138 (talk) (contribs)

• One edit: (diff) Removed line, "Aliweb was not very successful as not many people submitted their sites."

This line is part of a passage found in "An Annotated Chronology of the History of Information from about 30,000 B.C.E. to the present," by Jeremy M. Norman, in From Gutenberg to the Internet: A Sourcebook on the History of Information Technology:

"Aliweb allowed users to submit their webpages and add the page description with which they wanted them to be indexed. This empowered webmasters, who could define the terms that would lead users to their pages and also avoided setting bots (as the Wanderer) which used up bandwidth. Aliweb was not very successful as not many people submitted their sites." (emphasis added; most of this passage is in the article, nearly verbatim)

→(Irony: Norman wasn't sure where he'd found it, but it turned up here - It had been added to the article in September 2005 by an anonymous contributor.) — Æ. ✉ 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

12.202.236.233 (talk) (contribs) — two edits apply (other two edits added external links to other articles)

• 1st edit: (diff) Posted (unsigned) to article talk page.
• 2nd edit: (diff) Added line to article, "Contrary to ask.com searching Aliweb was very civilized."

74.131.81.181 (talk) (contribs) 15 edits total, 12 in June 2006

• 1st edit: (diff) Removed line, "The site presently at aliweb.com is unrelated to the original ALIWEB."
• 2nd edit: (diff) Added first spam, five paragraphs beginning, "Aliweb is currently undergoing a total rewrite of the programing code and is set to relaunch in 2007 as a competitor to Goodle [sic], MSN, and Yahoo."
• 3rd edit: (diff) Removed two paragraphs, including Martijn Koster's statement (cited above)** which did not favour aliweb.com.
• 6th edit: (diff) Posted (unsigned) on article talk page.
• 7th edit: (diff) Linked aliweb.com in text.
• 8th edit: (diff) Removed line (previously restored (diff) by another editor removing spam), re-added spam.
• 10th edit: (diff) Linked aliweb.com in first word of article plus five more locations (six total). (Aliweb began editing a few minutes later—see below)
• 11th/12th edits: (diff) Posted twice (unsigned) on article talk page.

Aliweb (talk) (contribs)

• 1st edit: (diff) Linked aliweb.com twice more in text.
• 2nd, 3rd, 4th edits: (diff) Posted on article talk page, "I am currently the lead programmer working on Aliweb ..."
• Has edit warred with every other active editor. Forty-plus edits about aliweb, all to this article and its talk page except three on List of search engines and three to another editor's talk page. No edits on any other subject.

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

• 4th edit: (diff) Removed another editor's post from article talk page.
• 7th edit: (diff) Posted (unsigned) on the article talk page, with "Bit of sarcasm added to offset deleted misinformation" edit summary:

"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.)

• 8th edit: (diff) Deleted own post, with "minor edit" edit summary.

→End of duplicate Contribs subsection from COI/N post.

Noticeboard section archived

The Aliweb COI/N section is now archived in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1 (without the exhaustive diffs above which are primarily of interest to editors of the Aliweb article).

I archived it at 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC). If it stays there, I won't have to reproduce the whole 12,600+ length of it here. — Athænara ✉ 12:00, 11 February 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 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)