This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Digital Preservation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of digital preservation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Digital PreservationWikipedia:WikiProject Digital PreservationTemplate:WikiProject Digital PreservationDigital Preservation articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article is so flawed I'm not sure it's salvageable. Fundamentally, we have a mishmash of cherry picked events that constitutes WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Secondarily, the sourcing is less than ideal -- for instance, a tumblr blog (ref 1), a patent (6), corporate blogs (52) founder interviews (31) and corporate first-person reminiscences (26), a wiki (75, 76), and other things that reflect methods that either were hurried, uninformed, or otherwise at odds with good article construction. SEO questions have also arisen at WP:COIN which are substantiated by source 70 from 4 February 2015, self-described as "a professional review site that receives compensation from the companies whose products we review". - Bri.public (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have just found this page today. I echo most of the concerns of the user above. In good faith, however, can the article be rescued at all? Is there a process for agreeing a timeline that is helpful? Or is it simply always going to be subjective? Also, as a practitioner in the field, I agree the events are somewhat "cherry-picked". More critically, events such as URL shortening are plain and simply wrong here - a URL shortener for example is damaging to the record of the web, obfuscating links, and with the ability to disappear over time. It would be more appropriate in a timeline of events with a negative impact on digital preservation. More than happy to help folk work on a revision of this piece, otherwise, I imagine this page should be proposed for deletion. The fact the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation article itself doesn't link here seems somewhat symbolic. What do people think? Beet keeper (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
