Welcome to wikipedia! If you haven't yet, {{welcome}} has some nice starting points for new users.
Your webcite idea is interesting, but your approach here deserves some re-thinking. Based on your username and edit history, I assume you hold close relations with a Gunther Eysenbach, the inventor of [WebCite]. If so, a close reading of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a must before further editing here at wikipedia.
Despite initial aversion, I think a service such as webcite is likely a good idea for wikipedia to seriously consider. However, a path to such a recommendation will require time and discussion in the community. This would be a major adoption for such a large body of information.
While I agree you are one of the best folks to help facilitate webcite adoption here at wikipedia, you should remove yourself from any further editing of articles about yourself or your business. Best of luck! Stick around and help us improve the encyclopedia. Feel free to drop any questions my way. ∴here…♠21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize for overly aggressive opposition to your efforts in offering WebCite as a valuable service to the wikipedia community. I did a poor job of distinguishing between edits to mainspace articles in the encyclopedia and edits to policy articles. There is no doubt that edits to Web archiving, Gunther Eysenbach, WebCite, Citation, Link rot, Open access etc. were inappropriate as a conflict of interest and should be avoided by you in the future. However, I can see how this guideline should be less stringent in policy related issues. I'm glad a few other editors have jumped in at WP:CITE. I'll try to help or stay out of the way in crafting recommendations and help documentation for archiving web sources. Best of luck, particularly with Open access related issues. Thanks for all your work. ∴here…♠08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the conflict of interest policies - I agree and will in the future avoid edits in these fields as well as on my own bio. On the other hand, these are the fields I am (academically) working on, and my primary concern is the accuracy of the articles on Wikipedia. In my defense, I have no financial interests, for personal financial gain, in these areas. An overly strict interpretation of the COI policy may be counterproductive in assuring the accuracy and quality of articles in Wikipedia. Most "experts" and scientists working in a narrow field have "indirect" conflicts of interest, because they have done a lot of work in that field, so that any contribution in Wikipedia could be misconstrued as self-promotion. The recent Nature investigation on the accuracy of Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica found that very few scientists/experts actually contribute to Wikipedia, and I am not sure if that is a good thing. --Eysen19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, encourage any academic friends to participate ;). Glad you found the links useful. Drop a line if you need help. ∴here…♠01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there is no policy that states that someone can't edit articles where they have a COI; COI is a guideline. I actually recently suggested that there should be such a policy, but currently there isn't one.--Elvey (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC) In fact, I know of administrators who regularly edit articles where they have an admitted COI (and not just to deal with issues like vandalism or BLP) without any excuse! --Elvey (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I noticed some misconfigurations of your mail server that were causing deliverability problems; emailing jcordiner with the details and suggested fixes.--Elvey (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article Gunther Eysenbach has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that you, as the primary author, appear to be the subject of the article. Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographical articles (see WP:AUTO. My recommendation is that you create a sub-article on your user page, and transfer the content there. YechielMan01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to summarize thi sarticle a little . I suggest you put the prev. version not here, but on a subpage; that is what is usually done as a way of dealing with an Afd. DGG04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reply here (I'm watching this page) with a diff link to the edits you made that are mentioned here:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_14#WebCite ?
I'd like to look at and probably restore them.
I've been frustrated repeatedly by articles containing dead links, and links to content that changed - for example, when someone says something online and then wants to take it back. If you'd rather webcite not be used in such situations (e.g. to document, and archive as evidence, a website's privacy policy and a page on the site that shows that they violate that policy) please let me/your users know. It seems that was not part of the original vision for the tool, but I find it fantastically useful for that purpose. (I'd even be interested in providing support for such use.)
I think WebCite (or at least a mention of web archiving tools in general) needs to be mentioned up in the "Citations for world wide web articles" or " Links and ID numbers" sections and I think it's frequently underused and haven't seen it overused.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The programming for WebCiteBOT is coming along nicely & I'm about to implement the part where it calls http://webcitation.org/archive to add a citation. I read the documentation and see that I can have it return XML instead through use of the returnxml parameter.
So basically my question is 1) should I use the XML method to improve performance on the server or does it not really matter? and 2) if you want me to use the XML method could the server code easily be modified to also return the shorter URL? Regardless of what method you choose, it is more or less the same to me.
Also, all their any rate limits you want me to set on the script? E.g. no more than 1 archive request every 5 seconds or something like that. I don't anticipate a rate limit causing my script to fall behind the rate needed to keep up with Wikipedia.
Hi, Eysen. Although WebCite seems to be back online, I was distressed to find that a number of web pages that I archived prior to the site going down for server migration appear to have been lost. See, for instance, the articles "Choor Singh" and "Han Sai Por" – the WebCite-archived pages were all working fine before the site went down. Have you received reports of anyone else experiencing this problem? If so, is there anything that can be done about it, or is the only solution to re-archive the web pages? I am concerned about this, because obviously the reliability of WebCite (which I think fills a pressing need) is in question if there is an irretrievable loss of archived pages each time a server goes down. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can we "rearchive" pages whose links are now expired? Preserving those links was what WebCite was supposed to do; now that WebCite has lost them they are apparently gone forever. If we had known this was going to happen, we could have preserved the information in a way that was actually reliable. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being as Eysen hasn't been active on Wikipedia since February, I personally feel this is the wrong way to go about contacting him and that this user Talk page is the wrong place to discuss this matter. I think you should contact him via WebCite or via e-mail (link on his userpage or link on WebCuite or elsewhere), and feel this situation should be discussed on the WebCite Talk page rather than here. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These problems probably had to do with a server move during the time - all snapshots should be restored. And yes - email is a far better way of contacting me. --Eysen (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)
Is there any thing you could do on webcite's end to go and archive every link in the dump, then it would just be a matter of adding the links to wikipedia articles. (Dump is available here). Keep in mind this includes duplicates so a check for that needs to be added. --nn123645 (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it makes sense to go back and retrospectively archive these links, as they may have changed since they were first cited. I believe the better strategy might be be to start a WebCitebot and going forward archive all new links prospectively. But, we will look into it. I haven't looked at the data dump in detail - is there a file with all links, or would we have to parse them? If so, the task would be more realistic if a volunteer could write a script that extracts all the links and builds a database with the citation elements like cited author name, cited article title, cited URL, citing URL (=citing Wikipedia article), perhaps citing article title, citing section within that article etc in columns. --Eysen (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is the raw wikitext available as well as the pagelinks table which contains all the links of the current version of the page. Documentation on the external links table is available here. This dump contains little else however other than the page id and URL that is linked. If all you want to do is see the format you may want to look at another smaller project, like the english wikisource/wikibooks/wikinews. --nn123645 (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have new messagesHello, Eysen. Check your email – you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
