Talk:Ansearch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is one of many independent search engines that run out of AU.

Would like to set up more, anyone has any suggestions let me know. AustralianTraveller 11:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] auDA seized more than 1,000 domains from the Ansearch Australian search engine

[discussion continued from User talk:Moondyne and User talk:AustralianTraveller]

Lets both calm down. I won't be reverting this again. A third party ideally needs to come into the discussion here if any further changes are done as we have both probably exceeded 3 reverts. There does not seem to be anything on the issue at auDA, but it was discussed on a number of webblogs.

Given this, and the ZDNnet news item which is cited in the article, I cannot see an argument that it untrue or unverifiable or that the information should not be included in the article. It would have been useful if auDA had published a news item themselves or if a mainstream newspaper had taken up the story, but so be it. —Moondyne 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to stay away from google and using other engines looking for third party sources on either auda or ansearch australia - we find:

SatuSuro 00:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is being argued in the opposite direction to the requirements of WP:V and WP:ATTRIB where the requirement is for claims to be supported by independent 3rd party sources (which ZDnet is) where the subject has published such a claim. Since the claim is published by a 3rd party WP:RS which news services are, there is no requirement for it to be supported by the subject. Gnangarra 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, don't mean to seem uncalm. Just a little confused. I thought references needed to be from reliable sources who actually had reliable information.

I'm not too interested whether this section is included or not, because the whole AU namespace is an interesting area and it is good for readers to see the history, but I am interested in the quoted source and the information delivered.

My question - is The ZDNet Article is verifiable? I disagree

  • Encyclopedic content must be verifiable
  • ZDNet article states - 'Some of the names believed to have been confiscated ...' - He says 'believed to have been?' I'm not sure how reliable this statement is. Verifiable? How can you consider this to be a reliable article with statements such as this?
  • Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - the ZDNet article in this case obviously hasn't checked all the facts or doesn't know the facts considering the use of the words ' believed to'
  • One of the domain names listed is live, on a parked domain and owned by another party, these names shouldn't be included here, unless you wish to promote the parked domain name pamelaanderson.com.au?
  • I assume there is a verifiable article or release from AUDA, which I am sure I will or someone will find, until this is the case in my opinion either this section should be reworded with a reliable source (if possible, AUDA) added.

AustralianTraveller 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above:

  • Verifiable Sources - Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Most the above, apart from the 'dcita.gov.au' website are not verifiable sources. I'm hoping to find the facts from AUDA. AustralianTraveller 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was invited to put in my 2c here.
These sources may not be particularly strong, but at least they are all saying the same thing (I presume - not having examined them all myself, I'll stick to matter of policy herewith).
If all these sources are running the same version of events, and there is no source refuting them, then there is no valid reason to remove the information. Removing it based on the assertion that each of these sources is not particularly reliable when considered in isolation, seems to me a bit like gaming the WP:ATT system.
Obviously the best solution is to find an authoritative source; I salute AustralianTraveller for seeking one. In the interim, I think the material should stay.
Hesperian 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - its just that what is needed - a 3rd party WP:RS (already mentioned above) - that is neither from ansearch or auDA for it to meet the criteria by which wikipedia policy so eagerly requires in these cases SatuSuro 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree there definately was a domain dispute, disagree any of the articles are reputable, hope someone finds one. Looks like AUDA changed their policies anyway. http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2006-03/. This is about all I could find officially in relation to domain name policy from a reputable source.AustralianTraveller 11:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)