I suppose that if you were pointing a subdomain to a wikipedia article which related to your company on an open wiki it could just become a vandalism magnet for your competitors or clients you have managed to upset. In terms of Search engine optimisation the direct wikipedia URL would always have preference to a subdomain anyway. I'm also led to believe that redirects aren't listed by google because they see it as a way of gaming the ranking system. Slightly OT, I know some wikia sites have a shorter URL for convienience, but as Luna points out that also has *"...Issues of page ownership". *Before the fork, it was pointed out how many tinyurls point to wikipedia, so in that respect you could say that the whole issue is moot. mike

On 31/01/2008, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote: I believe we have some kind of frame-breaking Javascript trickery to avoid this sort of thing - or we used to, at least. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Its all pretty irrelevant, though, isn't it? GFDL says they can reuse it anyway as long as it still says its from Wikipedia and provides access to the history of contributors. As it relates to user conduct - its off-site and outside the purview of en.wiki to regulate, not to mention its completely harmless (diverging from David's mostly harmless) and not worth debating. If anyone can point to any actual harm here (rather than vague notions of impropriety) then its worth considering if its covered by our policies, if there are technical solutions to prevent such a thing from happening, etc. Otherwise, all smoke and no fire. (Before you tell me, yes I know - smoke kills). Nathan

On 1/31/08, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote: You've identified the inherent fallacy of considering this (or any other off-wiki activity) to be actionable under on-wiki policy. Of course, if a domain name is so offensive that we must prevent it from redirecting to a specific user page, I doubt we'd want it redirecting to anywhere else on Wikipedia either. If we're going to derail a unsavory domain name by technical means, let's do a better bloody job of it. Use your imagination. —C.W.

On 01/02/2008, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote: As David points out in another post, the following site is pretty close to this. http://www.mikeciresi.org/ http://fishwrap.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/mike-ciresi-is-synonymous-with-wik… Cheers, Peter Ansell

Sadly, allegations of staff doctoring articles isn't new: http://todaysapatheticyouth.blogspot.com/2006/02/wikipedia-clues-in-to-spin… On 04/02/2008, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote: Meg

On Feb 3, 2008 10:19 PM, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote: Maybe it would be a good idea to semi-protect articles that have been "doctored". That way, the articles can still be updated etc. with greatly reduced chances of doctoring. We will, of course, end up playing whack-a-mole with trying to block any accounts they do create... although autoblocking helps. Of course, someone else probably thought of this already... -- Sincerely, Thinboy00 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thinboy00