On 9/5/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/3/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
You and I know that's the road to hell, of course. Meaning well is no excuse. But when dealing with them, it does keep my blood pressure lower to imagine that most of Wikipedia's spammers are like that: clueless but well-intentioned.
Solution: when mediawiki detects that most of a change consists of adding an external link, it reads them the riot act. It takes them to another page confirming that, yes, they really really really think it's in Wikipedia's best interests to be adding this external link.
On the whole, we'd be better off just automatically reverting urls submitted by anons.
Steve
Better off auto reverting anons? Are you insane? Anon's are our most
prolific contributors. Much vandalism comes from them, to be sure, but as of a couple years ago, the *majority* of our actual content was initially submitted by anonymous and new users. I don't have updated numbers, but I'd imagine it's still quite high. Throwing out and discouraging anonymous contributors because undesireable content comes from other anons as well is the height of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and incredibly elitist. -- -Brock
The publisher SEOs aren't all anons, anyhow. In fact most of the ones I've uncovered aren't anons.
KP