They think it is or they wouldn't do it.
Fred
On Nov 30, 2005, at 9:30 AM, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I wasn't aware that Google results were influenced by material on Talk pages. If this is true, it explains instances in which I have seen anons post some ideological screed in the article, have it removed, and then re- post it repeatedly into the article's Talk page. Is this actually that effective a tactic for using Wikipedia as a soapbox?
JasonQuoting slimvirgin@gmail.com:
On 11/30/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This case Slim Virgin mentions is in arbitration now and a blatant example of gaming Google by associating the name of the person with a lot of accusations he has only a marginal connection with ... At a minimum we need to not allow Google to index our talk pages. We talk about a lot of things. They may be about information but they are not encyclopedic.
Fred, the case I was referring to isn't the one that's in arbitration, though I know the one you mean, and it's quite similar. I'm starting to wonder whether this is happening a lot: that troublemakers see our talk pages as a sort of Trojan horse. They pretend to be having an innocent conversation designed to sort out the good from the bad material, whereas in fact the discussion is only a vehicle being used to spread the bad stuff, which they know won't survive in our articles.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l