[Delurking to ask a question that might be illuminating]
Can I use this thread to ask a question as a "worked example"? *Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and it was done, even though there was no "community consensus". Now, I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do. But from an outsider's perspective, it was pretty much an instance of "He's the decider".
FYI, to dispose of a myth, there was no SEO contest targeting Wikipedia. The SEO contest in the news had specifically ruled out such "black hat" tactics, and would have disqualified anyone caught using them.
Much of the talk of Wikipedia's governance tends to be along the lines of "How many divisions does the Pope have?". It's true that the Pope is the Pope only and solely because many people believe in him and trust him. And a dissatisfied group could break off and decide they want a new Pope, or no Pope at all. It's happened before in history. But that all sort of misses the point. ALL governance, by definition, is a social construct, which works only because enough people believe in it. The deeper questions are what benefits there are to believing in it, and what sanctions can be imposed for not believing in it.
On 3/22/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Can I use this thread to ask a question as a "worked example"?*Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and it was done, even though there was no "community consensus". Now, I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do. But from an outsider's perspective, it was pretty much an instance of "He's the decider".
Was there really no "community consensus"? I seem to recall general approval of the change. But "procedurally", as you put it, that may not be the same thing: approving of the change, as opposed to building consensus prior to a change and making the change on that basis.
What are you really getting at here? What point is your worked example trying to illustrate? That Jimbo occasionally makes decisions without explicitly checking for consensus is not in dispute. Whether this is harmful, and on what level, is a more interesting question...
Steve
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Can I use this thread to ask a question as a "worked example"? *Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and it was done, even though there was no "community consensus". Now, I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do. But from an outsider's perspective, it was pretty much an instance of "He's the decider".
Outsiders often imagine that we have a much greater degree of procedure than we actually do. We have a group of friends working under "rough consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of respect and thoughtfulness.
In the case of "nofollow"... to the best of my knowledge, the history is that it was implemented without my knowledge or approval (which is normal and fine) in various (some? all? depending on local opinion?) languages except en.wikipedia.org. There were discussions about it, both public and private, and I expressed my own concerns about it. Out of respect for me, the implementation was delayed for a long time on English Wikipedia while I talked to Matt Cutts at google about it.
(BTW, Brion would know when and why nofollow was implemented elsewhere.)
Matt recommended that we use it, and I reconsidered various arguments that people had made about it, and I dropped my objections to it. Sometime later, Brion Vibber, acting on his own authority as CTO and the leader of his own part of the whole Wikipedia beast, went ahead and implemented it. (Did I ask him to do it, or did he notice my dropping my objections and just do it? I don't remember but the question really misses the point.)
Now, you can imagine this as an instance of me being the decider, but I think the truth is a lot more complex... and a lot more wonderful... than that image would suggest.
--Jimbo
On 22/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Now, you can imagine this as an instance of me being the decider, but I think the truth is a lot more complex... and a lot more wonderful... than that image would suggest.
And/or a lot more scary ;-)
- d.
On 3/22/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Outsiders often imagine that we have a much greater degree of procedure than we actually do. We have a group of friends working under "rough consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of respect and thoughtfulness.
In the case of "nofollow"... to the best of my knowledge, the history is that it was implemented without my knowledge or approval (which is normal and fine) in various (some? all? depending on local opinion?) languages except en.wikipedia.org. There were discussions about it, both public and private, and I expressed my own concerns about it. Out of respect for me, the implementation was delayed for a long time on English Wikipedia while I talked to Matt Cutts at google about it.
Not that simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow#Implementation_of_the_vote
(BTW, Brion would know when and why nofollow was implemented elsewhere.)
March 6, 2005
Matt recommended that we use it, and I reconsidered various arguments that people had made about it, and I dropped my objections to it. Sometime later, Brion Vibber, acting on his own authority as CTO and the leader of his own part of the whole Wikipedia beast, went ahead and implemented it. (Did I ask him to do it, or did he notice my dropping my objections and just do it? I don't remember but the question really misses the point.)
"Having been requested by Jimmy to do so"
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html
No evidences of his acting on his own authority.
Now, you can imagine this as an instance of me being the decider, but I think the truth is a lot more complex... and a lot more wonderful... than that image would suggest.
No it isn't. You took an action (that has had minimal impact due to spamming for traffic) that the community had debated in the past and had not come to a consensus to support.
on 3/22/07 7:33 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We have a group of friends working under "rough consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of respect and thoughtfulness.
Jimmy,
This type of informality may have worked in the developmental stage of WP, but is it capable of sustaining the Project as it becomes more complex?
Marc Riddell
On 3/22/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
This type of informality may have worked in the developmental stage of WP, but is it capable of sustaining the Project as it becomes more complex?
I just have to add a strong yes to this! Distributed decision making and organic processes are new for organizations this large, but that doesn't mean they are bad.
I would ask another question, Are old forms of hierarchical control and management capable of sustaining something so complex as wikipedia? :)
Judson enwiki:cohesion
On 22/03/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I would ask another question, Are old forms of hierarchical control and management capable of sustaining something so complex as wikipedia? :)
Well, yeah :-)
It's useful to keep in mind that almost all articles are not in fact controversial. The really angst-generating stuff on the encyclopedia is very much special cases.
- d.
On 22/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We have a group of friends working under "rough consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of respect and thoughtfulness.
--Jimbo
In my three years on Wikipedia, the latter two and a half as an Admin, I've seen this more often than not (and getting to be more so) devolve into the most vocal and participating contributors deciding things as they see fit (even if say, they see something as NPOV, it may not be). The most vocal and participating members may or may not be in the right, and where there are differences of opinion, those who are right will not necessarily be the majority (or even large/medium majority; "consensus" as that seems to be termed on Wikipedia).
Being right is not a subjective thing. As an encyclopaedia we are supposed to be in the business of truthful content.
It's a whole other world of messiness then when we aren't talking merely about Wikipedia's content, but formulating the principles and guidelines on which the content and project is created and managed.
Zoney
On 22/03/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
It's a whole other world of messiness then when we aren't talking merely about Wikipedia's content, but formulating the principles and guidelines on which the content and project is created and managed.
Yeah. Hence my notion of a clearer "constitution". Certainly for fundamental rules that all other policy is meant to be an explication of, and possibly for policy formation.
Of course, the problem with rules is that they are seen by some as there for gaming. But then, we probably need something less ad-hoc at this stage.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Of course, the problem with rules is that they are seen by some as there for gaming. But then, we probably need something less ad-hoc at this stage.
The fear of rules and stability in the project is laughable, honestly. People already game consensus, and if people try to game the rules, you slap 'em down. It's not hard.
But, OMG NOT A BUREAUCRACY MUST IAR!!!
Wikipedia's got to grow up.
-Jeff
on 3/22/07 10:29 AM, Jeff Raymond at jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
The fear of rules and stability in the project is laughable, honestly. People already game consensus, and if people try to game the rules, you slap 'em down. It's not hard.
But, OMG NOT A BUREAUCRACY MUST IAR!!!
Wikipedia's got to grow up.
No matter how small the town; if it has just two streets that intersect - you still need a traffic light.
Marc
On 3/22/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
No matter how small the town; if it has just two streets that intersect - you still need a traffic light.
Or a [[Roundabout]], or no light at all (see [[Hans Monderman]]) There are a lot of alternatives! :)
Judson enwiki:cohesion
on 3/22/07 10:24 AM, Zoney at zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We have a group of friends working under "rough consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of respect and thoughtfulness.
--Jimbo
In my three years on Wikipedia, the latter two and a half as an Admin, I've seen this more often than not (and getting to be more so) devolve into the most vocal and participating contributors deciding things as they see fit (even if say, they see something as NPOV, it may not be). The most vocal and participating members may or may not be in the right, and where there are differences of opinion, those who are right will not necessarily be the majority (or even large/medium majority; "consensus" as that seems to be termed on Wikipedia).
Being right is not a subjective thing. As an encyclopaedia we are supposed to be in the business of truthful content.
It's a whole other world of messiness then when we aren't talking merely about Wikipedia's content, but formulating the principles and guidelines on which the content and project is created and managed.
Zoney
Catching up on some past posts.
Zoney,
This is an excellent message, and one I agree with completely. The "principles and guidelines" we develop within WP make up a part of an "ethic" we must develop and staunchly maintain.
This ethic is not something you choose from a list. Personally, our own set of ethics evolve over time as our learning, beliefs, experiences and sense of self reconcile and eventually merge. On a group level, the ethic is established by the core individuals creating that group. Then, this ethic becomes a part of the motivation for others to join the group.
As for Wikipedia, I came to it because of the work it was doing, but I came too late to the group to really grasp what the core ethic was that helped form it. I have since, by way of this List, been trying to grasp a sense of what that ethic is.
I'm learning.
Marc Riddell
On 3/21/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
*Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and it was done, even though there was no "community consensus".
The way I remember it, Jimmy asked Brion Vibber to turn on nofollow, and then Brion did it.
There was then a discussion over whether or not Jimmy had the authority to do so, and whether the board should have been involved.
My own personal opinion was that Jimmy had and has the authority to ask Brion to do anything, just as we all have the authority to ask Brion to do anything, and that it was Brion who was the one that made the decision, acting in his role as a foundation employee.
If the board believed that Brion did the wrong thing, they obviously could have stepped in, formally or informally.
Anthony
On 22/03/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
My own personal opinion was that Jimmy had and has the authority to ask Brion to do anything, just as we all have the authority to ask Brion to do anything, and that it was Brion who was the one that made the decision, acting in his role as a foundation employee. If the board believed that Brion did the wrong thing, they obviously could have stepped in, formally or informally.
Personally my favourite bit was the whining from the search engine spammers.
"Well, well, if you won't give us Google link juice, we'll, we'll ... STOP ADDING STUFF!" "O noez, how will I cope. I guess we'll just have to find out."
Such an *exquisite* sense of entitlement they have.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Personally my favourite bit was the whining from the search engine spammers.
Such an *exquisite* sense of entitlement they have.
That response *really* weakened any opposition voices, which was frustrating, but I sitll find it to be really bad:
1) Wikia links, last check, still don't have nofollow attached. This means that the only links the Foundation allows to be noticed are ones that are linked to the Foundation in a personell sense. How convinenent.
2) With nofollow attached to non-Wikia external links, that means that non-Wikipedia links drop and Wikipedia links rise in Google. While we don't have ads (yet) on Wikipedia, we do have a revenue sharing plan with Answers.com, which also gets high rankings. So hey, what do you know, more financial help for the Foundation while we axe out the sources that we use to make the articles to help our Google rankings.
I mean, it comes across as horribly underhanded, especially since the community wasn't even approached about it.
-Jeff
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- Wikia links, last check, still don't have nofollow attached. This
means that the only links the Foundation allows to be noticed are ones that are linked to the Foundation in a personell sense. How convinenent.
Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
I mean, it comes across as horribly underhanded, especially since the community wasn't even approached about it.
It did its job of dealing with an immediate spammer problem, which is why Brion was so keen to switch it on.
He like anyone has acknowledged that the present situation is far from ideal, but has suggested what coding people need to do to make it a bit finer-grained. So the answer is ... get coding.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
I'm glad I double checked this, it appears to have been turned on since last check. Applause to the programmers on this one.
It did its job of dealing with an immediate spammer problem, which is why Brion was so keen to switch it on.
That is, if there was *really* an immediate spammer problem to be had. I recall Brad Patrick's breathless essay about how inundated we're getting with spam, and then the G11 abomination occurred, but the actual necessity of such a reaction was never really introduced - we seem to be extremely trusting of those in the home office, don't we?
He like anyone has acknowledged that the present situation is far from ideal, but has suggested what coding people need to do to make it a bit finer-grained. So the answer is ... get coding.
I can barely make a piped link most days, let alone code. Not that I'm sure there's really a problem to be fixed...
-Jeff
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:01:36 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
That is, if there was *really* an immediate spammer problem to be had. I recall Brad Patrick's breathless essay about how inundated we're getting with spam, and then the G11 abomination occurred, but the actual necessity of such a reaction was never really introduced - we seem to be extremely trusting of those in the home office, don't we?
We were inundated with spam. We still are. G11 is a necessary tool, and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism anyway. The vast majority of G11 tagged articles *are* abominations, unlike G11. Spend time looking at CAT:CSD some time.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/22/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
We were inundated with spam. We still are. G11 is a necessary tool, and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism anyway.
Copyvios was more classic although OTRS people tend to object to people doing that.
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
We were inundated with spam. We still are. G11 is a necessary tool, and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism anyway.
Copyvios was more classic although OTRS people tend to object to people doing that.
Quite. "But we're willing to release copyright to the material, so you have to reinstate it!" "Er."
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
We were inundated with spam. We still are. G11 is a necessary tool, and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism anyway. The vast majority of G11 tagged articles *are* abominations, unlike G11. Spend time looking at CAT:CSD some time.
With all due respect, that's certainly the company line. I spend plenty of time w/CAT:CSD - we're not inundated in a way that required such a breathless, panicky, rushed situation like we ended up with.
Of course, we're deathly afraid of anything that might actually benefit someone outside of the project, to boot, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised by the general Office/Foundation reaction. I just chalk it up to another one of those bizarre deals.
-Jeff
On 3/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Of course, we're deathly afraid of anything that might actually benefit someone outside of the project, to boot, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised by the general Office/Foundation reaction. I just chalk it up to another one of those bizarre deals.
(Score: -1, Flamebait.)
-Kat
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:59:41 -0400, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
We were inundated with spam. We still are. G11 is a necessary tool, and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism anyway. The vast majority of G11 tagged articles *are* abominations, unlike G11. Spend time looking at CAT:CSD some time.
With all due respect, that's certainly the company line. I spend plenty of time w/CAT:CSD - we're not inundated in a way that required such a breathless, panicky, rushed situation like we ended up with.
Rushed? People had been asking for G11 for as long as I can remember. It was going to happen sooner or later anyway, and a firm steer from Foundation that spam, abuse of Wikipedia resources for self-promotion, is an abuse and should be stamped on, is hardly a controversial idea.
Of course, we're deathly afraid of anything that might actually benefit someone outside of the project, to boot, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised by the general Office/Foundation reaction. I just chalk it up to another one of those bizarre deals.
You have a strange view of things. The entire project is for the benefit of people outside the foundation, mainly people like you and me and my kids.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
With all due respect, that's certainly the company line. I spend plenty of time w/CAT:CSD - we're not inundated in a way that required such a breathless, panicky, rushed situation like we ended up with.
Rushed? People had been asking for G11 for as long as I can remember. It was going to happen sooner or later anyway, and a firm steer from Foundation that spam, abuse of Wikipedia resources for self-promotion, is an abuse and should be stamped on, is hardly a controversial idea.
I'm referring more to the post-Patrick handling more than the typical cries for expansions of various criteria for speedy deletion.
Of course, we're deathly afraid of anything that might actually benefit someone outside of the project, to boot, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised by the general Office/Foundation reaction. I just chalk it up to another one of those bizarre deals.
You have a strange view of things. The entire project is for the benefit of people outside the foundation, mainly people like you and me and my kids.
I don't think so. Look at how we handled Kohs and the Microsoft issue and our COI guideline/policy - it's not meant to be flamebait, Kat, thank you very much, but it's sometimes realy sad how we handle things that may actually beenfit us as well as outside people financially.
-Jeff
On 23/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I don't think so. Look at how we handled Kohs and the Microsoft issue and our COI guideline/policy - it's not meant to be flamebait, Kat, thank you very much, but it's sometimes realy sad how we handle things that may actually beenfit us as well as outside people financially.
I think we sorted out the Microsoft one well enough. I seemed to have bored at least one TV news story on the issue out of existence ...
- d.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:15:54 -0400, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Rushed? People had been asking for G11 for as long as I can remember. It was going to happen sooner or later anyway, and a firm steer from Foundation that spam, abuse of Wikipedia resources for self-promotion, is an abuse and should be stamped on, is hardly a controversial idea.
I'm referring more to the post-Patrick handling more than the typical cries for expansions of various criteria for speedy deletion.
Very few cries these days, the majority of obvious and unequivocal crap can simply be deleted. And make no mistake, almost all of it *is* crap. I review my deletion logs quite frequently, the proportion of articles I delete and which subsequently come back in an encyclopaedic form is tiny - in the tens, out of some thousands of deletions.
You have a strange view of things. The entire project is for the benefit of people outside the foundation, mainly people like you and me and my kids.
I don't think so. Look at how we handled Kohs and the Microsoft issue and our COI guideline/policy - it's not meant to be flamebait, Kat, thank you very much, but it's sometimes realy sad how we handle things that may actually beenfit us as well as outside people financially.
Yup, we banned Kohs. Good call. And we told Microsoft not to pay people to edit. Good call. And the world didn't end. Kohs thinks we're evil, of course, but Kohs also thinks Wikipedia is bound to fail as a business directory because it does not allow subjects editorial control. If Wikipedia was or aspired to be a business directory he might have a point, but that is not what we are and not what we want to be. Sure, there are people who utterly misunderstand the purpose of the project, and then lambast us for not being what they think we should be. Nobody is forcing them to keep coming back. Moths to a flame, I guess, and every now and then one of them gets burned.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/22/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:01:36 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
That is, if there was *really* an immediate spammer problem to be had. I recall Brad Patrick's breathless essay about how inundated we're getting with spam, and then the G11 abomination occurred, but the actual necessity of such a reaction was never really introduced - we seem to be extremely trusting of those in the home office, don't we?
We were inundated with spam. We still are. G11 is a necessary tool, and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism anyway. The vast majority of G11 tagged articles *are* abominations, unlike G11. Spend time looking at CAT:CSD some time.
Personally I like I95. With BBD/JLD doing 72 in a 98 328i. LMAO.
Anthony
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote: Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww
Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.
Read The Blessed Wikitext:
[[Wookieepedia:{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]] on [[Wookieepedia|Wookieepedia: The ''Star Wars'' Wiki]]<noinclude>[[Category:Star Wars templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:External link templates|Sww]] [[it:Template:Sww]] </noinclude>
- d.
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.
Read The Blessed Wikitext:
[[Wookieepedia:{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]] on [[Wookieepedia|Wookieepedia: The ''Star Wars'' Wiki]]<noinclude>[[Category:Star Wars templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:External link templates|Sww]] [[it:Template:Sww]]
</noinclude>
- d.
Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an external project an interwiki link.
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an external project an interwiki link.
Because lots of external projects have them and it's been common practice from before there was a wikipedia.com.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an external project an interwiki link.
Because lots of external projects have them and it's been common practice from before there was a wikipedia.com.
So why aren't they nofollowed? I mean, theoretically speaking, couldn't I simply make an interwiki link to my site that makes me a little dough on the side for the same result? If not, does that mean that certain sites get exempted?
Interwiki links are handy, sure, but what a way to get around the nofollows. I assume that *wasn't* by design?
-Jeff
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an external project an interwiki link.
Because lots of external projects have them and it's been common practice from before there was a wikipedia.com.
So why aren't they nofollowed? I mean, theoretically speaking, couldn't I simply make an interwiki link to my site that makes me a little dough on the side for the same result? If not, does that mean that certain sites get exempted?
No, they're determined by a list on meta which can only be edited by a meta admin:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
Suggestions are made on the talk page.
Interwiki links are handy, sure, but what a way to get around the nofollows. I assume that *wasn't* by design?
One would hope the meta admins are on-the-ball enough to add only decent interwiki links :-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
No, they're determined by a list on meta which can only be edited by a meta admin:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_mapSuggestions are made on the talk page.
Interwiki links are handy, sure, but what a way to get around the nofollows. I assume that *wasn't* by design?
One would hope the meta admins are on-the-ball enough to add only decent interwiki links :-)
Okay, that makes some sense.
Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
-Jeff
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Okay, that makes some sense. Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
(And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to abuse that ...)
Personally I think it's in fact good to give Google rank to external links if doing so doesn't constitute an attractive nuisance to spammers. That links on Wikipedia are editor-selected is a reason the en:wp community objected to default nofollow when it was first added to Mediawiki. What we need is some way to make it less binary. That means coding. Which I can't do either. Pfeh!
- d.
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Okay, that makes some sense. Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
Looking at the list, this doesn't seem to be true. Even just the wiki links, I mean anyone can create a wikicity or whatever it's called, and anyone can edit the ones that are there.
(And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to abuse that ...)
One obvious way is to link to an iw site that doesn't have nofollow on, and then link from there to the spam site.
Anthony
David Gerard wrote:
Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
Most links aren't.
Personally I think it's in fact good to give Google rank to external links if doing so doesn't constitute an attractive nuisance to spammers. That links on Wikipedia are editor-selected is a reason the en:wp community objected to default nofollow when it was first added to Mediawiki. What we need is some way to make it less binary. That means coding. Which I can't do either. Pfeh!
Or, you know, stop pretending there's a crisis. That could work, too.
Skeptical as always,
-Jeff
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Okay, that makes some sense. Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
(And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to abuse that ...)
trivial it doesn't nofollow links to del.icio.us. Spammers have been abuseing that for some time:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=del.icio.us+seo&btnG...
Google Groups probaly have simular issues
Personally I think it's in fact good to give Google rank to external links if doing so doesn't constitute an attractive nuisance to spammers. That links on Wikipedia are editor-selected is a reason the en:wp community objected to default nofollow when it was first added to Mediawiki. What we need is some way to make it less binary. That means coding. Which I can't do either. Pfeh!
Wikipedia is not DOMZ. I don't think we should be in the game of helping google and other search engins decide what counts as a good link. By all means make sure they pic up links to other wikimedia projects but I see little value is messing around with methods to rate other types of links.
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank. (And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to abuse that ...)
trivial it doesn't nofollow links to del.icio.us. Spammers have been abuseing that for some time: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=del.icio.us+seo&btnG...
o rly? argh. You may want to note that on the talk page and ping a suitable meta admin and dev.
- d.
On 22/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank. (And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to abuse that ...)
trivial it doesn't nofollow links to del.icio.us. Spammers have been abuseing that for some time: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=del.icio.us+seo&btnG...
o rly? argh. You may want to note that on the talk page and ping a suitable meta admin and dev.
I've just asked on wikitech-l (1) if anyone's working on a finer-grained tool for determining what gets a nofollow and what doesn't (2) if anything else on the interwiki map may become an attractive nuisance to linkspammers.
- d.
On 3/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
The sister projects shouldn't be nofollowed. For example, a link to wikinews.
But if the finest granularity possible is to nofollow all iw links or none, that's a tougher call.
Anthony
On 22/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.
Read The Blessed Wikitext: [[Wookieepedia:{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]] on [[Wookieepedia|Wookieepedia: The ''Star Wars'' Wiki]]<noinclude>[[Category:Star Wars templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:External link templates|Sww]] [[it:Template:Sww]]
</noinclude>
Per an email query from Greg Kohs, I should clarify: the important bit there is the [[Wookiepedia: at the beginning - that is, this template sets up a proper interwiki link, not a normal external link.
- d.
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- Wikia links, last check, still don't have nofollow attached. This
means that the only links the Foundation allows to be noticed are ones that are linked to the Foundation in a personell sense. How convinenent.
If memory serves, "proper" external links to Wikia are nofollow. However, interwiki links - which is how most links to Wikia, or to the rare other wikis we link to, are made - aren't nofollowed.