I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a template which links his website, claiming that the article uses content from his website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldi... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&am... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=589126... etc.
He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to wikipedia, while adding the same template.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy) etc.
Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that his new articles were first published on his website and each such page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are very useful for increasing the Google PR)
On 10/1/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a template which links his website, claiming that the article uses content from his website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldi... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&am... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=589126... etc.
He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to wikipedia, while adding the same template.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy) etc.
Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that his new articles were first published on his website and each such page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are very useful for increasing the Google PR)
Since the authoy is credited in our history there is no need for a link to the external site how much you want to push this point is up to you.
geni schrieb:
very useful for increasing the Google PR)
Since the authoy is credited in our history there is no need for a link to the external site how much you want to push this point is up to you.
So if i use text from wikipedia in an other wiki i only have to write a comment ("from ... ") into the history when adding it ?
HeinzJ
On 10/5/06, HeinzJ h-j.luecking@t-online.de wrote:
So if i use text from wikipedia in an other wiki i only have to write a comment ("from ... ") into the history when adding it ?
HeinzJ
That would depend on the number of authors and if you were following the other terms of the lisence.
On 10/5/06, HeinzJ h-j.luecking@t-online.de wrote:
geni schrieb:
very useful for increasing the Google PR)
Since the authoy is credited in our history there is no need for a link to the external site how much you want to push this point is up to you.
So if i use text from wikipedia in an other wiki i only have to write a comment ("from ... ") into the history when adding it ?
If the other wiki is also licensed under the GFDL, then yes, pretty much. The GFDL has more complicated attribution requirements (i.e. the last five authors, or the most prominent five authors, or something like that) but to my knowledge very few people follow them or take them seriously in the context of community-edited documents, and attribution to Wikipedia itself is probably the most anyone can expect.
FF
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a template which links his website, claiming that the article uses content from his website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldi... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&am... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=589126... etc.
He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to wikipedia, while adding the same template.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy) etc.
Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that his new articles were first published on his website and each such page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are very useful for increasing the Google PR)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Comparing the histories of the articles shows that Wikipedia's were the original. The psychwiki pages also have many redlinks in the same places the Wikipedia articles have valid links.
I'm still not very well versed in Wikipedia's policies like most people here, but I think this practice should be prohibited. Even though Wikipedia's articles are free to be used by anybody, this person is claiming Wikipedia editors took content from his wiki, which is not the case. In my opinion, it looks like a way to advertise that wiki.
On 01/10/06, Lucas Hoffmann prmthsx303@comcast.net wrote:
I'm still not very well versed in Wikipedia's policies like most people here, but I think this practice should be prohibited. Even though Wikipedia's articles are free to be used by anybody, this person is claiming Wikipedia editors took content from his wiki, which is not the case. In my opinion, it looks like a way to advertise that wiki.
The wiki in question is one hosted on wikia.com . So he wouldn't be getting personal benefit from the ad links. (Jimbo and Angela would, for the conspiracy theorists out there.)
Possibly the best first approach would be to, er, ask why he's doing this?
- d.
On 10/1/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a template which links his website, claiming that the article uses content from his website:
I just read this on IRC, then saw this message. I've already sent Angela an e-mail about it. My suggestion is that the user shouldn't do this for his own work, but only for significant changes contributed by others on his wiki. Otherwise we have too much of a loophole for spamming Wikipedia with links to external sites.
On 10/2/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a template which links his website, claiming that the article uses content from his website
I've emailed Joe Kiff, the user who was adding these links, so he may be able to explain why he was adding them. All of the templates have now been removed by Tawker's bot.
I expect the confusion about the need to attribute the wiki came from the large number of similar templates. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Attribution_templates for a collection of these. Wikia has similar templates for content from Wikipedia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Wikipedia
The difference in this case is that the template was not legally necessary since Joe was the author of the original content anyway. I've added a note about this to Wikia's copyrights policy to make it clearer for other Wikians wanting to copy their own content to Wikipedia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_copyrights#Attribution_templates
I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy on using these attribution templates. In some cases the spam policy may apply but there are certainly cases where it doesn't and where these need to be used. I think this needs to be looked into, especially if Wikipedia wants to benefit from content of other wikis and even from forks from itself. For example, the PR around Citizendium has had various Wikimedians saying this is fine since Wikipedia can benefit from any improvements to the content which that project makes, but that may involve linking to it with these sorts of templates.
Some way of adding attribution on the history page (which isn't indexed by Google and therefore useless to spammers) may be a better solution than adding these to the article. It probably also makes more sense in terms of the GFDL if the history is all on the history page and not partly there, partly on the talk page, and partly on the article itself.
Angela
On 10/2/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
For example, the PR around Citizendium has had various Wikimedians saying this is fine since Wikipedia can benefit from any improvements to the content which that project makes, but that may involve linking to it with these sorts of templates.
I think that would be fine if Citizendium gains critical mass. I have more of a problem when the appearance is that it is used to _build_ critical mass.
Some way of adding attribution on the history page (which isn't indexed by Google and therefore useless to spammers) may be a better solution than adding these to the article. It probably also makes more sense in terms of the GFDL if the history is all on the history page and not partly there, partly on the talk page, and partly on the article itself.
Perhaps, if it is only and very specifically used for contributions from external sources. A sort of "External History:" namespace whose contents are shown and linked to on top of the history might be workable. Right now I'm not sure the problem is prevalent enough to justify prioritizing such a change.
On 10/1/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: [snip]
Perhaps, if it is only and very specifically used for contributions from external sources. A sort of "External History:" namespace whose contents are shown and linked to on top of the history might be workable. Right now I'm not sure the problem is prevalent enough to justify prioritizing such a change.
Of course... we could just have a wikieditable credits page. :)
I noticed this issue about .. er a year ago. And attempted to demonstrate the risk by something of a [[WP:POINT]] violation. Try as I might, no one was really cared. :)
On 10/1/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/2/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Some way of adding attribution on the history page (which isn't indexed by Google and therefore useless to spammers) may be a better solution than adding these to the article. It probably also makes more sense in terms of the GFDL if the history is all on the history page and not partly there, partly on the talk page, and partly on the article itself.
Perhaps, if it is only and very specifically used for contributions from external sources. A sort of "External History:" namespace whose contents are shown and linked to on top of the history might be workable. Right now I'm not sure the problem is prevalent enough to justify prioritizing such a change.
I see another potential use for this - and that is finding reference that
have been deleted. Unfortunately, new editors will remove <ref> tags. I hate going to an article, and not finding a reference that was there before - if I added it then it is not too difficult to find it in the history, but on some articles it is difficult to find the prior reference. If this feature could do two things: allow one to include a reference for GFDL material, and provide a list of links that have been used in the article (along with the linked text) - then that would be very helpful in identifying prior reference material.
I always thought this would not work because it would be something else to attract link-spammers - but if the link history page is not indexed, then that seems to mitigate potential negative effects.
Jim