I think this was meant to go to wikien-l, I've sent it there too.
On 8/26/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Someone recently posted an article about how to use Wikipedia to move up on Google search engine results. I had also read another article on the same topic on a private list serve.
I have now caught what appears to be a publisher using methods similar to what we've been reading about, being careful not to use their own in-house computers, creating multiple accounts and IPs to do the work, adding multiple outside links to legite and related texts and journals to one article, then making that article a prime see also for related articles.
Very clever, very well done, if only they had had the patience to do it a little slower, and use someone a little nicer. See my post on AN/I and follow my links for a little insider's view on how to promote a product on Wikipedia.
KP
PS In spite of direct and quick access to ISPNs and journal links, this still could be someone who doesn't work for Elsevier, but really likes their journals and books enough that they would do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 8/25/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I think this was meant to go to wikien-l, I've sent it there too.
On 8/26/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Someone recently posted an article about how to use Wikipedia to move up on Google search engine results. I had also read another article on the same topic on a private list serve.
I have now caught what appears to be a publisher using methods similar to what we've been reading about, being careful not to use their own in-house computers, creating multiple accounts and IPs to do the work, adding multiple outside links to legite and related texts and journals to one article, then making that article a prime see also for related articles.
Very clever, very well done, if only they had had the patience to do it a little slower, and use someone a little nicer. See my post on AN/I and follow my links for a little insider's view on how to promote a product on Wikipedia.
KP
PS In spite of direct and quick access to ISPNs and journal links, this still could be someone who doesn't work for Elsevier, but really likes their journals and books enough that they would do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Thanks.
KP
As far as I can tell, journal publishers have been using Wikipedia since 2005 to promote obscure journals, and some notable journals (one of the Trends journals is more notable by far than the others), by using IPs or creating single purpose accounts, generally multiple similarly named, single purpose accounts all on the same day or in a couple of days, to edit Wikipedia articles, mostly along the lines of inserting links to the journals, or wikilinking to articles that contain multiple links to journals, and creating crappy articles on the journals to buffer the internal editing. I've found 3 instances of groups of these groups of sock puppets, leads on others, and I know how to look for more.
It's hard for me to believe that this has ever been good for Wikipedia, being used to send readers to specific journals when there are other more important journals and equally important journals on the topic. And it is hard for me to believe that my making a big deal out of this, and of finding and deleting them is a bad thing.
But again, it's pounce on the established editor to give the spammer and vandal every single benefit of the doubt. I'm getting tired of being told I'm trolling because I have no tolerance for Wikipedia being used in this way, take a chill pill, learn how to do follow the idiotic instructions, drink tea, I'm stupid because I followed the idiot instructions, basically I'm a worthless piece of shit editor compared to the valuable trolls and vandals.
Really, all I do is add carefully selected references to scientific articles--and that's some useless shit.
But I've been told it enough times now to see that I clearly am in the wrong and am in the minority. I wish Elsevier all the luck, because they've been invited to do as much sock puppetry as they want, while Wikipedia administrators call those old crap non-noobie editors trolls and run them off.
Next time someone says that articles need more references, they ought to figure out a way to actually value editors who add references--because as long as editors who add references are of no value to Wikipedia compared to entrenched trolling techniques and groups of sock puppets, it's a lie. Adding good references is not easy, it's not fast, and it requires me to read tons of technival literature to find useful references. In fact, it often takes me hours to add a single reference, because I don't want to add crap. But I should be adding crap, because people would run to my defense rather than telling me I'm trolling.
This SEO article is too late. It's been done for years, and it's obviously worthwhile enough to keep doing it. And nofollow doesn't matter in the least bit, because if it did, Elsevier would not have upped their level of spamming.
KP
I hope no long-established editors who know the lay of the land are criticising you for this.
-Matthew
On 8/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I hope no long-established editors who know the lay of the land are criticising you for this.
-Matthew
Hell, yes, the ones called "administrators." Always in there to defend the socks and spammers and vandals in the face of editors who call crap crap. Now that I think of it the same administrator who argued for leaving a guy's comment about a girl he knew that she'd been killed and had her body stuffed in a garbage can. I give up.
But there are plenty of other editors who can do what I did, and I don't matter--and it's nice to have it so firmly established to me that this is the case.
Oh, and the DG supporter who always pipes in with only nasty comments whenever anyone gets upset about the state of Wikipedia? Don't bother, you're so predictable one could set a clock by you.
KP
On 8/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I hope no long-established editors who know the lay of the land are criticising you for this.
-Matthew
on 8/26/07 11:45 AM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, yes, the ones called "administrators." Always in there to defend the socks and spammers and vandals in the face of editors who call crap crap. Now that I think of it the same administrator who argued for leaving a guy's comment about a girl he knew that she'd been killed and had her body stuffed in a garbage can. I give up.
But there are plenty of other editors who can do what I did, and I don't matter--and it's nice to have it so firmly established to me that this is the case.
Oh, and the DG supporter who always pipes in with only nasty comments whenever anyone gets upset about the state of Wikipedia? Don't bother, you're so predictable one could set a clock by you.
I agree with your sentiments here, KP. To question the state of the Project is to question the order of things; and there are those who, for their own personal reasons, like it just the way it is.
However, as was pointed out by someone in another thread, Wikipedia is no longer a fledgling project trying to find its place in the world. And those who would continue to behave as though it were, will find that the old formulas for control simply do not work anymore.
Marc Riddell
I've worked with people from Elsevier, and other publishers, and university departments and other sources of potential COI, on helping them improve their articles, and once things have been explained to them, they usually do very well. They need to change their accustomed writing styles, but they are perfectly capable of writing acceptable basic articles. What's needed is to watch them. I sometimes ask them to rewrite articles on their talk pages before reinsertion, and I edit what they do as i would any article. I really hate commercial and non-commercial PR nonsense spam, but I like real information about what organizations do. Same with people and their bios, and all other COI. I does not prevent writing a good article, though it certainly makes it more difficult--difficult in both directions--using these articles as an example, they both inserted stuff that wasn't meaningful, and didn't insert the necessary material that would have shown at least some of these periodicals to be really important, such as their very high impact factor and very widespread library holdings. (The articles were written before I became active here, and i had not gotten around to examining these. The discussion this AM also went to fast for me to comment on WP. )
For university departments, all efforts by anyone to get their PR people to be professional have sometimes been ignored--and then the articles tend to get deleted. Most large businesses have more sense--they just need to be taught.
(I will say that for publishers it helps me get attention because I use my real name, and I am known to be a public critic of various business practices of many scientific publishers on various fora.)
On 8/26/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 8/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I hope no long-established editors who know the lay of the land are criticising you for this.
-Matthew
on 8/26/07 11:45 AM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, yes, the ones called "administrators." Always in there to defend the socks and spammers and vandals in the face of editors who call crap crap. Now that I think of it the same administrator who argued for leaving a guy's comment about a girl he knew that she'd been killed and had her body stuffed in a garbage can. I give up.
But there are plenty of other editors who can do what I did, and I don't matter--and it's nice to have it so firmly established to me that this is the case.
Oh, and the DG supporter who always pipes in with only nasty comments whenever anyone gets upset about the state of Wikipedia? Don't bother, you're so predictable one could set a clock by you.
I agree with your sentiments here, KP. To question the state of the Project is to question the order of things; and there are those who, for their own personal reasons, like it just the way it is.
However, as was pointed out by someone in another thread, Wikipedia is no longer a fledgling project trying to find its place in the world. And those who would continue to behave as though it were, will find that the old formulas for control simply do not work anymore.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l