doc wrote:
- *no index bios on subject's request*. We keep the info, but the
subject doesn't have an article on them , with all the vandalism or POV pushing risks, as top on google. They don't need to check their article everyday.
OR
- *no index all low-notability living-person bios* which have
experienced any problems. Any admin, or OTRS op seeing repeat problems can flag it as such, reducing the collateral damage if their are future issues.
OR
- *no index ALL BLPs* - being in [[category:Living persons]] could
automatically flag the article. This would be easiest to maintain, and apply consistently. The argument against it will be that it will take [[George W. Bush]] etc off google, but if it were combined with stable versions, so that all BLPs were removed from Google UNLESS they were stable, we might have a workable solution. The popular ones are likely to have stable versions very quickly. Incidentally, this would also reduce the attraction of vanity bios.
While I sympathize with the reasons for concern, I object to treating parts of the encyclopedia differently in this manner. Backroom stuff like articles for deletion, I would agree. But not the encyclopedia proper. If we have articles that we don't want search engines to index, we should *delete* those articles.
The real answer is the increasingly urgent need to implement stable or reviewed versions of articles. In that context, it would certainly be possible to consider having a "noindex" attribute for articles that do not have any revision marked as having been reviewed.
--Michael Snow
On 5/6/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
The real answer is the increasingly urgent need to implement stable or reviewed versions of articles. In that context, it would certainly be possible to consider having a "noindex" attribute for articles that do not have any revision marked as having been reviewed.
This seems like the best idea.
Also, many people like having wikipedia articles, and presumably like them being top results on google. Maybe we could ask some of the foundation advisors their opinion. They would be a good sounding board for this since many of them have articles.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
Michael Snow wrote:
doc wrote:
- *no index bios on subject's request*. We keep the info, but the
subject doesn't have an article on them , with all the vandalism or POV pushing risks, as top on google. They don't need to check their article everyday.
OR
- *no index all low-notability living-person bios* which have
experienced any problems. Any admin, or OTRS op seeing repeat problems can flag it as such, reducing the collateral damage if their are future issues.
OR
- *no index ALL BLPs* - being in [[category:Living persons]] could
automatically flag the article. This would be easiest to maintain, and apply consistently. The argument against it will be that it will take [[George W. Bush]] etc off google, but if it were combined with stable versions, so that all BLPs were removed from Google UNLESS they were stable, we might have a workable solution. The popular ones are likely to have stable versions very quickly. Incidentally, this would also reduce the attraction of vanity bios.
While I sympathize with the reasons for concern, I object to treating parts of the encyclopedia differently in this manner. Backroom stuff like articles for deletion, I would agree. But not the encyclopedia proper. If we have articles that we don't want search engines to index, we should *delete* those articles.
The real answer is the increasingly urgent need to implement stable or reviewed versions of articles. In that context, it would certainly be possible to consider having a "noindex" attribute for articles that do not have any revision marked as having been reviewed.
--Michael Snow
Asking because I really don't know:
If we were to nofollow significant portions of Wikipedia -- for instance, all Biographies of Living People -- is it possible that Google (or others) will simply ignore the nofollow in that case?
I understand that Google says that it doesn't "special case" things. But might this become a significant test of that policy?
-Rich
On 5/6/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Asking because I really don't know:
If we were to nofollow significant portions of Wikipedia -- for instance, all Biographies of Living People -- is it possible that Google (or others) will simply ignore the nofollow in that case?
I understand that Google says that it doesn't "special case" things. But might this become a significant test of that policy?
No, if google ignored nofollow this would be a Big Deal. This trust allows them to not be sued by people who would claim copyright infringement. Also, this story would explode on the internet. Probably not something to worry about :)
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]