Thomas, recently you've aggressively rejected suggestions that we make an effort to keep things like blocked notices out of google.
Part of your argument seems to be that blocked people deserve whatever humiliation we can dish out. Cases of mistakes have been made, but you haven't seen to care.
I hope you don't plan to reference your work on Wikipedia in any job interviews any time soon: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Thomas+Dalton+wikipedia&btnG=Go...
Have I finally made a (wp:)POINT that you can understand?
As a Wikipedian in good standing fixing this won't be hard... but the same problem can be nearly impossible for outsiders to resolve.
Wikipedia isn't judge, jury, and executioner any more than we are a personal webhost. We should probably complexity no-index user and user talk... but if we don't we should at least endeavor to keep block/ban notices out of the search engines.
We must block people to keep the site running well... but using our web presence to attack people is generally unethical, and inappropriate even when they deserve it.
I think one big reason people want to keep Google indexing turned on for userspace and Wikipedia: space is because historically, our own search sucked.
Has Wikipedia's search been improved at all in recent times, or are there plans for it?
-Matt
On 9/24/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think one big reason people want to keep Google indexing turned on for userspace and Wikipedia: space is because historically, our own search sucked.
Has Wikipedia's search been improved at all in recent times, or are there plans for it?
I'm not sure the "it sucks" arguments apply as much to userspace limited queries as they do in the general case. It's something of a different problem.
On 24/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think one big reason people want to keep Google indexing turned on for userspace and Wikipedia: space is because historically, our own search sucked.
Has Wikipedia's search been improved at all in recent times, or are there plans for it?
-Matt
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FulltextSearchEngines
Which one do you like best?
On 24/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas, recently you've aggressively rejected suggestions that we make an effort to keep things like blocked notices out of google.
Part of your argument seems to be that blocked people deserve whatever humiliation we can dish out. Cases of mistakes have been made, but you haven't seen to care.
I hope you don't plan to reference your work on Wikipedia in any job interviews any time soon: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Thomas+Dalton+wikipedia&btnG=Go...
Have I finally made a (wp:)POINT that you can understand?
As a Wikipedian in good standing fixing this won't be hard... but the same problem can be nearly impossible for outsiders to resolve.
Wikipedia isn't judge, jury, and executioner any more than we are a personal webhost. We should probably complexity no-index user and user talk... but if we don't we should at least endeavor to keep block/ban notices out of the search engines.
We must block people to keep the site running well... but using our web presence to attack people is generally unethical, and inappropriate even when they deserve it.
That's just someone impersonating an admin, it happens all the time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'll get it sorted (In the interests of transparency, I'll get someone else to delete it). An "outsider" being impersonated on Wikipedia is pretty unlikely. There are two parts to a risk assessment. First you work out what could go wrong and how damaging it would be (you've done that) and then you have to work out how likely it is. You seem to have missed that part. Losing the ability to search the user space (something tells me MediaWiki's search will never be as good as Google's) is a significant cost to prevent a very unlikely risk.
On 9/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Losing the ability to search the user space (something tells me MediaWiki's search will never be as good as Google's) is a significant cost to prevent a very unlikely risk.
I bet Google would be willing to provide Wikipedia with its own private Google search appliance if "powered by Google" with a link was at the bottom of the results. Of course, that'd probably piss off some Wikipedians.
Alternatively, the Google Mini Search Appliance is only $2000, and would probably be enough to do the trick.
On 24/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Losing the ability to search the user space (something tells me MediaWiki's search will never be as good as Google's) is a significant cost to prevent a very unlikely risk.
I bet Google would be willing to provide Wikipedia with its own private Google search appliance if "powered by Google" with a link was at the bottom of the results. Of course, that'd probably piss off some Wikipedians.
Alternatively, the Google Mini Search Appliance is only $2000, and would probably be enough to do the trick.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FulltextSearchEngines#Google_Search_Appliance
What in the user space is so important anyway? Certainly, almost none of it is of interest to the average non-Wikipaedian. Is it really worth the risk of having defamation on top of Google and people coming to Wikipaedia for free blogspace?
On 25/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote (spelling corrected):
people coming to Wikipedia for free blogspace?
That won't be tolerated and you know it.
On 26/09/2007, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 25/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote
people coming to Wikipaedia for free blogspace?
That won't be tolerated and you know it.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
But using Wikipaedia to attack the 'evil banned users' is tolerated and encouraged....
On 26/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But using Wikipaedia to attack the 'evil banned users' is tolerated and encouraged....
Yep! Death to the vandals! Death to the POV pushers!
So is it any wonder that there are so many websites which attack Wikipaedians, given that Wikipaedia attacked them first? And no, that doesn't make what the other attack sites do right, but it is an example of how Wikipaedia fails to protect its own, caring more about attacking the banned users et. al. than caring for its own people. Hey, Wikipaedia will even join in on the attacks on its people....
On 9/26/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But using Wikipaedia to attack the 'evil banned users' is tolerated and encouraged....
Yep! Death to the vandals! Death to the POV pushers!
So is it any wonder that there are so many websites which attack Wikipaedians, given that Wikipaedia attacked them first? And no, that doesn't make what the other attack sites do right, but it is an example of how Wikipaedia fails to protect its own, caring more about attacking the banned users et. al. than caring for its own people. Hey, Wikipaedia will even join in on the attacks on its people....
Stopping vandals isn't attacking, it's defending against an attack.
Saying the vandals are right to attack /again/ through the infamous "attack sites" is OK since the poor vandals are the victims is ... (sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I lack the words to express just how perverse that is).
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Stopping vandals isn't attacking, it's defending against an attack.
Saying the vandals are right to attack /again/ through the infamous "attack sites" is OK since the poor vandals are the victims is ... (sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I lack the words to express just how perverse that is).
I don't think AB is saying it's "OK" in the sense of morally justified, or that they are pure victims.
I think the point is that we shouldn't be surprised if they attack again when they feel victimized.
That seems reasonable to me. History is full of situations where tit-for-tat retaliations escalate conflicts, with both sides feeling that their actions are either morally right or excusable given the provocation of the other side. I don't see anything that would make us immune from that dynamic.
William
On 26/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Stopping vandals isn't attacking, it's defending against an attack.
Saying the vandals are right to attack /again/ through the infamous "attack sites" is OK since the poor vandals are the victims is ... (sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I lack the words to express just how perverse that is).
I don't think AB is saying it's "OK" in the sense of morally justified, or that they are pure victims.
A few are, most probably aren't. Even if they were attacked first, outing crosses a definite line in my book. I would prefer they left the names and pseudonyms of individuals out of it, and yelled at Wikipaedia as a whole, but especially if the people won't listen to them, I can understand the reasons they wouldn't.
I think the point is that we shouldn't be surprised if they attack again when they feel victimized.
Exactly. Furthermore, retaliating against them beyond simply stopping them from editing, Wikipaedia is leaving its members vulnerable to these attacks.
That seems reasonable to me. History is full of situations where tit-for-tat retaliations escalate conflicts, with both sides feeling that their actions are either morally right or excusable given the provocation of the other side. I don't see anything that would make us immune from that dynamic.
William
Which is why it would be better for Wikipaedia to *not* retaliate beyond simply stopping them from editing.
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Stopping vandals isn't attacking, it's defending against an attack.
1. Not everyone who is banned is malicious - some were trying to help, many certainly weren't trying to hurt. 2. As someone said earlier, it doesn't matter if you've done anything wrong or broken any rules (which, let's face it, are things everyone does anyway, being human), if the community wants you out, you are gone. Being unliked doesn't mean you deserve to have your name dragged through the dirt on top of Google. In these cases, Wikipaedia attacked first. 3. The rules contradict each other any way, so you can't do much without breaking them. Bureaucracy doesn't have much to do with the worth of a person. 4. Even some vandals are drunk - not guilty by reason of insanity. 5. Even if it was malicious, vandalism is usually easily reparable - much more reparable, in many cases, than much of the well-meaning damage. Punishing it by dragging someone's name through the dirt for years is Draconian.
Saying the vandals are right to attack /again/ through the infamous "attack sites" is OK since the poor vandals are the victims is ... (sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I lack the words to express just how perverse that is).
Magnus
Many banned users, specifically, the ones who did nothing wrong but were disliked, not to mention the ones who simply made mistakes or got on the bad side of some silly bureaucratic rule, were attacked first, so by attacking back, they are not attacking again. They probably see it as self-defence. In many cases, it is self-defence.
I'm not saying that gives a person the right to put other people's lives at risk by outing them, but by provoking them, Wikipaedia shares the responsibility for the damage done by that. And I certainly won't blame them for being annoying.
Anthony wrote:
On 9/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Losing the ability to search the user space (something tells me MediaWiki's search will never be as good as Google's) is a significant cost to prevent a very unlikely risk.
I bet Google would be willing to provide Wikipedia with its own private Google search appliance if "powered by Google" with a link was at the bottom of the results. Of course, that'd probably piss off some Wikipedians.
Alternatively, the Google Mini Search Appliance is only $2000, and would probably be enough to do the trick.
I'm certain this has been suggested in the past. However, we use free software for (virtually?) all of the infrastructure, and so a Google device (or something like it) is not really a consideration.
-Rich Holton
On 24/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's just someone impersonating an admin, it happens all the time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'll get it sorted (In the interests of transparency, I'll get someone else to delete it). An "outsider" being impersonated on Wikipedia is pretty unlikely. There are two parts to a risk assessment. First you work out what could go wrong and how damaging it would be (you've done that) and then you have to work out how likely it is. You seem to have missed that part. Losing the ability to search the user space (something tells me MediaWiki's search will never be as good as Google's) is a significant cost to prevent a very unlikely risk.
So, if Mr. Y were to desire to harm the reputation of Mr. X, all Y would have to do is create an account on WP is X's name, and proceed to create as drastic an incident as possible... make sure to get it all over AN/I, RfC and RfAr, and end up with a banned user notice on User:X. Now X, noticing the WP page on him after his application to his dream job is denied because of it, proceeds to ask WP to take it down and replace it with a notice saying WP mistook his identity, and the banned user is actually someone else. WP says no, he deserved to be banned, and tells him to prove that User:X is someone else. He can't, of course. Mr. X then proceeds to sue WP in the UK, and wins because it is clear the defamatory material referred to him, WP did not take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the defamatory material (i.e. confirm the identity of the banned user), and failed to take it down upon request, clearly failing the criteria for innocent dissemination.
Perhaps all users should be prohibited from contributing under or revealing their real names on WP, to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Those who have already done so could have their usernames changed and their names removed from WP.
So, if Mr. Y were to desire to harm the reputation of Mr. X, all Y would have to do is create an account on WP is X's name, and proceed to create as drastic an incident as possible... make sure to get it all over AN/I, RfC and RfAr, and end up with a banned user notice on User:X.
Do you know of any time when that has actually happened?
We can't prove it's happened, but more importantly, we can't prove it hasn't happened.
On 25/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So, if Mr. Y were to desire to harm the reputation of Mr. X, all Y would have to do is create an account on WP is X's name, and proceed to create as drastic an incident as possible... make sure to get it all
over
AN/I, RfC and RfAr, and end up with a banned user notice on User:X.
Do you know of any time when that has actually happened?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
True. I believe that in general, if you want to use the 'truth' defence in defamation court, you have to prove you took reasonable measures to ensure that it was true... assuming 'truth' is even a defence, which it sometimes is not.
In any case, the door is wide open should anyone try it, especially to a non-Wikipaedian.
On 26/09/2007, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
We can't prove it's happened, but more importantly, we can't prove it hasn't happened.
On 25/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So, if Mr. Y were to desire to harm the reputation of Mr. X, all Y would have to do is create an account on WP is X's name, and proceed to create as drastic an incident as possible... make sure to get it all over AN/I, RfC and RfAr, and end up with a banned user notice on User:X.
Do you know of any time when that has actually happened?
On 26/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
True. I believe that in general, if you want to use the 'truth' defence in defamation court, you have to prove you took reasonable measures to ensure that it was true... assuming 'truth' is even a defence, which it sometimes is not.
In any case, the door is wide open should anyone try it, especially to a non-Wikipaedian.
How is using the username someone gave us when describing things they done wrong defamation? We don't say "Joe Bloggs of Number 7, Vandal Road, Vandalton, is indefinitely blocked for disruptive behaviour.", we're not naming and shaming anyone, we're just using the name we're given. If that name happens to be the name of an innocent bystander, that doesn't make what we've said defamation. It makes it unfortunate, and we should try and avoid/fix it where possible, but that's because we're nice people, it's not because it's illegal not to.
On 26/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
How is using the username someone gave us when describing things they done wrong defamation? We don't say "Joe Bloggs of Number 7, Vandal Road, Vandalton, is indefinitely blocked for disruptive behaviour.", we're not naming and shaming anyone, we're just using the name we're given. If that name happens to be the name of an innocent bystander, that doesn't make what we've said defamation. It makes it unfortunate, and we should try and avoid/fix it where possible, but that's because we're nice people, it's not because it's illegal not to.
And if Joe Bloggs complains, 'Hey, that wasn't me! Leave my good name alone!' and Wikipaedia refuses to take it down and drags Joe Bloggs's name through the dirt even more while talking about it? Then Wikipaedia could probably get sued in the UK for failing to be an innocent disseminater. (See Defamation Act 1996, Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited) Now, if Wikipaedia does take it down immediately (I don't trust it to, but if it did), Wikipaedia would proably be immune under the innocent dissemination clause, although whoever put the notice up might not be (but then again, who wants to sue Jane Admin anyway?). Of course, the entire incident could be avoided if everyone used pseudonyms that were obviously pseudonyms. Not that shaming a pseudonym is a good thing to do, but at least people are less likely to lose jobs over that.
And if Joe Bloggs complains, 'Hey, that wasn't me! Leave my good name alone!' and Wikipaedia refuses to take it down and drags Joe Bloggs's name through the dirt even more while talking about it? Then Wikipaedia could probably get sued in the UK for failing to be an innocent disseminater. (See Defamation Act 1996, Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited) Now, if Wikipaedia does take it down immediately (I don't trust it to, but if it did), Wikipaedia would proably be immune under the innocent dissemination clause, although whoever put the notice up might not be (but then again, who wants to sue Jane Admin anyway?). Of course, the entire incident could be avoided if everyone used pseudonyms that were obviously pseudonyms. Not that shaming a pseudonym is a good thing to do, but at least people are less likely to lose jobs over that.
A name is not a unique identifier. I don't see how anyone could claim something is defamation when it's not even about them.
On 26/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
A name is not a unique identifier. I don't see how anyone could claim something is defamation when it's not even about them.
If I recall correctly, in the UK, the burden of evidence is on them to prove that they are referred to. In order for that requirement to be met, you don't actually have to mean that person; rather, the public must associate the statement with that person. Some people's names are more common than others. For people with less common names - ones uncommon enough that Wikipaedia would show up as the first Google result - they probably stand a good chance of qualifying. For particularly common names, they probably don't, unless more details are given to pin it down to them.
On 26/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
A name is not a unique identifier. I don't see how anyone could claim something is defamation when it's not even about them.
If I recall correctly, in the UK, the burden of evidence is on them to prove that they are referred to. In order for that requirement to be met, you don't actually have to mean that person; rather, the public must associate the statement with that person. Some people's names are more common than others. For people with less common names - ones uncommon enough that Wikipaedia would show up as the first Google result - they probably stand a good chance of qualifying. For particularly common names, they probably don't, unless more details are given to pin it down to them.
The public is only going to be able to identify someone by their name alone if they are a public figure. If someone registers with the name of a public figure as their username they are blocked until they can prove they are who they say they are. I'm not sure what kind of message is put on their user pages, but if it's something that wouldn't look good on a Google search, I'm sure it can be changed. There is a slight risk that a minor public figure might not be recognised by anyone checking usernames, but the more minor the public figure, the less liable we would be, so I don't think there is a serious risk.
I believe non-public figures often receive more protection under defamation and related laws than public figures. 'False light' claims may be covered under privacy law.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_laws_false_light_privacy_defamation.htm
It is not uncommon that if making negative statements about a non-public figure, truth may not be a defence. It may also be necessary, for example, to prove that the matter was of public concern.
Some of us *do* have rather unique names, such that if people who knew us saw our names on the internet (e.g. a potential employer), they could reasonably assume we were the ones referred to.
On 26/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The public is only going to be able to identify someone by their name alone if they are a public figure. If someone registers with the name of a public figure as their username they are blocked until they can prove they are who they say they are. I'm not sure what kind of message is put on their user pages, but if it's something that wouldn't look good on a Google search, I'm sure it can be changed. There is a slight risk that a minor public figure might not be recognised by anyone checking usernames, but the more minor the public figure, the less liable we would be, so I don't think there is a serious risk.
On 26/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Some of us *do* have rather unique names, such that if people who knew us saw our names on the internet (e.g. a potential employer), they could reasonably assume we were the ones referred to.
Your tax name is Armed Blowfish?
- d.
On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Some of us *do* have rather unique names, such that if people who knew us saw our names on the internet (e.g. a potential employer), they could reasonably assume we were the ones referred to.
Your tax name is Armed Blowfish?
No, that's just his stage name.
-Phil
On 9/26/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Your tax name is Armed Blowfish?
No, that's just his stage name.
It's still his tax name... but rather than the one the government uses to tax him it's the on he uses to tax us....
On 9/26/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Your tax name is Armed Blowfish?
No, that's just his stage name.
on 9/26/07 5:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell at gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's still his tax name... but rather than the one the government uses to tax him it's the on he uses to tax us....
Tax - or challenge?
Marc
On 9/26/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 9/26/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Your tax name is Armed Blowfish?
No, that's just his stage name.
on 9/26/07 5:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell at gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's still his tax name... but rather than the one the government uses to tax him it's the on he uses to tax us....
Tax - or challenge?
When someone presents a novel point, or a new way of presenting an argument, I feel enriched, even when I disagree. When someone presents the same argument making the same point in the same way, I feel robbed of the time it took me to read it. So, given that I feel poorer on a scale that usually can only be beaten by the IRS, I do feel *taxed* by Ms. Blowfish.
On 26/09/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
When someone presents a novel point, or a new way of presenting an argument, I feel enriched, even when I disagree. When someone presents the same argument making the same point in the same way, I feel robbed of the time it took me to read it. So, given that I feel poorer on a scale that usually can only be beaten by the IRS, I do feel *taxed* by Ms. Blowfish.
It's your time, spend it how you like.
But if you think all a person has to lose in this world are money and time, well, you are quite innocent.
On 9/24/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas, recently you've aggressively rejected suggestions that we make an effort to keep things like blocked notices out of google.
Part of your argument seems to be that blocked people deserve whatever humiliation we can dish out. Cases of mistakes have been made, but you haven't seen to care.
I hope you don't plan to reference your work on Wikipedia in any job interviews any time soon: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Thomas+Dalton+wikipedia&btnG=Go...
Have I finally made a (wp:)POINT that you can understand?
As a Wikipedian in good standing fixing this won't be hard... but the same problem can be nearly impossible for outsiders to resolve.
Wikipedia isn't judge, jury, and executioner any more than we are a personal webhost. We should probably complexity no-index user and user talk... but if we don't we should at least endeavor to keep block/ban notices out of the search engines.
We must block people to keep the site running well... but using our web presence to attack people is generally unethical, and inappropriate even when they deserve it.
Is there a particular reason why user and user_talk need to be searchable? |
WilyD
On 26/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
We must block people to keep the site running well... but using our web presence to attack people is generally unethical, and inappropriate even when they deserve it.
Is there a particular reason why user and user_talk need to be searchable? |
People needing to find things in them, basically. Which is the point of search in general :-)
User[-talk] is still project infrastructure space, not WikiFaceBook; it's used for useful and contentful communication, notes, drafts, lists, all manner of stuff (plus a lot of crap, yeah).
And until we have a much better internal search, people are going to keep using external search engines to find that stuff. We'd lose a lot of utility if we noindexed it all outright without having a decent replacement of our own.
the relative privacy and freedom from slander is more important. The level of our discussions on this pages is --perhaps necessarily--really not fit for widespread public awareness. . What sort of a search is it that cannot be performed with the current internal facility and would be an essential function?
On 9/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
We must block people to keep the site running well... but using our web presence to attack people is generally unethical, and inappropriate even when they deserve it.
Is there a particular reason why user and user_talk need to be searchable? |
People needing to find things in them, basically. Which is the point of search in general :-)
User[-talk] is still project infrastructure space, not WikiFaceBook; it's used for useful and contentful communication, notes, drafts, lists, all manner of stuff (plus a lot of crap, yeah).
And until we have a much better internal search, people are going to keep using external search engines to find that stuff. We'd lose a lot of utility if we noindexed it all outright without having a decent replacement of our own.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
And until we have a much better internal search, people are going to keep using external search engines to find that stuff. We'd lose a lot of utility if we noindexed it all outright without having a decent replacement of our own.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Again, which do you like best? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FulltextSearchEngines
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
And until we have a much better internal search, people are going to keep using external search engines to find that stuff. We'd lose a lot of utility if we noindexed it all outright without having a decent replacement of our own.
Yes. Note the complaints about the mailing lists being blocked from indexing and Google being replaced with ht://dig, which is actually much worse than useless.
- d.
On 9/24/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia isn't judge, jury, and executioner any more than we are a personal webhost. We should probably complexity no-index user and user talk... but if we don't we should at least endeavor to keep block/ban notices out of the search engines.
I oppose no-indexing them. The point of our "we're no webhost" policy is that we don't want to get distracted from our mission of writing an encyclopedia by people posting random stuff. However, we have many editors in good standing who do not have the skills to put up a personal webpage and are effectively using their User: page as a "This is who I am, this is what I do" place on the net. Purging all those pages from Google to avoid unsavory stuff showing up is overkill.
How about adding a __NOINDEX__ MagicWord that puts
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />
in the HTML header?
Erik,
That would be excellent, something that would go into all the blocked and banned templates that we currently use. Blocked and banned users should be relatively easy to find through the various categories they fall into and also, given the fact many banned users have their talk pages blanked, the usefulness of allowing external search engines to index such pages is non existent.
On 26/09/2007, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 9/24/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia isn't judge, jury, and executioner any more than we are a personal webhost. We should probably complexity no-index user and user talk... but if we don't we should at least endeavor to keep block/ban notices out of the search engines.
I oppose no-indexing them. The point of our "we're no webhost" policy is that we don't want to get distracted from our mission of writing an encyclopedia by people posting random stuff. However, we have many editors in good standing who do not have the skills to put up a personal webpage and are effectively using their User: page as a "This is who I am, this is what I do" place on the net. Purging all those pages from Google to avoid unsavory stuff showing up is overkill.
How about adding a __NOINDEX__ MagicWord that puts
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />
in the HTML header?
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 26/09/2007, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Erik,
That would be excellent, something that would go into all the blocked and banned templates that we currently use. Blocked and banned users should be relatively easy to find through the various categories they fall into and also, given the fact many banned users have their talk pages blanked, the usefulness of allowing external search engines to index such pages is non existent.
It wouldn't work like that - the meta noindexing tag has to be in the head of the HTML code. The wiki-code is translated into a portion of the body part of the HTML code, so nothing you do to the wiki code will make it noindexed. It would have to be a separate option to add the noindex thingy to the head.
On 26/09/2007, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I oppose no-indexing them. The point of our "we're no webhost" policy is that we don't want to get distracted from our mission of writing an encyclopedia by people posting random stuff.
The right to use Wikipaedia as a webhost without getting distracted really doesn't compare to the right to privacy and to not have your name dragged through the dirt.
However, we have many editors in good standing who do not have the skills to put up a personal webpage and are effectively using their User: page as a "This is who I am, this is what I do" place on the net.
And no-indexing their user pages may make them feel safer in revealing personal info, which is what all the accountability people want.
Don't have the skills? Erm, if you can write a wiki, you can set up a personal webpage. Just search for free webhosting with Cpanel, which will probably come with Fantastico, which will probably include an automatic wiki installation script, though not necessarily MediaWiki. Alternatively, you can look for a free Wiki hoster.
Seriously, if you need help with this, email me.
Purging all those pages from Google to avoid unsavory stuff showing up is overkill.
There's a lot of unsavory things. Statistics coming... whenever I finish. However, given that most banned users have banned user notices, and pretty much everything in RfAr, RfC, and the ANs get ugly, it shouldn't be hard to guess.
How about adding a __NOINDEX__ MagicWord that puts
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />
in the HTML header?
1. Good idea, but harder to code. Good idea for a long term solution, but something should be done sooner. 2. Given how impossible it is to get the MediaWiki developers to commit anything, I'm not particularly motivated to code it, unless I am lead to believe it actually would be committed. 3. Given how hard it is to get a courtesy blanking, it would probably also be hard for a banned user to get someone to noindex their userpage, and a lot have probably given up. (Although I guess it could be set from the preferences, so each user would have control over his/her user and talk page, and it would not require editing permission.) But anyway, it should probably be opt-in to Google, not opt-out.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.