and never think they're spamming feckwits who should be nuked from orbit in short order.
http://www.wolf-howl.com/grayhat-seo/invalidate-wikipedia-articles/
(I'm sure JEHochman would love a large anvil to fall on people like this ;-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
and never think they're spamming feckwits who should be nuked from orbit in short order.
http://www.wolf-howl.com/grayhat-seo/invalidate-wikipedia-articles/
(I'm sure JEHochman would love a large anvil to fall on people like this ;-)
I like the way they say "Comments on this entry are closed." Are they scared of something? ;)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:37 AM, James Farrarjames.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I like the way they say "Comments on this entry are closed." Are they scared of something? ;)
Heh. He noticed that.
The image I get is a guy who's annoyed at this giant bullant's nest. All the bullants are beavering away, working on their nest. He discovers that he can destroy little bits of it by poking sticks down it. It's so much fun, he tells his buddies to come over, and crush some of the little ants. Sure...but the ants are still going to win. And you're the one who looks like a tard.
He does raise an interesting point with his CNN bigfoot myth example. But he's implying that all "verifiable sources" are equal, which they're clearly not. Imagine hypothetically that there was no article on Bigfoot, and someone created one, citing this supposed CNN article saying it existed. Definitely in line with Wikipedia policy. But then someone would probably come along, with much more authoritative sources, saying that Bigfoot didn't exist, and that the article was a fake. Common sense dictates that the now discredited article is not used as a source anymore.
Seems like a lot of effort to spread a small amount of misinformation for a while.
Steve
2009/6/16 James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com:
I like the way they say "Comments on this entry are closed." Are they scared of something? ;)
Because last time he ran one of these a lot of people called him an odious arsehole. For some reason.
- d.
On 16/06/2009, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I like the way they say "Comments on this entry are closed." Are they scared of something? ;)
Perhaps he should be. I wonder what his ISP thinks about planning attacks on other websites like this, or if they're fine with it, what they would think if the wikipedia decided not to serve any pages to their entire subnet?
2009/6/16 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
and never think they're spamming feckwits who should be nuked from orbit in short order.
http://www.wolf-howl.com/grayhat-seo/invalidate-wikipedia-articles/
"Search engine optimisation: we can't make anyone want to read your content, but we can make everything else just as shitty."
I suppose it's touching they're trying, but I wish they'd realise it's a waste of time for all of us...
As the project gains popularity, it's inevitable that more people will try to subvert our aims, but I did find one thing a bit amusing:
Top of post: "Personally I’m not a fan of Wikipedia..."
Later in post: "...in chess we call this [zugzwang]..." (note link to Wikipedia)
Even our critics can't help but use our services.
-Luna
2009/6/16 Luna lunasantin@gmail.com:
As the project gains popularity, it's inevitable that more people will try to subvert our aims, but I did find one thing a bit amusing:
Top of post: "Personally I’m not a fan of Wikipedia..."
Later in post: "...in chess we call this [zugzwang]..." (note link to Wikipedia)
Even our critics can't help but use our services.
Well spotted! That made my day.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/16 Luna lunasantin@gmail.com:
As the project gains popularity, it's inevitable that more people will try to subvert our aims, but I did find one thing a bit amusing:
Top of post: "Personally I’m not a fan of Wikipedia..."
Later in post: "...in chess we call this [zugzwang]..." (note link to Wikipedia)
Even our critics can't help but use our services.
Well spotted! That made my day.
I guess he's still keeping true to his SEO principles though: it's a nofollow link.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Sage Ross wrote:
Top of post: "Personally Im not a fan of Wikipedia..." Later in post: "...in chess we call this [zugzwang]..." (note link to Wikipedia) Even our critics can't help but use our services.
Well spotted! That made my day.
I guess he's still keeping true to his SEO principles though: it's a nofollow link.
zugzwang isn't about politics or religion or pseudoscience, it's not a biography of a living person, it generally doesn't have any controversy over it, it isn't a popular culture topic (I suppose you could call chess popular culture if you wanted to stretch it, but if so, then it still doesn't have the problems of most popular culture topics). It certainly isn't an episode or character, and it doesn't need a spoiler warning.
In other words, it's entirely sensible for him to distrust Wikipedia in general, yet for none of the reasons for his distrust to apply in the particular case where he actually uses Wikipedia.
Your glee is misplaced.
On 17/06/2009, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
In other words, it's entirely sensible for him to distrust Wikipedia in general, yet for none of the reasons for his distrust to apply in the particular case where he actually uses Wikipedia.
Yeah, except the main reason he doesn't like it isn't because it's trustworthy or not, it's almost certainly because the wikipedia steals all his link juice and makes him look bad as a SEO; he has to work a lot harder when the wikipedia has a couple of the top slots to get his 'customer' on the first page.