I would add that our project, imho, should be open and transparent. If we hide the internal workings from all but the cognoscenti, we are not achieving the greatest aim.
There are many ways to address DRV issues, without blocking all non-mainspace searches.
Internal searching while helpful, should not be yet another way to shield the world from the project. Quite the opposite imho. Forming a closed society is not going to be a productive way to show our supposed higher ethical standards.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
2008/4/28 WJhonson@aol.com:
I would add that our project, imho, should be open and transparent. If we hide the internal workings from all but the cognoscenti, we are not achieving the greatest aim.
There are many ways to address DRV issues, without blocking all non-mainspace searches.
Internal searching while helpful, should not be yet another way to shield the world from the project. Quite the opposite imho. Forming a closed society is not going to be a productive way to show our supposed higher ethical standards.
Will Johnson
It is one thing for such information to be searchable within Wikipedia,
and a completely different thing to be searchable on commercial search engines. Take a look at [[WP:ANI]] archives, and there are dozens of real names of both editors and article subjects popping up, mainly with a negative context. The code words we use on Wikipedia to mean one thing often have far more negative interpretations outside of our little site - for example, "stalking" and "abuse". Go and read a few arbcom cases, and you'll see masses of negative information and innuendo about people using their real names, again both editors and article subjects. These things should not be directly accessible by doing a simple websearch.
Risker