On 11/30/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This case Slim Virgin mentions is in arbitration now and a blatant example of gaming Google by associating the name of the person with a lot of accusations he has only a marginal connection with ... At a minimum we need to not allow Google to index our talk pages. We talk about a lot of things. They may be about information but they are not encyclopedic.
Fred, the case I was referring to isn't the one that's in arbitration, though I know the one you mean, and it's quite similar. I'm starting to wonder whether this is happening a lot: that troublemakers see our talk pages as a sort of Trojan horse. They pretend to be having an innocent conversation designed to sort out the good from the bad material, whereas in fact the discussion is only a vehicle being used to spread the bad stuff, which they know won't survive in our articles.
Sarah
On 11/30/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This case Slim Virgin mentions is in arbitration now and a blatant example of gaming Google by associating the name of the person with a lot of accusations he has only a marginal connection with ... At a minimum we need to not allow Google to index our talk pages. We talk about a lot of things. They may be about information but they are not encyclopedic.
Fred, the case I was referring to isn't the one that's in arbitration, though I know the one you mean, and it's quite similar. I'm starting to wonder whether this is happening a lot: that troublemakers see our talk pages as a sort of Trojan horse. They pretend to be having an innocent conversation designed to sort out the good from the bad material, whereas in fact the discussion is only a vehicle being used to spread the bad stuff, which they know won't survive in our articles.
Sarah
I'm seeing it a fair bit in certain areas. I haven't seen linkspam hitting talkpages yet but it probably will soon. The problem is that it will be most effective on low profile talk pages (ie ones likely to be at the top of google searches) where we are least likely to notice.
-- geni
I wasn't aware that Google results were influenced by material on Talk pages. If this is true, it explains instances in which I have seen anons post some ideological screed in the article, have it removed, and then re-post it repeatedly into the article's Talk page. Is this actually that effective a tactic for using Wikipedia as a soapbox?
Jason
Quoting slimvirgin@gmail.com:
On 11/30/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This case Slim Virgin mentions is in arbitration now and a blatant example of gaming Google by associating the name of the person with a lot of accusations he has only a marginal connection with ... At a minimum we need to not allow Google to index our talk pages. We talk about a lot of things. They may be about information but they are not encyclopedic.
Fred, the case I was referring to isn't the one that's in arbitration, though I know the one you mean, and it's quite similar. I'm starting to wonder whether this is happening a lot: that troublemakers see our talk pages as a sort of Trojan horse. They pretend to be having an innocent conversation designed to sort out the good from the bad material, whereas in fact the discussion is only a vehicle being used to spread the bad stuff, which they know won't survive in our articles.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/30/05, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I wasn't aware that Google results were influenced by material on Talk pages. If this is true, it explains instances in which I have seen anons post some ideological screed in the article, have it removed, and then re-post it repeatedly into the article's Talk page. Is this actually that effective a tactic for using Wikipedia as a soapbox?
Jason
If there isn't much else on the subject covered on the web then yes. -- geni
They think it is or they wouldn't do it.
Fred
On Nov 30, 2005, at 9:30 AM, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I wasn't aware that Google results were influenced by material on Talk pages. If this is true, it explains instances in which I have seen anons post some ideological screed in the article, have it removed, and then re- post it repeatedly into the article's Talk page. Is this actually that effective a tactic for using Wikipedia as a soapbox?
JasonQuoting slimvirgin@gmail.com:
On 11/30/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This case Slim Virgin mentions is in arbitration now and a blatant example of gaming Google by associating the name of the person with a lot of accusations he has only a marginal connection with ... At a minimum we need to not allow Google to index our talk pages. We talk about a lot of things. They may be about information but they are not encyclopedic.
Fred, the case I was referring to isn't the one that's in arbitration, though I know the one you mean, and it's quite similar. I'm starting to wonder whether this is happening a lot: that troublemakers see our talk pages as a sort of Trojan horse. They pretend to be having an innocent conversation designed to sort out the good from the bad material, whereas in fact the discussion is only a vehicle being used to spread the bad stuff, which they know won't survive in our articles.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l