I've brought this up at the talk page at [[Wikipedia:External links]] and ended up with more contempt than actual answers, so maybe some people in the know will be nice enough to actually clear some things up for us.
1) If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
2) Myspace blogs were recently added to the spam blacklist by Raul per request of Jimbo, although no one else seems to know why, how, or per what rationale. I won't pretend to know what Jimbo's been up to past not having edited Wikipedia since the is-it-or-is-it-not-a decree, but perhaps some more explanation on this would be worthwhile? Seems like we're blocking a shitload of otherwise worthwhile primary source material for many of our articles for the sake of...well...nothing. Meanwhile, a blog ''not'' hosted on MySpace is still a-okay, which is patently absurd on its face. I'm wondering what the thought process was on this, since no one else seems to want to chime in.
3) Did you folks know we have a bot that reverts links that are arbitrarily considered spam? I didn't until today. [[User:Shadowbot1]]. I convinced him to post the blacklist where we could see it, and while some (most?) are useful, others are pretty screwy, and I'm not sure this is helpful in the long run.
I'm starting to think that our focus on spam is becoming a problem rather than a benefit to the project. How much collateral damage are we willing to accept in the project to take care of this "problem" that people think is massive? One out of every 10? 5% poor hits? Do we have some sort of measurement we're using here?
-Jeff
On 1/21/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- Did you folks know we have a bot that reverts links that are
arbitrarily considered spam? I didn't until today. [[User:Shadowbot1]]. I convinced him to post the blacklist where we could see it, and while some (most?) are useful, others are pretty screwy, and I'm not sure this is helpful in the long run.
Yes we know, jeff.
regarding this HAVE YOU NO CLUE what spam is? there have been massive attacks by spammers recently there was one user that added 142 links to the same site, the reason? to increase the sites rank in google. as for blog, myspace.com the reason is simple there is no need to link to jimbobs blog as per my reasoning at WT:EL Betacommand
On 1/21/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I've brought this up at the talk page at [[Wikipedia:External links]] and ended up with more contempt than actual answers, so maybe some people in the know will be nice enough to actually clear some things up for us.
- If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
- Myspace blogs were recently added to the spam blacklist by Raul per
request of Jimbo, although no one else seems to know why, how, or per what rationale. I won't pretend to know what Jimbo's been up to past not having edited Wikipedia since the is-it-or-is-it-not-a decree, but perhaps some more explanation on this would be worthwhile? Seems like we're blocking a shitload of otherwise worthwhile primary source material for many of our articles for the sake of...well...nothing. Meanwhile, a blog ''not'' hosted on MySpace is still a-okay, which is patently absurd on its face. I'm wondering what the thought process was on this, since no one else seems to want to chime in.
- Did you folks know we have a bot that reverts links that are
arbitrarily considered spam? I didn't until today. [[User:Shadowbot1]]. I convinced him to post the blacklist where we could see it, and while some (most?) are useful, others are pretty screwy, and I'm not sure this is helpful in the long run.
I'm starting to think that our focus on spam is becoming a problem rather than a benefit to the project. How much collateral damage are we willing to accept in the project to take care of this "problem" that people think is massive? One out of every 10? 5% poor hits? Do we have some sort of measurement we're using here?
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
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 1/21/07, John Doe phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
regarding this HAVE YOU NO CLUE what spam is? there have been massive attacks by spammers recently there was one user that added 142 links to the same site, the reason? to increase the sites rank in google. as for blog, myspace.com the reason is simple there is no need to link to jimbobs blog as per my reasoning at WT:EL Betacommand
On 1/21/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I've brought this up at the talk page at [[Wikipedia:External links]] and ended up with more contempt than actual answers, so maybe some people in the know will be nice enough to actually clear some things up for us.
- If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
- Myspace blogs were recently added to the spam blacklist by Raul per
request of Jimbo, although no one else seems to know why, how, or per what rationale. I won't pretend to know what Jimbo's been up to past not having edited Wikipedia since the is-it-or-is-it-not-a decree, but perhaps some more explanation on this would be worthwhile? Seems like we're blocking a shitload of otherwise worthwhile primary source material for many of our articles for the sake of...well...nothing. Meanwhile, a blog ''not'' hosted on MySpace is still a-okay, which is patently absurd on its face. I'm wondering what the thought process was on this, since no one else seems to want to chime in.
- Did you folks know we have a bot that reverts links that are
arbitrarily considered spam? I didn't until today. [[User:Shadowbot1]]. I convinced him to post the blacklist where we could see it, and while some (most?) are useful, others are pretty screwy, and I'm not sure this is helpful in the long run.
I'm starting to think that our focus on spam is becoming a problem rather than a benefit to the project. How much collateral damage are we willing to accept in the project to take care of this "problem" that people think is massive? One out of every 10? 5% poor hits? Do we have some sort of measurement we're using here?
Let's assume for the moment that everyone reading knows what spam is and what the level of spam problem is for WP.
What we don't all know, is enough about what's being done about it, and how it's implemented.
As that can bite anyone, and in particular more experienced editors and admins working on problem issues, it might be better if there was more communications regarding anti-spam measures taken...
John Doe wrote:
regarding this HAVE YOU NO CLUE what spam is? there have been massive attacks by spammers recently there was one user that added 142 links to the same site, the reason? to increase the sites rank in google. as for blog, myspace.com the reason is simple there is no need to link to jimbobs blog as per my reasoning at WT:EL
I certainly have a clue. And I bet we simply reverted him, right? That's how we should be dealing with it.
Also, I have yet to see a useful defense of blacklisting MySpace blogs, so if you have one, I'd love to see it.
-Jeff
On 22/01/07, John Doe phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
regarding this HAVE YOU NO CLUE what spam is? there have been massive attacks by spammers recently there was one user that added 142 links to the same site, the reason? to increase the sites rank in google.
Good lord. What a novel idea of theirs. I can't believe I've never seen that happen before; obviously we here have been sheltered from the hurly-burly of real editing life for years.
as for blog, myspace.com the reason is simple there is no need to link to jimbobs blog as per my reasoning at WT:EL
This sounds awfully like the "reliable sources" policy that arbitrarily decreed Usenet could never be cited. Sure, we're mot in the business of randomly linking to people's blogs, and we never have been. That doesn't stop the fact that, occasionally, someone we would consider reliable may post some information there we would like to source.
(Indeed, one of our *explicit recommendations* to people we have articles on is that if there is contradictory information about them floating around, or basic information which isn't widely known, they should make sure to mention it on their personal site somewhere...)
On 1/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I think you're asking why nofollow is applied to links to pages hosted at Wikia. The answer to that is that MediaWiki treats external links [1] differently to interwiki links, and nofollow is only applied to external links.
So if my wikitext had [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite] I would get an external link, with nofollow, but if I had [[w:de:Hauptseite]] I would get an interwiki link without nofollow.
This is sort of a bug, since there are many many sites which can be linked to this way: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I think you're asking why nofollow is applied to links to pages hosted at Wikia. The answer to that is that MediaWiki treats external links [1] differently to interwiki links, and nofollow is only applied to external links.
So if my wikitext had [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite] I would get an external link, with nofollow, but if I had [[w:de:Hauptseite]] I would get an interwiki link without nofollow.
This is sort of a bug, since there are many many sites which can be linked to this way: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
... which is why it's an inter-WIKI map, and is protected.
On 1/23/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
This is sort of a bug, since there are many many sites which can be linked to this way: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
... which is why it's an inter-WIKI map, and is protected.
I meant that it's a bug in the sense that someone with, say, a Wikia wiki can evade having nofollow on links to them by changing external links to interwiki links.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
I've brought this up at the talk page at [[Wikipedia:External links]] and ended up with more contempt than actual answers, so maybe some people in the know will be nice enough to actually clear some things up for us.
It looks like yet another POV zoo. Sometimes the swath of destruction from these rule-mongers is beyond belief. I can no longer be bothered with these rules debates, because unlike the rule-mongers I find there are more interesting things to do. Left to their own devices they can invent whatever silly rule they want by sheer brute force. No stretch of the imagination will conclude that any type of consensus has been reached. Most of these rules are unlikely to affect what I do, but that does not prevent me from being troubled by the fundamental disrespect of fairness that these rule-mongers practise.
I'm starting to think that our focus on spam is becoming a problem rather than a benefit to the project. How much collateral damage are we willing to accept in the project to take care of this "problem" that people think is massive? One out of every 10? 5% poor hits? Do we have some sort of measurement we're using here?
No problem like spam can ever be eradicated completely. When some people become obsessed with removing any link that might seem to be promoting a product, no matter how relevant to the article things have probably gone too far. I am very much aware of the dangers of excess advertising, and how easy it would be to be overrun by it, but once it has gone below a certain threshhold maybe there are other priorities.
Ec
On 1/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- Myspace blogs were recently added to the spam blacklist by Raul per
request of Jimbo, although no one else seems to know why, how, or per what rationale. I won't pretend to know what Jimbo's been up to past not having edited Wikipedia since the is-it-or-is-it-not-a decree, but perhaps some more explanation on this would be worthwhile? Seems like we're blocking a shitload of otherwise worthwhile primary source material for many of our articles for the sake of...well...nothing. Meanwhile, a blog ''not'' hosted on MySpace is still a-okay, which is patently absurd on its face. I'm wondering what the thought process was on this, since no one else seems to want to chime in.
Other blogs aren't a-okay, but it's simply not possible to block all blogs. Personally, I will allow blogs as sources when its contents can clearly be attributed to a notable individual. 99% of MySpace members isn't remotely notable at all.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- Myspace blogs were recently added to the spam blacklist by Raul per
request of Jimbo, although no one else seems to know why, how, or per what rationale. I won't pretend to know what Jimbo's been up to past not having edited Wikipedia since the is-it-or-is-it-not-a decree, but perhaps some more explanation on this would be worthwhile? Seems like we're blocking a shitload of otherwise worthwhile primary source material for many of our articles for the sake of...well...nothing. Meanwhile, a blog ''not'' hosted on MySpace is still a-okay, which is patently absurd on its face. I'm wondering what the thought process was on this, since no one else seems to want to chime in.
Other blogs aren't a-okay, but it's simply not possible to block all blogs. Personally, I will allow blogs as sources when its contents can clearly be attributed to a notable individual. 99% of MySpace members isn't remotely notable at all.
The point is that many MySpace blogs *are* hosted by notable individuals, which is what makes the blanked technical-level blocking (as opposed to editor-level exercise of judgment) problematic. And also note that we're not talking about *sources*, but *external links*. While I agree that rarely is a blog a good source for anything, it seems absurd to me that the blog of Professor X is not a suitable external link from the page [[Professor X]].
-Mark
On 1/22/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The point is that many MySpace blogs *are* hosted by notable individuals, which is what makes the blanked technical-level blocking (as opposed to editor-level exercise of judgment) problematic.
Don't forget the whitelist. The blocking isn't blanket.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Other blogs aren't a-okay, but it's simply not possible to block all blogs. Personally, I will allow blogs as sources when its contents can clearly be attributed to a notable individual. 99% of MySpace members isn't remotely notable at all.
So because most blogs aren't useful, we'll simply assume they all aren't. Hey, most websites aren't useful, either, why not disable all external linking altogether?
-Jeff
On 22/01/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Other blogs aren't a-okay, but it's simply not possible to block all blogs. Personally, I will allow blogs as sources when its contents can clearly be attributed to a notable individual. 99% of MySpace members isn't remotely notable at all.
So because most blogs aren't useful, we'll simply assume they all aren't. Hey, most websites aren't useful, either, why not disable all external linking altogether?
Because there were enough MySpace blogs in particular being used as spam links to be a discernible individual problem, with no known cases where they were the right link and just the MySpace page itself wasn't.
What actual (non-hypothetical examples) do you have where the blog is an apposite link rather than the MySpace page itself?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Because there were enough MySpace blogs in particular being used as spam links to be a discernible individual problem, with no known cases where they were the right link and just the MySpace page itself wasn't.
There are enough external links being used as spam links to warrant the same thing. I'm still not buying it.
What actual (non-hypothetical examples) do you have where the blog is an apposite link rather than the MySpace page itself?
I can't give anything but hypotheticals, but the idea that MySpace blogs can't be useful as primary sources for their subjects is crazy.
-Jeff
- d.
Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com writes:
David Gerard wrote:
Because there were enough MySpace blogs in particular being used as spam links to be a discernible individual problem, with no known cases where they were the right link and just the MySpace page itself wasn't.
There are enough external links being used as spam links to warrant the same thing. I'm still not buying it.
What actual (non-hypothetical examples) do you have where the blog is an apposite link rather than the MySpace page itself?
I can't give anything but hypotheticals, but the idea that MySpace blogs can't be useful as primary sources for their subjects is crazy.
-Jeff
True. For example, http://www.myspace.com/mkaku is a good source for Dr. [[Michio Kaku]], though it looks like the current editors of the article have removed it from everything except External links.
On 22/01/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com writes:
I can't give anything but hypotheticals, but the idea that MySpace blogs can't be useful as primary sources for their subjects is crazy.
True. For example, http://www.myspace.com/mkaku is a good source for Dr. [[Michio Kaku]], though it looks like the current editors of the article have removed it from everything except External links.
That's the MySpace page, rather than the attached blog. www.myspace.com is not on the spam list.
- d.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Other blogs aren't a-okay, but it's simply not possible to block all blogs. Personally, I will allow blogs as sources when its contents can clearly be attributed to a notable individual. 99% of MySpace members isn't remotely notable at all.
So because most blogs aren't useful, we'll simply assume they all aren't. Hey, most websites aren't useful, either, why not disable all external linking altogether?
Mgm is allowing for 1% good ones. That's important progress because it means that people actually have to pay attention to what they're doing. If someone is doing that I'm happy to concede the other 99%. It's the absolutist stand that some take that's the problem.
- If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
Looks like Wikia is treated as an interwiki link, which assumes it's part of the same project. I'd report it as a bug, if I were you.
- Myspace blogs were recently added to the spam blacklist by Raul per
request of Jimbo, although no one else seems to know why, how, or per what rationale. I won't pretend to know what Jimbo's been up to past not having edited Wikipedia since the is-it-or-is-it-not-a decree, but perhaps some more explanation on this would be worthwhile? Seems like we're blocking a shitload of otherwise worthwhile primary source material for many of our articles for the sake of...well...nothing. Meanwhile, a blog ''not'' hosted on MySpace is still a-okay, which is patently absurd on its face. I'm wondering what the thought process was on this, since no one else seems to want to chime in.
MySpace blogs are never a reliable source for anything other than a MySpace blog, and they are virtually never notable, so I don't see a problem.
- Did you folks know we have a bot that reverts links that are
arbitrarily considered spam? I didn't until today. [[User:Shadowbot1]]. I convinced him to post the blacklist where we could see it, and while some (most?) are useful, others are pretty screwy, and I'm not sure this is helpful in the long run.
I knew, but I've never looked at the blacklist. I've just trusted it... was I wrong to?
I'm starting to think that our focus on spam is becoming a problem rather than a benefit to the project. How much collateral damage are we willing to accept in the project to take care of this "problem" that people think is massive? One out of every 10? 5% poor hits? Do we have some sort of measurement we're using here?
I don't think there is much if any collateral damage from our anti-spam efforts. I can remember one problem with ShadowBot removing a link that it shouldn't have, and I think it was resolved by fixing the blacklist (I don't remember exactly, I wasn't actually involved to a great extent).
It's very annoying to have to remember to hit "reply to all." Can list admins fix this, please?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
- If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
Looks like Wikia is treated as an interwiki link, which assumes it's part of the same project. I'd report it as a bug, if I were you.
I'm hoping that the nofollow is temporary/abandoned in that time.
MySpace blogs are never a reliable source for anything other than a MySpace blog, and they are virtually never notable, so I don't see a problem.
This will be the last time I repeat it here to save people's inboxes - "virtually never" doesn't mean we ignore the "sometimes," especially on the technical side.
- Did you folks know we have a bot that reverts links that are
arbitrarily considered spam? I didn't until today. [[User:Shadowbot1]]. I convinced him to post the blacklist where we could see it, and while some (most?) are useful, others are pretty screwy, and I'm not sure this is helpful in the long run.
I knew, but I've never looked at the blacklist. I've just trusted it... was I wrong to?
Trust but verify, at the least.
I don't think there is much if any collateral damage from our anti-spam efforts. I can remember one problem with ShadowBot removing a link that it shouldn't have, and I think it was resolved by fixing the blacklist (I don't remember exactly, I wasn't actually involved to a great extent).
Between the heavy-handed use of G11, having a blacklist BOT, blacklisting an arbitrary blog site on the blacklist, I think there's a lot more collateral damage than we're owning up to.
-Jeff
On 1/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It's very annoying to have to remember to hit "reply to all." Can list admins fix this, please?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
- If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially? Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
Looks like Wikia is treated as an interwiki link, which assumes it's part of the same project. I'd report it as a bug, if I were you.
I'm hoping that the nofollow is temporary/abandoned in that time.
MySpace blogs are never a reliable source for anything other than a MySpace blog, and they are virtually never notable, so I don't see a problem.
This will be the last time I repeat it here to save people's inboxes - "virtually never" doesn't mean we ignore the "sometimes," especially on the technical side.
- Did you folks know we have a bot that reverts links that are
arbitrarily considered spam? I didn't until today. [[User:Shadowbot1]]. I convinced him to post the blacklist where we could see it, and while some (most?) are useful, others are pretty screwy, and I'm not sure this is helpful in the long run.
I knew, but I've never looked at the blacklist. I've just trusted it... was I wrong to?
Trust but verify, at the least.
I don't think there is much if any collateral damage from our anti-spam efforts. I can remember one problem with ShadowBot removing a link that it shouldn't have, and I think it was resolved by fixing the blacklist (I don't remember exactly, I wasn't actually involved to a great extent).
Between the heavy-handed use of G11, having a blacklist BOT, blacklisting an arbitrary blog site on the blacklist, I think there's a lot more collateral damage than we're owning up to.
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jeff, I'm surprised that a process follower like you complain about the bot, that was approved via the usual channels , got consensus, and thus approved.
Process was followed, don't you tell me that process isn't always good and thus should be ignored. How is that possible jeff??
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It's very annoying to have to remember to hit "reply to all." Can list admins fix this, please?
Jeff, I'm surprised that a process follower like you complain about the bot, that was approved via the usual channels , got consensus, and thus approved.
Process was followed, don't you tell me that process isn't always good and thus should be ignored. How is that possible jeff??
I don't recall complaining about the bot process. In any regard, I don't think complaints after the fact, after seeing said bot in action, are bad things, and perhaps, if discussion with the bot operator isn't fruitful, the next step in the process can be pursued.
There's plenty of processes we have that I absolutely abhor. It doesn't mean I'm not going to follow them until the rest of you come to your senses. d:-D
-Jeff
On 22/01/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- Myspace blogs were recently added to the spam blacklist by Raul per
request of Jimbo, although no one else seems to know why, how, or per what rationale.
Because the pages themselves are often appropriate external links, but the blogs almost never are - and there were enough of them that they were becoming a problem in themselves.
Note that a link can still be put into the text if you leave the http:// off the front, so that it's only text. This way a blog post could be used as e.g. a reference should that be appropriate in a given caes.
- d.