Hi all, Here's a story: 1. I noticed that the Georgia article had been updated to include a link to "Australian pianist" [[Georgia Ollier]]. 2. At this latter link, there are templates asking for sources etc. 3. I google the name...the number one hit is the Georgia disambiguation page. 4. Check the history on the disambig page - that addition was made all of *three hours* previously.
That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3 hours later you're the number one hit on Google.
What's the lesson here?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3 hours later you're the number one hit on Google.
What's the lesson here?
Version 1: Luck.
Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is working fine.
Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit in Mountain View.
Mathias
On 14/05/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3 hours later you're the number one hit on Google.
What's the lesson here?
Version 1: Luck.
Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is working fine.
Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit in Mountain View.
All three. :)
Rob Church
Mathias Schindler wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3 hours later you're the number one hit on Google.
What's the lesson here?
Version 1: Luck.
Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is working fine.
Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit in Mountain View.
Version 4: Google has added special-case code to their crawler engine that scan, say, Recent Changes, and spiders new material in near-real-time.
-- Neil
On 14/05/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Version 4: Google has added special-case code to their crawler engine that scan, say, Recent Changes, and spiders new material in near-real-time.
This would require them to start ignoring meta tags containing instructions to robots, since recent changes (and other special pages) have "noindex,nofollow" set.
Google are teh evil!
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
This would require them to start ignoring meta tags containing instructions to robots, since recent changes (and other special pages) have "noindex,nofollow" set.
Don't we provide feeds via OAI.PMH to interested third parties?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Archives_Initiative_Protocol_for_Metadata_...
The "obvious-el-cheapo" way to get real-time update information would be to go to #en.wikipedia on irc.wikimedia.org.
On 5/14/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
What's the lesson here?
Version 1: Luck.
Version 2: Google Sitemaps support for Mediawiki on Wikipedia.org is working fine.
Version 3: Brion has launched a secret google agreement during his visit in Mountain View.
Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any, should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
Steve
On 5/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any, should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
Steve
Turn back on new page creation by users that aren't logged in?
Anthony
On May 14, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any, should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
*shrug* Just need to enforce CSD more stringently, that's all.
On 5/15/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 14, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any, should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
*shrug* Just need to enforce CSD more stringently, that's all.
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Vanity isn't a valid grounds for deletion at any level let alone speedy deletion. As an admin, I would look at a speedy nomination on vanity as follows:
a) if it is a non-notable biography or otherwise appears to meet speedy deletion criteria, delete it;
b) if it doesn't appear to meet speedy deletion criteria but doesn't appear notable and/or verifiable, I would propose it for deletion or list it at articles for deletion depending on how likely I think it is that people would vote to keep it.
c) if it appears notable and verifiable, through what links here and a Google search keep the article and improve it or flag it for improvement.
I wouldn't delete it on vanity grounds as it is not a valid grounds for deletion. The problem with vanity articles is that they generally do not meet notability and/or verifiability criteria. If the subjects of these articles do meet such criteria, they should not edit the articles under NPOV. We also need to ensure that the article is not written in such a way that it gives an unduly negative impression of the person.
The criteria for speedy deletion limit the capacity of admins to unilaterally delete articles without proper process which in my view is a good thing. As someone who looks at speedy deletion articles on a daily basis, the criteria for speedy deletion are not as well understood by many people who nominate articles.
In general, our policies are strong enough to keep out articles without merit once we become aware of them.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
On May 14, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Keith Old wrote:
Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any, should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
*shrug* Just need to enforce CSD more stringently, that's all.
Vanity isn't a valid grounds for deletion at any level let alone speedy deletion.
Vanity isn't, but non-notable biography is, as is patent nonsense. If John Q. Highschoolstudent writes a vanity page, it'll say (in general terms) one of the following:
1. John Q. Highschoolstudent is on the track team and plays a mean game of Halo. 2. John Q. Highschoolstudent won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in 2006.
1 is non-notable bio, 2 is patent nonsense. Those two CSD's alone are the vanity fork--almost all vanity articles will fall within at least one of tehm.
The criteria for speedy deletion limit the capacity of admins to unilaterally delete articles without proper process which in my view is a good thing. As someone who looks at speedy deletion articles on a daily basis, the criteria for speedy deletion are not as well understood by many people who nominate articles.
Likewise, as someone with much speedy deletion experience, if it wasn't for the loose construction of CSD used by admins on a daily basis, our deletion processes would be even more backlogged than they are now.
In general, our policies are strong enough to keep out articles without merit once we become aware of them.
That was my point as well.
On 5/15/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Vanity isn't, but non-notable biography is, as is patent nonsense. If John Q. Highschoolstudent writes a vanity page, it'll say (in general terms) one of the following:
- John Q. Highschoolstudent is on the track team and plays a mean
game of Halo. 2. John Q. Highschoolstudent won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in 2006.
1 is non-notable bio, 2 is patent nonsense. Those two CSD's alone are the vanity fork--almost all vanity articles will fall within at least one of tehm.
What is: 3. John Q. Highschoolstudent is a brilliant basketballer and has made numerous appearences on TV.
Presume that we can't find any google references to back this up. Presume (debatable) for the sake of argument that if the claim is true, this is notable enough. Do we classify it as unverifiable? Do we call it hoax? Is it still vanity, whatever that means?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Vanity isn't, but non-notable biography is, as is patent nonsense. If John Q. Highschoolstudent writes a vanity page, it'll say (in general terms) one of the following:
- John Q. Highschoolstudent is on the track team and plays a mean
game of Halo. 2. John Q. Highschoolstudent won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in 2006.
1 is non-notable bio, 2 is patent nonsense. Those two CSD's alone are the vanity fork--almost all vanity articles will fall within at least one of tehm.
What is: 3. John Q. Highschoolstudent is a brilliant basketballer and has made numerous appearences on TV.
Presume that we can't find any google references to back this up. Presume (debatable) for the sake of argument that if the claim is true, this is notable enough. Do we classify it as unverifiable? Do we call it hoax? Is it still vanity, whatever that means?
"Appeared on TV" is verifiable, so it's not patent nonsense. However, provided it's not a hoax, [[WP:HOLE]] applies.
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
"Appeared on TV" is verifiable, so it's not patent nonsense. However, provided it's not a hoax, [[WP:HOLE]] applies.
Ok, going to the specific case ([[Georgia Ollier]]), I believe that a young pianist (under 13) who had performed "numerous" (say, more than 5) times on one of the main TV channels would be notable. Note that I'm defining some of the terms more clearly than they originally were. I would expect that such a person would grab a google hit or two, but I couldn't be certain - how would you find out via the web if someone had ever been on a certain channel?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
What is: 3. John Q. Highschoolstudent is a brilliant basketballer and has made numerous appearences on TV.
Presume that we can't find any google references to back this up. Presume (debatable) for the sake of argument that if the claim is true, this is notable enough. Do we classify it as unverifiable? Do we call it hoax? Is it still vanity, whatever that means?
My own personal response is: zao it, don't look back. Be kind about it. But zap it.
On 5/28/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
What is: 3. John Q. Highschoolstudent is a brilliant basketballer and has made numerous appearences on TV.
Presume that we can't find any google references to back this up. Presume (debatable) for the sake of argument that if the claim is true, this is notable enough. Do we classify it as unverifiable? Do we call it hoax? Is it still vanity, whatever that means?
My own personal response is: zao it, don't look back. Be kind about it. But zap it.
I did. "Unverifiable" is a good catch all for "you're probably making this up", but doesn't sound quite so harsh.
Actually there seems to be an established pattern for this at [[WP:AFC]]. They don't accuse contributors of making stuff up. They just say they didn't have enough information to verify it.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any, should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
Sorry I'm replying to this weeks-old message, but ... "big payoff"? How is the payoff any bigger than before? I think you're forgetting that if Google gets faster at indexing new articles, it also gets faster at removing articles from its index as they get deleted from Wikipedia.
On 5/28/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any, should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
Sorry I'm replying to this weeks-old message, but ... "big payoff"? How is the payoff any bigger than before? I think you're forgetting that if Google gets faster at indexing new articles, it also gets faster at removing articles from its index as they get deleted from Wikipedia.
Let's presume that any piece of vandalism gets cleaned within 12 hours. Let's presume that "before" Google indexed a given page every month, and now it's every day. My statistics isn't very good, but I guess that means that the average time your vandalism appears on google doesn't change, but the variance is much lower now. Now, you had a 50% chance of being on Google for 24 hours. Before, you probably had a 1 in 60 chance of being on there for a month.
I have now idea how much spammers take stuff like this into account though.
Steve
On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I have now idea how much spammers take stuff like this into account though.
Steve
Judging by what appears on their forums a lot have given up. The bots that we get hit by are probably only targeting us in passing (with a few exceptions).