Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick glance at the HTML source for example on the Wikia article on en.wikipedia.org shows that transcluded links to the privately owned Wikia pages are not covered.
Why does Wikia get the benefit of the SEO from Wikipedia? If there was an arrangement granted by the WMF for this, was it documented publicly? If so, where? Thanks!
On 27/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick
Presumably for a lack of coding. Go write some MediaWiki code rather than whining. Thanks!
- d.
On 4/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably for a lack of coding. Go write some MediaWiki code rather than whining. Thanks!
No opposite problem. There is code in place that makes them not nofollow.
On 28/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably for a lack of coding. Go write some MediaWiki code rather than whining. Thanks!
No opposite problem. There is code in place that makes them not nofollow.
The point stands: {{sofixit}}
- d.
On 4/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point stands: {{sofixit}}
If I were given database access (ha) I would be happy to do so. Should only require some fairly trivial changes to the interwiki table.
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick
Presumably for a lack of coding. Go write some MediaWiki code rather than whining. Thanks!
Wow, that's a helpful comment.
Given taht it seems to be a deliberate issue with how the code was set up, it's a legitimate question. One we likely know the answer to, but one that should be addressed nonetheless.
-Jeff
On 28/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick
Presumably for a lack of coding. Go write some MediaWiki code rather than whining. Thanks!
Wow, that's a helpful comment.
Given taht it seems to be a deliberate issue with how the code was set up, it's a legitimate question. One we likely know the answer to, but one that should be addressed nonetheless.
I'm sure this has been explained at length before on the list...
The code has, historically, recognised three kinds of links.
1) Wikilinks 2) Interwiki links 3) External links
It takes the link syntax and produces appropriate links in the HTML from these.
Class 2 is interesting, because "interwiki" covers both internal and external projects - a link to a Wikia site is wikia:foobar:link, whilst a link to the French wikipedia is fr:wp:link or to Commons is commons:link. External is not just Wikia - there are other external wikis linked to via interwiki as well - but a large proportion of our "external interwikis" are to them.
What we did was slap "nofollow" on all links in class 3, all ones that go to external websites. Slapping it on class 2 would obviously be "fair" insamuch as it would no longer exempt sites from the nofollow simply through being wikis - but it would also be silly in that it would penalise things which are, effectively, normal class 1 links, like linking to Meta or Commons. At a guess, this is why it didn't go on class 2. We could make it penalise Wikia by splitting class 2, having "internal" and "external" interwiki links, but that would require altering the code.
I'm not claiming I know Brion's mind, but it is worth emphasising that the situation as it stands does not require any deliberate favouritism to Wikia... just a common-sense decision to solve a problem now without a long and picky process of patching the code and then manually deciding which interwikis were good and which were bad.
On 4/29/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick
Presumably for a lack of coding. Go write some MediaWiki code rather than whining. Thanks!
Wow, that's a helpful comment.
Given taht it seems to be a deliberate issue with how the code was set up, it's a legitimate question. One we likely know the answer to, but one that should be addressed nonetheless.
I'm sure this has been explained at length before on the list...
The code has, historically, recognised three kinds of links.
- Wikilinks
- Interwiki links
- External links
It takes the link syntax and produces appropriate links in the HTML from these.
Class 2 is interesting, because "interwiki" covers both internal and external projects - a link to a Wikia site is wikia:foobar:link, whilst a link to the French wikipedia is fr:wp:link or to Commons is commons:link. External is not just Wikia - there are other external wikis linked to via interwiki as well - but a large proportion of our "external interwikis" are to them.
What we have here is a disconnect, or inconsistency, in class 2. And without passing any judgment or advocating either view, here is the problem:
EXHIBIT A. Brion and developers say if something is on Interwiki, it is trusted. Brion and Rob Church rejected the feature request of being able to customize follow/nofollow for Interwiki sites. Reason given: (from http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753)
#2 from Brion Vibber 2007-01-24 16:48 UTC [reply] Untrusted sites should not be in the interwiki table, probably, hmm?
EXHIBIT B. However, the meta page for Interwiki says nothing about sites being trusted. Only "useful": (from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map#Proposed_additions)
"This section is for proposing a new interwiki link prefix; add new entries at the bottom of the section. When requesting a new prefix, please explain why it would be useful. Interwiki prefixes should be reserved for websites that would be useful on a significant number of pages."
So there is the discrepancy. It would make sense to come to a common understanding of what role the Interwiki list should play, and align technology/software/developer decisions with it.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 29/04/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
EXHIBIT A. Brion and developers say if something is on Interwiki, it is trusted. Brion and Rob Church rejected the feature request of being able to customize follow/nofollow for Interwiki sites. Reason given: (from http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753) EXHIBIT B. However, the meta page for Interwiki says nothing about sites being trusted. Only "useful": So there is the discrepancy. It would make sense to come to a common understanding of what role the Interwiki list should play, and align technology/software/developer decisions with it.
They are "trusted" not to be spam links. If they are "useful", it is quite unlikely they will be spam links. Not impossible (as I'm sure Geni is about to point out), but unlikely.
- d.
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They are "trusted" not to be spam links. If they are "useful", it is quite unlikely they will be spam links. Not impossible (as I'm sure Geni is about to point out), but unlikely.
We don't discriminate between external links in the same way. We have nofollow across the board, whether they are "useful" or not.
Of course, there are good arguments for turning off nofollow for external links; I don't really care what we do, as long as there is consistency.
On 29/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They are "trusted" not to be spam links. If they are "useful", it is quite unlikely they will be spam links. Not impossible (as I'm sure Geni is about to point out), but unlikely.
We don't discriminate between external links in the same way. We have nofollow across the board, whether they are "useful" or not.
And that's because no-one has written the whitelisting code for this and gotten it past Brion, AFAIK.
Of course, there are good arguments for turning off nofollow for external links; I don't really care what we do, as long as there is consistency.
This is the bit that requires coding rather than complaining.
- d.
On 4/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick
Presumably for a lack of coding. Go write some MediaWiki code rather than whining. Thanks!
Wait a second. Are you saying that this is true for *all* MediaWiki sites which have enabled nofollow? I always assumed it was something specific to the Wikipedia installation.
Anthony
On 29/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Wait a second. Are you saying that this is true for *all* MediaWiki sites which have enabled nofollow? I always assumed it was something specific to the Wikipedia installation.
Far as I know. Interwiki map links aren't nofollowed.
That is, the original stated problem is an emergent property of the way MediaWiki is set up, rather than a specific bias toward Wikia.
That is, {{sofixit}}.
- d.
On 29/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That is, {{sofixit}}.
Yes, because everyone on this list is a PHP programmer with knowledge of MediaWiki's internals. Well done, David, very well done.
On 29/04/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 29/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That is, {{sofixit}}.
Yes, because everyone on this list is a PHP programmer with knowledge of MediaWiki's internals. Well done, David, very well done.
Or you could go to the interwiki map and fix it. But that would require convincing meta admins it was a good idea.
The answer to the nofollow problem is: code it. That is the actual answer. Your whining response doesn't change the fact. Code > whining.
- d.
On 29/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The answer to the nofollow problem is: code it. That is the actual answer. Your whining response doesn't change the fact. Code > whining.
Your response only serves to demonstrate that you are a remarkably rude and unpleasant man. I shall remind myself not to interact with you in future if at all possible.
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 29/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The answer to the nofollow problem is: code it. That is the actual answer. Your whining response doesn't change the fact. Code > whining.
Your response only serves to demonstrate that you are a remarkably rude and unpleasant man. I shall remind myself not to interact with you in future if at all possible.
Not to mention that he hasn't read the links from this thread. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=3133
It already has been coded.
Anthony
On 29/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 29/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The answer to the nofollow problem is: code it. That is the actual answer. Your whining response doesn't change the fact. Code > whining.
Your response only serves to demonstrate that you are a remarkably rude and unpleasant man. I shall remind myself not to interact with you in future if at all possible.
I am deeply sorry to hear that.
Not to mention that he hasn't read the links from this thread. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=3133 It already has been coded.
Now you have to get it past Brion.
- d.
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Now you have to get it past Brion.
I suspect the board will do that for us when the media picks up the issue and gives them hell in a few interviews.
On 29/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Now you have to get it past Brion.
I suspect the board will do that for us when the media picks up the issue and gives them hell in a few interviews.
This is being discussed. So far the TechCrunch article starts with factual errors and builds a conspiracy theory around them, and the comments are from SEOs and similar Googlemancers.
I would suggest that paying much if any attention to these is likely irrelevant to the projects themselves.
- d.
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not to mention that he hasn't read the links from this thread. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=3133 It already has been coded.
Now you have to get it past Brion.
As I posted above, Brion already closed this as WONTFIX:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753
...thereby ruining my chance to call myself a MediaWiki developer :)
On 29/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not to mention that he hasn't read the links from this thread. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=3133 It already has been coded.
Now you have to get it past Brion.
As I posted above, Brion already closed this as WONTFIX: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753 ...thereby ruining my chance to call myself a MediaWiki developer :)
Well, yeah. Note the logic in the WONTFIX: if the sites aren't trusted not to be spam links, take them out of the interwiki map.
Paying any attention to the complaints of SEOs and Googlemancers is approximately pointless. Perhaps we should ask them: "Please nofollow all your links to Wikipedia!" That would benefit the world by exploding their heads.
- d.
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not to mention that he hasn't read the links from this thread. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=3133 It already has been coded.
Now you have to get it past Brion.
As I posted above, Brion already closed this as WONTFIX: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753 ...thereby ruining my chance to call myself a MediaWiki developer :)
Well, yeah. Note the logic in the WONTFIX: if the sites aren't trusted not to be spam links, take them out of the interwiki map.
That would completely ruin a ton of links. The only sites which are "trusted not to be spam links" to any reasonable extent would be links to sister projects. Completely breaking all other interwiki links simply because you want them to be nofollowed is ludicrous.
Paying any attention to the complaints of SEOs and Googlemancers is approximately pointless. Perhaps we should ask them: "Please nofollow all your links to Wikipedia!" That would benefit the world by exploding their heads.
Paying any attention to the complaints of SEOs and Googlemancers is approximately pointless. Perhaps we should ask them: "Please nofollow all your links to Wikipedia!" That would benefit the world by exploding their heads.
So, when you answered {{sofixit}} before, what you meant was {{don't fix it, it's pointless}}?
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 29/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The answer to the nofollow problem is: code it. That is the actual answer. Your whining response doesn't change the fact. Code > whining.
Your response only serves to demonstrate that you are a remarkably rude and unpleasant man. I shall remind myself not to interact with you in future if at all possible.
He's got a kid due in what must be a few days now. A little ah directness is understandable.
On 29/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
He's got a kid due in what must be a few days now. A little ah directness is understandable.
No, actually I'm just an arsehole.
- d.
oops, did I send that to the *list*.
On Apr 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held company seperate from the WMF.
It is.
It's also a company with a similar mission - publishing free content information.
I tend to think that the point of nofollow is to keep Wikipedia from being used for commercial purposes. But promoting free content information is our basic purpose, and I think there are sensible reasons to go ahead and do it.
-Phil
On 4/27/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick glance at the HTML source for example on the Wikia article on en.wikipedia.org shows that transcluded links to the privately owned Wikia pages are not covered.
Why does Wikia get the benefit of the SEO from Wikipedia? If there was an arrangement granted by the WMF for this, was it documented publicly? If so, where? Thanks! --
Also, the theory would be that people are less likely to spam for Wikia websites. ~~~~
On 4/28/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick glance at the HTML source for example on the Wikia article on en.wikipedia.org shows that transcluded links to the privately owned Wikia pages are not covered.
Why does Wikia get the benefit of the SEO from Wikipedia? If there was an arrangement granted by the WMF for this, was it documented publicly? If so, where? Thanks! --
Also, the theory would be that people are less likely to spam for Wikia websites. ~~~~
Hopefully someone will pick up on this and start spamming for Wikia websites.
Anthony
On 4/28/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/28/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick glance at the HTML source for example on the Wikia article on en.wikipedia.org shows that transcluded links to the privately owned Wikia pages are not covered.
Why does Wikia get the benefit of the SEO from Wikipedia? If there was an arrangement granted by the WMF for this, was it documented publicly? If so, where? Thanks! --
Also, the theory would be that people are less likely to spam for Wikia websites. ~~~~
Hopefully someone will pick up on this and start spamming for Wikia websites.
Anthony
[[WP:BEANS]]? *rolls eyes* Yeah. ~~~~
It already happens once in a while, I've personally removed .wikia.com spam on at least two occasions.. both to new Wikia wiki's that were presumably looking to attract new users.. In both cases, they weren't spammed using interwiki links, but rather standard URLs.
At the end of the day, 'nofollow' on wikipedia has little effect, since as Betacommand points out on Wikiproject:Spam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Recent_attempts...
"Once our mirrors and scrapers get a hold of it, most drop the nofollow thus the spammers do get rewards for their actions on wikipedia."
.VG. wiki-at-versageek dot com
Saturday, April 28, 2007, 8:51:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
A> On 4/28/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick glance at the HTML source for example on the Wikia article on en.wikipedia.org shows that transcluded links to the privately owned Wikia pages are not covered.
Why does Wikia get the benefit of the SEO from Wikipedia? If there was an arrangement granted by the WMF for this, was it documented publicly? If so, where? Thanks! --
Also, the theory would be that people are less likely to spam for Wikia websites. ~~~~
A> Hopefully someone will pick up on this and start spamming for Wikia websites.
A> Anthony
Versageek wrote:
At the end of the day, 'nofollow' on wikipedia has little effect, since as Betacommand points out on Wikiproject:Spam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Recent_attempts...
"Once our mirrors and scrapers get a hold of it, most drop the nofollow thus the spammers do get rewards for their actions on wikipedia."
Why would that result in little effect? It has been a while since I've played around with the math, but since Wikipedia has much higher PageRank than the mirrors, it would seem like our nofollow would still make a big difference in PageRank bump for the spammer sites.
William
On 4/27/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow?
Some Wikia links are so-called interwiki links, a type of link that has a registered shortcut in a special table in the database. The idea of interwiki links predates Wikia by a few years; they were originally invented to bring the various wiki communities closer together by having simple linking patterns, e.g. MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith for a link to MeatballWiki.
The software feature of interwiki links does not currently add the nofollow tag. That applies to Wikia as to any other wiki in the interwiki map. I suppose you could consider it a fairness issue, but if it really bothers you, the code is open, and I'm sure Brion will be happy to accept a patch that allows nofollow to be turned on for interwiki links as well.
On 4/29/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
if it really bothers you, the code is open, and I'm sure Brion will be happy to accept a patch that allows nofollow to be turned on for interwiki links as well.
Well actually no, this was closed as WONTFIX:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753
Actually, the InterWiki map is pile of trash links: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
Very few legitimate link targets and a bunch of third rate sites. Links to that sites (Karlsruhe city Wiki? PaganWiki?) I'd delete on sight in most articles.
And they get special care and feeding?
Somewhat annoyed, Peter Jacobi
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow?
A question interesting enough for it to get covered on [[TechCrunch]], one of the most-read Silicon Valley sites:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-a...
(Or http://tinyurl.com/28jrnt if the link gets mangled.)
William
On 29/04/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
A question interesting enough for it to get covered on [[TechCrunch]], one of the most-read Silicon Valley sites: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-a...
Dear SEO spammers and Googlemancers: go away. We actively don't care about your page rank.
(That TechCrunch article is really special: make several errors of fact, assume they come from malice and start a conspiracy theory.)
Our responsibility as a top 10 site is to our readers. Our responsibility is not to a third party (search engine optimisers) to make them look good to a fourth party (Google). People whose interest in Wikipedia is page rank are in no way, shape or form our constituency. Because their interest is, fundamentally, spamming.
Pagerank is not a consideration for Wikipedia - it contributes nothing to the project of writing an encyclopedia. This is why SEOs and Googlemancers find it so hard to find anyone at Wikipedia or Wikimedia who cares.
The interwiki map is for the convenience of the projects. Not for the SEO spammers.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:.
Pagerank is not a consideration for Wikipedia - it contributes nothing to the project of writing an encyclopedia. This is why SEOs and Googlemancers find it so hard to find anyone at Wikipedia or Wikimedia who cares.
Wrong on at least two levels:
1) Pagerank apparently does matter if it means getting extra Google hits for projects associated with Wikipedia. I'm sure I don't need to point out the fact that the Wikia links, with ads, make money for certain high-ranking Foundation officials, right? I'm not saying there's necessarily a correllation, but even if there is one, it gives the appearance of underhandedness.
2) Pagerank does matter if it means getting extra Google hits for projects that make money for the Wikimedia Foundation. The lower our sources rank, the higher the Answer.com mirrors rank, and the Foundation gets a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
-Jeff
On 4/30/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
- Pagerank apparently does matter if it means getting extra Google hits
for projects associated with Wikipedia. I'm sure I don't need to point out the fact that the Wikia links, with ads, make money for certain high-ranking Foundation officials, right? I'm not saying there's necessarily a correllation, but even if there is one, it gives the appearance of underhandedness.
Wikia, as a financial donor to Wikipedia, and staffed by high ranking people from Wikimedia Foundation, is in a terrible ethical position here.
Perhaps an appropriate solution would be to completely restrict the Interwiki map to only include addresses and sites that are owned by the Foundation. I can't see any legitimate reason to do anything that can benefit a for-profit corporation in such a way. As soon as one of these companies provide any financial assistance to the Foundation (as Wikia did) it cross the ethical boundry.
2) Pagerank does matter if it means getting extra Google hits for projects
that make money for the Wikimedia Foundation. The lower our sources rank, the higher the Answer.com mirrors rank, and the Foundation gets a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
An easy ethical solution to this would be for the WMF to go on the record of stating what their relationship, financial or otherwise, was with any and all websites listed in the Interwiki map.
On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Perhaps an appropriate solution would be to completely restrict the Interwiki map to only include addresses and sites that are owned by the Foundation. I can't see any legitimate reason to do anything that can benefit a for-profit corporation in such a way.
Simple: promoting free knowledge.
Wikia is a free content resource, and it is in our ethical interests to do what we can to help foster quality free content.
-Phil
On 4/30/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Simple: promoting free knowledge.
Wikia is a free content resource, and it is in our ethical interests to do what we can to help foster quality free content.
If it's that simple and black and white, why isn't Citizendium on the Interwiki map, or other things which could be seen as direct competitors to Wikia?
Seriously: Citizendium is curiously absent, yet crap like http://c2.com/cgi/wiki is included?
On 30/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
If it's that simple and black and white, why isn't Citizendium on the Interwiki map, or other things which could be seen as direct competitors to Wikia? Seriously: Citizendium is curiously absent, yet crap like http://c2.com/cgi/wiki is included?
ValueWiki made a frankly whiny post complaining WikiFur was on the map and they weren't. As it happens, I asked they be added - because they're good (and so's their blog for the most part) and they were added pretty promptly.
So the answer to your question is: probably because no-one's asked.
It sounds like you haven't actually read the instructions on the interwiki map or its talk page but aren't letting ignorance stop your valuable opinion.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
It sounds like you haven't actually read the instructions on the interwiki map or its talk page but aren't letting ignorance stop your valuable opinion.
I do, however, appreciate your distraction of the greater issue. It was a good play.
-Jeff
On 4/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So the answer to your question is: probably because no-one's asked.
Do you see an ethical conflict that financial donors to Wikipedia (Wikia) are on the Interwiki map? If not, why?
Do you see the conflict that the developers (who are close to Jimmy) turned down Bainer's patch that would have fixed all this? If SEO and pagerank don't matter, why endorse something that benefits other sites? Why not ensure no one gets the magic Wikigoogle juice?
It sounds like you haven't actually read the instructions on the
interwiki map or its talk page but aren't letting ignorance stop your valuable opinion
And that was artful political/PR spin, as Jeff said. Well played. Attack the innocent messenger, if no satisfactory answer exists. Well done.
On 30/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Do you see an ethical conflict that financial donors to Wikipedia (Wikia) are on the Interwiki map? If not, why?
I can't say I care. Obviously that won't be sufficient for you, but that doesn't make me care.
Do you see the conflict that the developers (who are close to Jimmy) turned down Bainer's patch that would have fixed all this? If SEO and pagerank don't matter, why endorse something that benefits other sites? Why not ensure no one gets the magic Wikigoogle juice?
Your first line appears to be part of the myth that this is the cult of Jimbo and all are under his control. Brion wanted nofollow on all wikis and only left it off en:wp with much grumbling.
Did you actually read the reasons for rejecting the patch? Interwiki links are unlikely to be spam.
It sounds like you haven't actually read the instructions on the
interwiki map or its talk page but aren't letting ignorance stop your valuable opinion
And that was artful political/PR spin, as Jeff said. Well played. Attack the innocent messenger, if no satisfactory answer exists. Well done.
If your mission is to get nofollow on all links to Wikia sites, I suggest you come up with a reason it's for the good of the first party (Wikipedia/Wikimedia) or the second party (the readers). Arguments concerning third parties (search engine spammers) or the whim of fourth parties (Google) are unlikely to convince, from observation.
- d.
On 4/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Your first line appears to be part of the myth that this is the cult of Jimbo and all are under his control. Brion wanted nofollow on all wikis and only left it off en:wp with much grumbling.
He claims that he turned it on en:wp by the request of Jimbo ("Having been requested by Jimmy to do so").
Did you actually read the reasons for rejecting the patch? Interwiki links are unlikely to be spam.
All links are unlikely to be spam.
If your mission is to get nofollow on all links to Wikia sites, I suggest you come up with a reason it's for the good of the first party (Wikipedia/Wikimedia) or the second party (the readers).
I think the best argument for this is that enforcing a double-standard which benefits the for-profit business of the founder of Wikimedia and a board member *looks bad*.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
I think the best argument for this is that enforcing a double-standard which benefits the for-profit business of the founder of Wikimedia and a board member *looks bad*.
I'd second this. If we aren't scrupulous about our own conflicts of interest, it seems unfair to ask editors to be angels with respect to their non-Wikipedia business interests.
William
On 4/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If your mission is to get nofollow on all links to Wikia sites, I suggest you come up with a reason it's for the good of the first party (Wikipedia/Wikimedia) or the second party (the readers). Arguments concerning third parties (search engine spammers) or the whim of fourth parties (Google) are unlikely to convince, from observation.
Honestly, my only concern is fairly simple, and I don't care about SEO, Google, or any of that directly. Nofollow in and of itself is not a bad thing. It discourages spamming. My *personal* taste is that the outbound links in total do not carry the nofollow tag, simply for the purposes of allowing equal value universally. But, this is more a question of philosophy, and belief in a completely unrestricted and collaborative Internet. In practice, and in practicality, this is not possible. It makes 'easier' sense to simply nofollow everything, and I do not disagree that this accomplishes the goal of discouraging spammers. Individual spam will exist in different, clever ways. An article that gets 10,000+ hits or whatever number, with only a handful of external links, will be a good 'target' for spammers anyway. They'll try to squeeze whatever little traffic they can off of that article. Things like that however are easier to police because of a universal nofollow setup, like the one in place.
However...
It gets to be a problem as soon as exclusions are entered, is my point of view. Being on the Interwiki map or in any way excluded from nofollow *does* carry financial value. I'm not argueing for/against SEO, or any third party. I'm arguing for the appearance of impartiality. By allowing even a single non-Wikimedia Foundation site to reap any sort of financial benefit, a possible conflict of interest now exists. Any outbound link from *.wikipedia.org that lacks the nofollow restriction now is in the extreme minority, limited to the whims and decisions of the meta developers. This gives those developers tremendous authority.
* Do we know of the relationships (including fiscal) of all people with authority to decide the nofollow situation to the website in question?
* Do we know the relationshp of the Foundation to all such sites that are on the Interwiki link?
This is the sort of thing that needs to be disclosed for ethical reasons. If no conflict of interest exists, there is no reason to not disclose such information for any website or entity that benefits from this unique situation. Alternately, the simple solution is to make nofollow mandatory, with NO exceptions, for any link to any URL that is not owned by the Foundation. If that happens, any questions of any possible conflicts are utterly moot, since everyone in relation to the WMF is then on an even ethical playing field--including financial contributors.
The problem in a Nutshell: As Anthony just said, "I think the best argument for this is that enforcing a double-standard which benefits the for-profit business of the founder of Wikimedia and a board member *looks bad*."
On 30/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
- Do we know of the relationships (including fiscal) of all people with
authority to decide the nofollow situation to the website in question?
That would be the meta admins. If you have a reasonable claim to make of financial impropriety on the part of any of them in editing the interwiki map, you should really make a clear claim rather than an allusion of a possibility.
(Compare, e.g. allusions that en:wp admins *might* be working to benefit Wikia. They sure might. But you'll need more than an allusion to be taken seriously.)
- Do we know the relationshp of the Foundation to all such sites that are on
the Interwiki link?
It would probably merely be a matter of going through the list.
The problem in a Nutshell: As Anthony just said, "I think the best argument for this is that enforcing a double-standard which benefits the for-profit business of the founder of Wikimedia and a board member *looks bad*."
Go wild.
- d.
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 4/30/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Simple: promoting free knowledge.
Wikia is a free content resource, and it is in our ethical interests to do what we can to help foster quality free content.
If it's that simple and black and white, why isn't Citizendium on the Interwiki map, or other things which could be seen as direct competitors to Wikia?
Seriously: Citizendium is curiously absent, yet crap like http://c2.com/cgi/wiki is included?
Wiki is notable for being among the first, if not the first, wiki in existence. It's included in the default interwiki map for Mediawiki, and I would presume most other wiki software.
Beyond that, I would assume that Citizendium is absent because it has not been proposed on [[meta:Talk:Interwiki map]]. It'd probably be fairly simple to get it added.
Blu Aardvark wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Seriously: Citizendium is curiously absent, yet crap like http://c2.com/cgi/wiki is included?
Wiki is notable for being among the first, if not the first, wiki in existence. It's included in the default interwiki map for Mediawiki, and I would presume most other wiki software.
I believe Ward's wiki is indeed the first wiki, and [[Wiki]] seems to have the same notion.
William
On 30/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
An easy ethical solution to this would be for the WMF to go on the record of stating what their relationship, financial or otherwise, was with any and all websites listed in the Interwiki map.
I suggest you are ill-placed to mention the word "ethical" in connection to anything anyone else should do, particularly Wikipedia:
http://www.joeszilagyi.com/2007/04/24/wikipedia-game-guide-%e2%80%9canonymou...
- d.
On 4/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest you are ill-placed to mention the word "ethical" in connection to anything anyone else should do, particularly Wikipedia:
http://www.joeszilagyi.com/2007/04/24/wikipedia-game-guide-%e2%80%9canonymou...
For detailing the exact methods that many use? Is this supposed to be retained as classified information? ;)
How to game Wikipedia via cleverly disguised SPAs and cabal manipulation is the worst kept secret of Wikipedia. No harm in airing out dirty laundry, as it allows it to then be cleaned.
David Gerard wrote:
On 30/04/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
An easy ethical solution to this would be for the WMF to go on the record of stating what their relationship, financial or otherwise, was with any and all websites listed in the Interwiki map.
I suggest you are ill-placed to mention the word "ethical" in connection to anything anyone else should do, particularly Wikipedia:
http://www.joeszilagyi.com/2007/04/24/wikipedia-game-guide-%e2%80%9canonymou...
- d.
David,
Can we please stick to the subject?
I happen to agree that *perception* is important in this case. While our goals have to do with promoting free content, those goals will be hindered by the perception of any conflict of interest or shady back-room deals.
I for one want to make sure there is no unnecessary ammunition for those who want to discredit Wikipedia or the Foundation.
-Rich
On 01/05/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I for one want to make sure there is no unnecessary ammunition for those who want to discredit Wikipedia or the Foundation.
Those who want to discredit Wikipedia or the Foundation will find ammunition. We have to consider how much time we can reasonably spend making it slightly more difficult for them -- which is about the most we can do.
On 4/30/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/05/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I for one want to make sure there is no unnecessary ammunition for those who want to discredit Wikipedia or the Foundation.
Those who want to discredit Wikipedia or the Foundation will find ammunition. We have to consider how much time we can reasonably spend making it slightly more difficult for them -- which is about the most we can do.
Well, Bained had checked in a patch for Mediawiki to address this I believe, but it was turned down by development--why was it turned down? Apparently a simple coding solution, so that no one could get around the nofollow.
On 01/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Bained had checked in a patch for Mediawiki to address this I believe, but it was turned down by development--why was it turned down? Apparently a simple coding solution, so that no one could get around the nofollow.
If you read this thread, you'd have seen the link to the bug and you'd have the answer.
- d.
On 4/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you read this thread, you'd have seen the link to the bug and you'd have the answer.
I know your role is to be the UK public relations person, but you don't need to be snippy and curt because someone is being critical of the great and mighty WMF. Yes, I saw the link to bugzilla. No, we don't have an answer:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753
Bainer: "There is the wgNoFollowLinks setting to add rel="nofollow" to all external links, but no option to do the same for interwiki links. I have a patch to implement this which will shortly be forthcoming."
Brion Vibber: "Untrusted sites should not be in the interwiki table, probably, hmm?"
Rob Church: "It makes no sense to do this."
As has been said, however, this is *NOT* a technical issue. It's a question of "Why are some sites allowed around the nofollow restriction, creating possible conflict of interest?" In other words, why is Wikipedia's stature and resources being allowed to convey financial benefit to Wikia (and others)? If they are allowed, why not all? That's the problem. The nofollow should be for ethical reasons all-or-nothing. I have no problem with either scenario, but theres no reason to not go all the way if you're going to do it.
James Farrar wrote:
On 01/05/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I for one want to make sure there is no unnecessary ammunition for those who want to discredit Wikipedia or the Foundation.
Those who want to discredit Wikipedia or the Foundation will find ammunition. We have to consider how much time we can reasonably spend making it slightly more difficult for them -- which is about the most we can do.
It would be nice if they didn't find things that are a legitimate cause for concern, though. And I think the appearance of a conflict of interest is clearly in that category.
William
Jeff Raymond wrote:
- Pagerank does matter if it means getting extra Google hits for projects
that make money for the Wikimedia Foundation. The lower our sources rank, the higher the Answer.com mirrors rank, and the Foundation gets a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
This is not correct. The Foundation does not get a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
- Pagerank does matter if it means getting extra Google hits for
projects that make money for the Wikimedia Foundation. The lower our sources rank, the higher the Answer.com mirrors rank, and the Foundation gets a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
This is not correct. The Foundation does not get a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
So One-click answers doesn't actually do what this claims?
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/051020-150952
Or am I misunderstanding this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/1-Click_Answers
"What is happening here is that Answers.com is creating a co-branded version of their website which will show ads, and they will share the revenue with us." --Jimbo Wales 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
-Jeff
That's a particular project, not the main answers.com site.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
- Pagerank does matter if it means getting extra Google hits for
projects that make money for the Wikimedia Foundation. The lower our sources rank, the higher the Answer.com mirrors rank, and the Foundation gets a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
This is not correct. The Foundation does not get a cut of the Answers.com ad revenues.
So One-click answers doesn't actually do what this claims?
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/051020-150952
Or am I misunderstanding this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/1-Click_Answers
"What is happening here is that Answers.com is creating a co-branded version of their website which will show ads, and they will share the revenue with us." --Jimbo Wales 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
-Jeff
Jimmy Wales wrote:
That's a particular project, not the main answers.com site.
So is the Foundation or is it not getting a cut of the ad revenues from this project, which gets artificial promotion due to the site it's hosted from rising above other perhaps more useful links due to our nofollow policy? The only grey area I'm seeing is that there's no indication whether the trial started, ended, or became a full-fledged thing.
-Jeff
On 03/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
So is the Foundation or is it not getting a cut of the ad revenues from this project, which gets artificial promotion due to the site it's hosted from rising above other perhaps more useful links due to our nofollow policy? The only grey area I'm seeing is that there's no indication whether the trial started, ended, or became a full-fledged thing.
Er, which interwiki are you talking about here?
- d.
On 4/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Pagerank is not a consideration for Wikipedia - it contributes nothing to the project of writing an encyclopedia. This is why SEOs and Googlemancers find it so hard to find anyone at Wikipedia or Wikimedia who cares.
I wish that were true. Then we could all agree on the easiest solution: turn off nofollow completely and let Google worry about pagerank.
Anthony