The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Period. Everything else is tangential to that. We have been fortunate in seeing that a strong community has emerged as a result of this common goal, but that is precisely the point. The community emerged because a bunch of people around the world are trying to create something together. People who are not interested in that goal have all the rights in the world not to be involved in it.
Nevertheless, we have recently seen quite a bit of game-playing on Wikipedia. If it is not stopped now, it will continue to grow. We already have chess, checkers, hangman, N degrees of separation, and I am sure that there will be more to come.
Not only does this clog up an already overburdened Recent Changes page. It is an insult to the many people who have given of their time and money so that Wikipedia can become the world's greatest encyclopedia. It detracts from the serious nature of the project, and has the potential to turn it into yet another gaming site. As for referring to the people who oppose these games and tournaments as "killjoys," this is a very upsetting ad hominem attack. In essence it means that the people who keep Wikipedia's goals in mind are "killjoys." I hardly see how that helps Wikipedia.
Jimbo has offered a place on Wikicities for people to play. He has even suggested on mIRC that it might be ad-free. I hope that these games are moved their immediately. I am still astounded that this is even a matter for a vote.
Danny
Even though I participated in (and sorely lost in) the Chess Championship, I agree that games may be going too far. We had Mornington Crescent Championship or something recently too.
I think some Wikigames can be ok, but a Wikicity may be needed. That said, they do little harm to Wikipedia, as long as there aren't too many. ----- Original Message ----- From: daniwo59@aol.com To: wikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 1:21 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Period. Everything else is tangential to that. We have been fortunate in seeing that a strong community has emerged as a result of this common goal, but that is
precisely the
point. The community emerged because a bunch of people around the world
are
trying to create something together. People who are not interested in that
goal
have all the rights in the world not to be involved in it.
Nevertheless, we have recently seen quite a bit of game-playing on Wikipedia. If it is not stopped now, it will continue to grow. We already
have chess,
checkers, hangman, N degrees of separation, and I am sure that there will
be
more to come.
Not only does this clog up an already overburdened Recent Changes page. It is an insult to the many people who have given of their time and money so
that
Wikipedia can become the world's greatest encyclopedia. It detracts from
the
serious nature of the project, and has the potential to turn it into yet another gaming site. As for referring to the people who oppose these
games and
tournaments as "killjoys," this is a very upsetting ad hominem attack. In essence it means that the people who keep Wikipedia's goals in mind are "killjoys." I hardly see how that helps Wikipedia.
Jimbo has offered a place on Wikicities for people to play. He has even suggested on mIRC that it might be ad-free. I hope that these games are
moved
their immediately. I am still astounded that this is even a matter for a
vote.
Danny
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/2/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
I think some Wikigames can be ok, but a Wikicity may be needed. That said, they do little harm to Wikipedia, as long as there aren't too many.
The key words being "as long as there aren't too many." If they're not cut short now they'll continue to grow until they are harming wikipedia. They're already creating disharmony between the "pro-gamers" and the the "anti-gamers". IMO a wikicity especially for wikigames would give the people who like these games a place of their own without having to bother about people wanting to delete the game pages.
If I was into the games, I'd take Jimbo up on the offer and start migrating right now.
--Mgm
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:27:01 +0100 "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
Even though I participated in (and sorely lost in) the Chess Championship, I agree that games may be going too far. We had Mornington Crescent Championship or something recently too.
I'd be delighted to take part in a few rounds of Mornington Crescent, provided we aren't playing the Livingstone Integrated Transport rules of 2002 - but not on Wikipedia. I tend to agree with Danny.
James
James Gibbon (wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com) [050711 00:31]:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:27:01 +0100 "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
Even though I participated in (and sorely lost in) the Chess Championship, I agree that games may be going too far. We had Mornington Crescent Championship or something recently too.
I'd be delighted to take part in a few rounds of Mornington Crescent, provided we aren't playing the Livingstone Integrated Transport rules of 2002 - but not on Wikipedia. I tend to agree with Danny.
I look forward to Synchronised Mornington Crescent as a 2012 Olympic sport.
- d.
On 7/2/05, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Nevertheless, we have recently seen quite a bit of game-playing on Wikipedia. If it is not stopped now, it will continue to grow.
< As for referring to the people who oppose these games and
tournaments as "killjoys," this is a very upsetting ad hominem attack.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Killjoy
By the way, if you are vehemetly against these games, or people playing N degrees of separation, do you really want to be associated with the Department of Fun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FUN#Members
Jimbo has offered a place on Wikicities for people to play. He has even
I'm not sure that intense game-playing on the wiki is a great thing. And we can all imagine marginal ways in which doing anything but concretely building the encyclopedia -- editing one's own user page, adding to BJAODN, fooling around with personal CSS or javascript settings, chatting with friends about non-encyclopedic subjects -- is 'wasteful'.
But the interesting question is, to what extent being able to relax and take a break on-wiki *is* beneficial to the project. Perhaps we can discuss that; does leaving content-free "Welcome back!" messages for others indicate one is not interested in the project's goals?
Good point. My guess is that the games make users happy, and thus more priductive, long term. The wikipedia is a mean and rude place (the meanest, rudest, clique-iest place I've been since middle school). Maybe these games (which I will probably never participate in) do more good than bad, assuming the people who play them are happy and nice.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/3/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/05, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Nevertheless, we have recently seen quite a bit of game-playing on Wikipedia. If it is not stopped now, it will continue to grow.
< As for referring to the people who oppose these games and
tournaments as "killjoys," this is a very upsetting ad hominem attack.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/KilljoyBy the way, if you are vehemetly against these games, or people playing N degrees of separation, do you really want to be associated with the Department of Fun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FUN#Members
Jimbo has offered a place on Wikicities for people to play. He has even
I'm not sure that intense game-playing on the wiki is a great thing. And we can all imagine marginal ways in which doing anything but concretely building the encyclopedia -- editing one's own user page, adding to BJAODN, fooling around with personal CSS or javascript settings, chatting with friends about non-encyclopedic subjects -- is 'wasteful'.
But the interesting question is, to what extent being able to relax and take a break on-wiki *is* beneficial to the project. Perhaps we can discuss that; does leaving content-free "Welcome back!" messages for others indicate one is not interested in the project's goals?
-- ++SJ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
SJ:
I'm not sure that intense game-playing on the wiki is a great thing. And we can all imagine marginal ways in which doing anything but concretely building the encyclopedia -- editing one's own user page, adding to BJAODN, fooling around with personal CSS or javascript settings, chatting with friends about non-encyclopedic subjects -- is 'wasteful'.
None of these activities are perfomed exclusively by members of the community. (In the case of BJAODN, it's also a useful service, because the people posting stuff to BJAODN are frequently the same who are vetting out the nonsense in the first place. BJAODN also reduces trolling about censorship.) If they are, as in the case of people abusing their user pages as webspace, we generally don't tolerate it.
The issue is that games can exist entirely in parallel to encyclopedia-building. For example, the user who created the "Wikipedia:Wikigames" project (since redirected) has never made a single edit to a Wikipedia article. When the fun activity becomes the primary focus and the encyclopedia becomes incidental, a line has to be drawn.
That's why I believe, as I have posted earlier, that any fun or game activity has to meet a rather high threshold of community approval. If games have to be started in the Wikipedia: namespace, instead of the Sandbox as currently happens frequently, I think things will evolve naturally into that direction.
Surely banning all "fun" from Wikipedia would be an overreaction. But this is not going to happen. As is often the case on wikis, things tend to escalate beyond a certain level of tolerance, the group who was previously a minority suddenly becomes a majority, and the measures advocated become more drastic. Hopefully this will lead to a mutually acceptable solution in the end.
Erik
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
The issue is that games can exist entirely in parallel to encyclopedia-building.
If users are spending twenty minutes a day on Wikipedia, *editing*, and learning to use MediaWiki's arcane template and table syntax, that cannot be 'entirely in parallel' to encyclopedia building. They have already overcome the greatest barrier to contribution.
For example, the user who created the "Wikipedia:Wikigames" project (since redirected) has never made a single edit to a Wikipedia article. When the fun activity becomes the primary focus and the encyclopedia becomes incidental, a line has to be drawn.
This is a user who was just introduced to wikis... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASandbox%2FChess&a...
...and is feeling addicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wikitine
It seems likely that once s/he tires of on-wiki games (which is admittedly difficiult, considering what an adrenaline rush our new gaming platform is), with a positive view of the local community, this will be a natural outlet for other notes and work... Which is what we're here for, right? One minor edit and a dozen friendly user:talk comments far outweigh any negative aspects of playing out four games of wikichess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMTGsets&diff=144964...
If games have to be started in the Wikipedia: namespace, instead of the Sandbox...
Well, we both want to see this happen.
SJ:
It seems likely that once s/he tires of on-wiki games (which is admittedly difficiult, considering what an adrenaline rush our new gaming platform is), with a positive view of the local community, this will be a natural outlet for other notes and work...
Mh-hm. Notes and work, eh?
Here's the opposite scenario. We're all fun-loving people and we allow this guy to set up his "Wikigames" project as an unofficial part of Wikipedia. He starts about 20 new game pages, all as subpages of Wikipedia:Wikigames, which we accept as legitimate. He invites some of his friends to join. A #wikigames IRC channel is set up. A parallel community grows in that section of Wikipedia of people who primarily play games.
While every single human being on the planet should read Wikipedia, I'm not convinced that every single human being on the planet should edit it. There are people who are mentally ill, utterly ignorant, fundamentally irrational, belligerent, rude, paranoid, malicious, and worse. We can edit their pages, but we have limited access to their brains. There are people who, in spite of our best efforts, will never become useful contributors to the site. I like to believe that their number is small. The cynic in me says otherwise.
The fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia acts as a social filter. If you encourage and allow the growth of a parallel community, that social filter loses much of its effectiveness. Moreover, even the process of post-discovery discouragement may no longer work, because these users have their Wikigames ghetto to return to and come back from, where rules like NPOV are as relevant as Schopenhauer is to the Furry fandom.
I therefore strongly oppose the growth of parallel communities. Wikigames need to be very limited, and linked to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia itself.
Erik
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
A parallel community grows in that section of Wikipedia of people who primarily play games.
I would pay good money to hear someone talk about the rise of wiki-gaming as an internet phenomenon. Maybe this is a novel fundraising idea?
There are people who, in spite of our best efforts, will never become useful contributors to the site.
We've encountered a few, and have entire chapters of process on how to handle them. You'd rather filter them out in advance, according to some set of profiles?
post-discovery discouragement may no longer work, because these users have their Wikigames ghetto to return to and come back from, where rules like NPOV are as relevant as Schopenhauer is to the Furry fandom.
You think this is different from the "Child-love article cluster" ghetto? If the notion of a wikigames ghetto that were attractive to people who didn't already admire and use the encyclopedia weren't funny, I would be more worried. Let's wait until we actually have a problem -- say, more than 10% of game-playing users who are not also active wiki contributors or newbies -- and then see what's going on.
The very fact that wikigames have cropped up - when there are so many instant-gratification sites online to play these games - is fascinating. I think it may be good for the community; you don't. Let's see where it is going before judging it!
SJ
SJ:
We've encountered a few, and have entire chapters of process on how to handle them. You'd rather filter them out in advance, according to some set of profiles?
By defining the purpose of our site and community and adhering to it, yes.
post-discovery discouragement may no longer work, because these users have their Wikigames ghetto to return to and come back from, where rules like NPOV are as relevant as Schopenhauer is to the Furry fandom.
You think this is different from the "Child-love article cluster" ghetto?
Absolutely, for the reasons I have given. The child-love article cluster is a part of Wikipedia proper, and many people are working on it to try to make it NPOV. If you can cite a cluster of articles that is fundamentally out of sync with our key policies and purpose, I'll be interested.
Let's wait until we actually have a problem -- say, more than 10% of game-playing users who are not also active wiki contributors or newbies
10% of active users? You want hundreds of people playing games and doing nothing else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the reasons I cited, late intervention is not an option -- particularly since those 10% will then become vocal opponents of any such intervention, citing precedent and lack of consensus. The problem needs to be stopped at its very root now. You have presented no single plausible argument why this is not so.
Erik
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
10% of active users? You want hundreds of people playing games and doing nothing else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the
No, 10% of users who have ever played one of these games. Or a single active editor who at some point "plays games and nothing else". Right now, the body of wikipedians is making perhaps a hundred edits a week to game pages. That's comparable to the number of edits we have to pokemon-project stubs.
And the reason that a site like the wikicities game-site won't succeed is that wikigames are mainly amusing if you know the other site-users, and have other reasons to work together there! They aren't much fun compared to other game forums unless you're already using the site. Even the user you imagine is 'only playing games' right now is doubless using the encyclopedia regularly.
intervention, citing precedent and lack of consensus. The problem needs to be stopped at its very root now. You have presented no single plausible argument why this is not so.
There are so many interesting ideas that one can stop with an exaggerated brinkmanship scenario like this. I don't think a hard-security policy of "stopping things at their roots," when nothing problematic has happened, is efficient... unless you are omniscient.
On 7/2/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
10% of active users? You want hundreds of people playing games and doing nothing else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the
No, 10% of users who have ever played one of these games. Or a single active editor who at some point "plays games and nothing else".
Sorry, to clarify what I meant : If you look at the people who 'actively' play wikigames, however you define those games and that description, I think that most of them will always be active contributors elsewhere on-wiki, who are blowing off steam. That seems fine to me.
If 10% of these 'active' players, at any point, are *not* also editors and contributor, but are addicts "from the gaming ghetto" who can't get enough, then -- even though some of these addicts may be reformed and become good users, and even though they aren't directly hurting the development of the project -- we may have a problem.
If even a single active editor falls into the clutches of the ghetto-dwellers, and stops editing movie stubs for love of wikigames, then too we have a problem.
--Sj
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: [snip]
The issue is that games can exist entirely in parallel to encyclopedia-building. For example, the user who created the "Wikipedia:Wikigames" project (since redirected) has never made a single edit to a Wikipedia article. When the fun activity becomes the primary focus and the encyclopedia becomes incidental, a line has to be drawn.
[snip]
We also have administrators who make no edits in the main namespace.
The point is that our community is now so large that we really can't call people unproductive simply due to lack of article writing, although .. our primary activities should always be encouraged.
Comradeship and relaxation are important aspects of building and maintaining a community. If outsiders sometimes come in to play, more often than not they will be eventually sucked into our community. It is inappropriate to squelch a harmless activity because if we all stopped doing every but the activity harm would be caused.
Do you suggest we remove all mention of Wikimania from the site? After all.. a conference is completely unnecessary for the direct goals of Wikipedia.
Like anything else, we should pay attention to it... and apply breaks if it gets out of hand.
--gmaxwell (who has no interest in playing the games himself)
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We also have administrators who make no edits in the main namespace.
Almost all of which still perform janitorial tasks that help us toward our primary goal.
Comradeship and relaxation are important aspects of building and maintaining a community.
The purpose of that community is to generate and maintain content.
It is inappropriate to squelch a harmless activity because if we all stopped doing every but the activity harm would be caused.
It is not harmless if it misdirects a sizable part of the community away from our primary goals.
Do you suggest we remove all mention of Wikimania from the site? After all.. a conference is completely unnecessary for the direct goals of Wikipedia.
A large part of Wikimania is hacking sessions and WikiJam activities. So that is a completely invalid example.
-- mav
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
On 7/5/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We also have administrators who make no edits in the main namespace.
Almost all of which still perform janitorial tasks that help us toward our primary goal.
In some cases that is quite debatable, but point taken. :)
Comradeship and relaxation are important aspects of building and maintaining a community.
The purpose of that community is to generate and maintain content.
No argument there, but it doesn't exclude what I said...
It is inappropriate to squelch a harmless activity because if we all stopped doing every but the activity harm would be caused.
It is not harmless if it misdirects a sizable part of the community away from our primary goals.
Again agreed, but I've seen no evidence of it doing anything of the like. Step away from the strawman or I'll have to take out my matches. :)
It would also be not harmless if someone took a wikigame too far and actually hung themself after losing a round of hangman. And it would be terrible if users spent all their time on wikien-l rather than working on their content... these things are true but irrelevant.
Do you suggest we remove all mention of Wikimania from the site? After all.. a conference is completely unnecessary for the direct goals of Wikipedia.
A large part of Wikimania is hacking sessions and WikiJam activities. So that is a completely invalid example.
And a large part isn't those things... Do you suggest we ban the things which are not directly productive? As that's what is in effect being discussed for the games, people do many productive things in the wiki, and some things which are not directly productive.. and we're talking about banning those. This would be exactly like banning all the non work events at wikimania.
A better solution would just be to put the game players on notice that if there is substantial participation in the games by people who are not participating in the wiki then the games will be shut down (and this thread has already made that clear)... Then peer pressure will keep people participating in the wiki. As far as I can tell, there is currently no problem but if one arises this simple measure should correct it.
Which brings up an important point: The detractors here have been complaining about loft what ifs... The wiki is actually a fairly lame environment for most of the games people are currently playing. There are far better sites on the internet focused on these games. The only advantage of playing the games in the wiki is for members of our community to stay close to the community.
On 7/6/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
A better solution would just be to put the game players on notice that if there is substantial participation in the games by people who are not participating in the wiki then the games will be shut down (and this thread has already made that clear)... Then peer pressure will keep people participating in the wiki. As far as I can tell, there is currently no problem but if one arises this simple measure should correct it.
Which brings up an important point: The detractors here have been complaining about loft what ifs... The wiki is actually a fairly lame environment for most of the games people are currently playing. There are far better sites on the internet focused on these games. The only advantage of playing the games in the wiki is for members of our community to stay close to the community.
Well said!
If we have editors who are exclusively curmudgeonly joy-killers, then we are going to have endless grumping and conflict. Let conflicts be resolved over a friendly game of checkers, I say!
On 7/5/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
It is not harmless if it misdirects a sizable part of the community away from our primary goals.
Ah, but that assumes they'd be using that time to write articles in the first place, which is a somewhat questionable assumption. In the scale of things, I think "Wikigaming" (which seems to be the apogee of tedium to me, but I'm not one to judge) to be less of a drain on Wikipedia's brainpower than many other outlets. Which do you think does more damage to Wikipedia on the whole: WikiChess or VFD disputes? Of course, the latter can't be cut out, but I think the order of magnitude of distraction, hurt feelings, creation of trolls and vandals, etc. makes the WikiChess thing look fairly innocuous by comparison. Seems to me that there are seveal quasi-arguments for its favor and only a few quasi-arguments to its detriment -- might as well keep it around until some of those quasi-arguments either way become things which can be empirically supported in some way. Who knows what it might lead to eventually? No need to nip it in the bud until it is proven problematic.
That being said, it shouldn't be in the article namespace, but I assume that's been taken care of already.
FF
I like the games, personally. A long time ago, I considered writing a special games extension for MediaWiki, for the purposes of encouraging social interaction and community building. I didn't get around to it, but I'm happy that it happened anyway. Of course it would be better if it was on a separate wiki, and I'd be happy to set up such a wiki on the Wikimedia servers, if the community is in favour. Perhaps it could be in a subdirectory.
The problem with putting it on wikicities is mostly psychological. It's on the wrong side of the virtual boundary which surrounds our homey little region of cyberspace. I know some people *want* it outside the boundary, I would ask them to be tolerant.
It would be outside our mission to offer these games to anyone other than Wikipedia editors. I wouldn't want to see it become an independently advertised Wikimedia project. We can put up barriers to entry which discourage outsiders, for example requiring a Wikipedia account. The user interface is probably the biggest barrier -- honestly, who would play chess on a wiki other than a Wikipedian? It's very quaint.
-- Tim Starling
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Tim Starling wrote:
I like the games, personally. A long time ago, I considered writing a special games extension for MediaWiki, for the purposes of encouraging social interaction and community building. I didn't get around to it, but I'm happy that it happened anyway. Of course it would be better if it was on a separate wiki, and I'd be happy to set up such a wiki on the Wikimedia servers, if the community is in favour. Perhaps it could be in a subdirectory.
Actually, some of the more "fun" activities/games (eg. N degrees of seperation, Wikifun, etc.) are quite useful - people involved go through articles, often improving them on the way.
The problem with putting it on wikicities is mostly psychological. It's on the wrong side of the virtual boundary which surrounds our homey little region of cyberspace. I know some people *want* it outside the boundary, I would ask them to be tolerant.
Alternatively, limit it to user subpages :)
It would be outside our mission to offer these games to anyone other than Wikipedia editors. I wouldn't want to see it become an independently advertised Wikimedia project. We can put up barriers to entry which discourage outsiders, for example requiring a Wikipedia account. The user interface is probably the biggest barrier -- honestly, who would play chess on a wiki other than a Wikipedian? It's very quaint.
Yep, absolutely. Again, moving it into user sub-pages (or an obscure part of the Wikipedia namespace, using templates, tables, piped links, math markup, and other bits of obscure wiki-markup) would solve part of this problem.
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
The problem with putting it on wikicities is mostly psychological. It's on the wrong side of the virtual boundary which surrounds our homey little region of cyberspace. I know some people *want* it outside the boundary, I would ask them to be tolerant.
Alternatively, limit it to user subpages :)
I was addressing Danny's concerns, which were:
1) It clogs up RC 2) It's an insult to the serious nature of the project
Limiting it to user subpages probably wouldn't address either. Moving it to a different wiki would at least address item 1.
-- Tim Starling
--- daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Period. Everything else is tangential to that. We have been fortunate in seeing that a strong community has emerged as a result of this common goal, but that is precisely the point. The community emerged because a bunch of people around the world are trying to create something together. People who are not interested in that goal have all the rights in the world not to be involved in it.
Very well put. And I agree that all this game playing needs to be moved somewhere else. Wikicities is a great place but please keep the ads so that the cost is taken care of.
A vote on this is not needed.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com