Why couldn't a person simply scan userspace using all sorts of searches on "the" and "and" and so on, and simply repost the entire contents with deep links to an external indexed page?
No indexing and then allowing internal searches anyway seems like hiding an elephant behind a bucket.
**************A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect your score. See now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377105x1201454426/aol?redir=http... D=62&bcd=JulyBadfooterNO62)
While the future isn't yet known, at present internal search is only accessible as a specialist "wikipedia search engine".
For better or worse it's like any forum search; in that there is no major external interface and it has not become widely relied on like google or similar as a routine port of call for anyone seeking in-depth information on a person (the main reason for NOINDEXing of pages).
An employer for example is far more likely to use google or yahoo, than wikipedia internal search, partly because of prominence, familiarity, lack of awareness, and because most people checking if someone's "known" online don't exhaustively search every place they might have an account -- they google them or look on major social networking sites. Wikipedia is big, but it's no more a routine "major social networking site" than many others. In that context myspace, facebook, blogs, spidered news media, and personal web pages are far better known and used.
Should that change and Wikipedia become a prominent "first place to search for non-notable people one knows or might be interested in who might have a real-name mention on there as an account owner" (not that likely) then at that point NOINDEX might conceivably switch to signify "don't return this in an internal search if the user isn't approved/is unconfirmed/isn't an admin, or whatever it at that point. Or there might be a list of "terms not to return on NOINDEXed user and project pages" that would mean someone searching for an incident as an incident might find a page but someone entering a real name as a search term would not. But that's not presently on the horizons.
Some thoughts.
FT2
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:08 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Why couldn't a person simply scan userspace using all sorts of searches on "the" and "and" and so on, and simply repost the entire contents with deep links to an external indexed page?
No indexing and then allowing internal searches anyway seems like hiding an elephant behind a bucket.
**************A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect your score. See now! ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377105x1201454426/aol?redir=http... D=62&bcd=JulyBadfooterNO62) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'd love to see the internal search become the best way to find real-time new changes to articles -- and even add features for collaboratively improving common search topics.
SJ
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
While the future isn't yet known, at present internal search is only accessible as a specialist "wikipedia search engine".
For better or worse it's like any forum search; in that there is no major external interface and it has not become widely relied on like google or similar as a routine port of call for anyone seeking in-depth information on a person (the main reason for NOINDEXing of pages).
An employer for example is far more likely to use google or yahoo, than wikipedia internal search, partly because of prominence, familiarity, lack of awareness, and because most people checking if someone's "known" online don't exhaustively search every place they might have an account -- they google them or look on major social networking sites. Wikipedia is big, but it's no more a routine "major social networking site" than many others. In that context myspace, facebook, blogs, spidered news media, and personal web pages are far better known and used.
Should that change and Wikipedia become a prominent "first place to search for non-notable people one knows or might be interested in who might have a real-name mention on there as an account owner" (not that likely) then at that point NOINDEX might conceivably switch to signify "don't return this in an internal search if the user isn't approved/is unconfirmed/isn't an admin, or whatever it at that point. Or there might be a list of "terms not to return on NOINDEXed user and project pages" that would mean someone searching for an incident as an incident might find a page but someone entering a real name as a search term would not. But that's not presently on the horizons.
Some thoughts.
FT2
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:08 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Why couldn't a person simply scan userspace using all sorts of searches
on
"the" and "and" and so on, and simply repost the entire contents with
deep
links to an external indexed page?
No indexing and then allowing internal searches anyway seems like hiding
an
elephant behind a bucket.
**************A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect
your
score. See now! (
http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377105x1201454426/aol?redir=http...
D=62&bcd=JulyBadfooterNO62) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/7/25 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
I'd love to see the internal search become the best way to find real-time new changes to articles -- and even add features for collaboratively improving common search topics.
SJ
Redirects and disambiguation pages.
About us http://www.encyclopedia.com/about.aspx "Other Web sites that allow anyone to rewrite reference entries can be fun. But when you need credible information from reliable sources you can cite, Encyclopedia.com (www.encyclopedia.com) is the place to go. "
"Encyclopedia.com is owned and operated by HighBeam Research. "
What do others think. Is this site merely another fluffy, we're better than you, site that falls on its face when tested?
Will Johnson
I think that I was taught in school to never use any encyclopedia as a reference work, and that others should learn the same instead
-- Sent from my Palm Pre wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
About us http://www.encyclopedia.com/about.aspx "Other Web sites that allow anyone to rewrite reference entries can be fun. But when you need credible information from reliable sources you can cite, Encyclopedia.com (www.encyclopedia.com) is the place to go. "
"Encyclopedia.com is owned and operated by HighBeam Research. "
What do others think. Is this site merely another fluffy, we're better than you, site that falls on its face when tested?
Will Johnson
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well... They didn't have articles on the first two things I checked, and for the third thing they use one of our pictures. ;-) http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/electron.aspx
When recruiting for youth groups, I remember being told very explicitly to avoid speaking negatively about competing groups during presentations, given the risk that potential members (or their parents) would find the attitude off-putting. I think a similar concept might apply to encyclopedias -- as a reader, I'm in it for the entries, not the chest pounding.
I think we'd do well to bear that in mind, when it comes to public image and especially with regard to the presentation of content.
That's not to say I think we do a bad job of it. Just prattling on.
-Luna
2009/7/27 Luna lunasantin@gmail.com:
When recruiting for youth groups, I remember being told very explicitly to avoid speaking negatively about competing groups during presentations, given the risk that potential members (or their parents) would find the attitude off-putting. I think a similar concept might apply to encyclopedias -- as a reader, I'm in it for the entries, not the chest pounding. I think we'd do well to bear that in mind, when it comes to public image and especially with regard to the presentation of content.
Indeed. We're a bunch of encyclopedia nerds. Britannica is way cool - it's a pity about their combative PR. Citizendium is another free content encyclopedia, it's quietly getting on with it, if they're successful that's good for everyone. Conservapedia ... I'll get back to you on that one.
- d.