Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Brad,
One very easy solution to all of this is to segregate the live edited wikipedia site from the published site scraped by the search engines.
In other words, setup the community server "anyone can edit" at something like draften.wikipedia.org and publish reviewed dumps of the community server to a read only external server for scraping like I am doing at Wikigadugi. I have ZERO vandalism problems , ZERO content dispute problems, and ZERO vanity page problems and I host the entire English wikipedia as well as several other languages.
Very simple solution. People won't waste the time creating vanity pages when they know they may not get published in the "official" external official site.
Jeff
Brad Patrick wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, There are two issues that may be addressed. There is an apparant need for organisations to be VISIBLE. They want to use Wikipedia for that while we do not consider them to be of relevance in an encyclopedic setting. The content that they created would be of some value to Yellowikis. This is where this information is welcomed.
By moving it sideways, we do exactly what is current practice for other content that does not fit Wikipedia. We are not as confrontational as we could be, but the teflon quality of our projects would be increased and this may lead to fewer angry people in our projects as well.
PS I am totally behind the notion that we should not have non-encyclopedic content in Wikipedia.. for me it is a matter of strategy.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/29/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Brad,
One very easy solution to all of this is to segregate the live edited wikipedia site from the published site scraped by the search engines.
In other words, setup the community server "anyone can edit" at something like draften.wikipedia.org and publish reviewed dumps of the community server to a read only external server for scraping like I am doing at Wikigadugi. I have ZERO vandalism problems , ZERO content dispute problems, and ZERO vanity page problems and I host the entire English wikipedia as well as several other languages.
Very simple solution. People won't waste the time creating vanity pages when they know they may not get published in the "official" external official site.
Jeff
Brad Patrick wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What Gerard suggests is NOT a solution. There are reasons people are spamming Wikipedia and not adding content to Yellowiki. We are the fourteenth largest website in the world, while Yellowiki does not count in the top one hundred thousand. We have a consistently high google rating and our links ensure that they will have a high google rating, Yellowiki does not. We can offer some modicum of respectability, while they cannot Compare these two statements: "Look at me! I'm in the encyclopedia!" v. "Look at me! I'm in the phonebook! "
The fact is that they do not want to be on Yellowiki, which no one has ever heard of. They want to be on Wikipedia, which is a household name. And for that we need real solutions.
Danny
-----Original Message----- From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Cc: bpatrick@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement
Hoi, There are two issues that may be addressed. There is an apparant need for organisations to be VISIBLE. They want to use Wikipedia for that while we do not consider them to be of relevance in an encyclopedic setting. The content that they created would be of some value to Yellowikis. This is where this information is welcomed.
By moving it sideways, we do exactly what is current practice for other content that does not fit Wikipedia. We are not as confrontational as we could be, but the teflon quality of our projects would be increased and this may lead to fewer angry people in our projects as well.
PS I am totally behind the notion that we should not have non-encyclopedic content in Wikipedia.. for me it is a matter of strategy.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/29/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Brad,
One very easy solution to all of this is to segregate the live edited wikipedia site from the published site scraped by the search engines.
In other words, setup the community server "anyone can edit" at something like draften.wikipedia.org and publish reviewed dumps of the community server to a read only external server for scraping like I am doing at Wikigadugi. I have ZERO vandalism problems , ZERO content dispute problems, and ZERO vanity page problems and I host the entire English wikipedia as well as several other languages.
Very simple solution. People won't waste the time creating vanity pages when they know they may not get published in the "official" external official site.
Jeff
Brad Patrick wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
On 9/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The fact is that they do not want to be on Yellowiki, which no one has ever heard of. They >want to be on Wikipedia, which is a household name. And for that we need real solutions.
Danny
How about FUD? You know stuff along the lines of "do you really want a page you can't control being the number one search result for your company?"
geni napisał(a):
On 9/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The fact is that they do not want to be on Yellowiki, which no one has ever heard of. They >want to be on Wikipedia, which is a household name. And for that we need real solutions.
Danny
How about FUD? You know stuff along the lines of "do you really want a page you can't control being the number one search result for your company?"
That would be an issue for controversial companies. Most are not controversial. I assume they know about NPOV and expect to have a neutral article which people will actually *read* (as opposed to the marketing gibberish they have on their homepage).
On 9/29/06, Łukasz Garczewski tor@oak.pl wrote:
That would be an issue for controversial companies. Most are not controversial. I assume they know about NPOV and expect to have a neutral article which people will actually *read* (as opposed to the marketing gibberish they have on their homepage).
You relise a fair number of things deleted as copyvios are direct coppies of companies "marketing gibberish"?
geni napisał(a):
On 9/29/06, Łukasz Garczewski tor@oak.pl wrote:
That would be an issue for controversial companies. Most are not controversial. I assume they know about NPOV and expect to have a neutral article which people will actually *read* (as opposed to the marketing gibberish they have on their homepage).
You relise a fair number of things deleted as copyvios are direct coppies of companies "marketing gibberish"?
Context is everything. Marketing gibberish is only marketing gibberish when it's on a corporate website. On Wikipedia, however, marketing gibberish becomes an encyclopedic article. Magic. ;)
Hoi, By saying that we are big and they are small, it must be clear that it is NOT a solution right ??. So the solution is to be blunt and destroy all the effort that these people did put into what they hoped to be acceptable for Wikipedia.
By moving it to Yellowikis, Yellowikis gets content that it wants to have; their content is GFDL as well so there is NO problem in doing exactly this. By providing an alternative we give less of a reason to complain and we provide Yellowikis with the content that is what they are there for. What you could appreciate is that by having such a teflon strategy, we will be better able to ruthlessly remove from Wikipedia what is not encyclopedic in the first place.
Thanks, GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
What Gerard suggests is NOT a solution. There are reasons people are spamming Wikipedia and not adding content to Yellowiki. We are the fourteenth largest website in the world, while Yellowiki does not count in the top one hundred thousand. We have a consistently high google rating and our links ensure that they will have a high google rating, Yellowiki does not. We can offer some modicum of respectability, while they cannot Compare these two statements: "Look at me! I'm in the encyclopedia!" v. "Look at me! I'm in the phonebook! "
The fact is that they do not want to be on Yellowiki, which no one has ever heard of. They want to be on Wikipedia, which is a household name. And for that we need real solutions.
Danny
-----Original Message----- From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Cc: bpatrick@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement
Hoi, There are two issues that may be addressed. There is an apparant need for organisations to be VISIBLE. They want to use Wikipedia for that while we do not consider them to be of relevance in an encyclopedic setting. The content that they created would be of some value to Yellowikis. This is where this information is welcomed.
By moving it sideways, we do exactly what is current practice for other content that does not fit Wikipedia. We are not as confrontational as we could be, but the teflon quality of our projects would be increased and this may lead to fewer angry people in our projects as well.
PS I am totally behind the notion that we should not have non-encyclopedic content in Wikipedia.. for me it is a matter of strategy.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/29/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Brad,
One very easy solution to all of this is to segregate the live edited wikipedia site from the published site scraped by the search engines.
In other words, setup the community server "anyone can edit" at something like draften.wikipedia.org and publish reviewed dumps of the community server to a read only external server for scraping like I am doing at Wikigadugi. I have ZERO vandalism problems , ZERO content dispute problems, and ZERO vanity page problems and I host the entire English wikipedia as well as several other languages.
Very simple solution. People won't waste the time creating vanity pages when they know they may not get published in the "official" external official site.
Jeff
Brad Patrick wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
That does not solve any problems. The problem is not that they want to be online. Many of them have their own websites which get considerable traffic. The problem is that they want to be on Wikipedia. That is all they want. And as long as they are not on Wikipedia, they will keep coming back, regardless of whether they are on Yellowiki or not.
-----Original Message----- From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement
Hoi, By saying that we are big and they are small, it must be clear that it is NOT a solution right ??. So the solution is to be blunt and destroy all the effort that these people did put into what they hoped to be acceptable for Wikipedia.
By moving it to Yellowikis, Yellowikis gets content that it wants to have; their content is GFDL as well so there is NO problem in doing exactly this. By providing an alternative we give less of a reason to complain and we provide Yellowikis with the content that is what they are there for. What you could appreciate is that by having such a teflon strategy, we will be better able to ruthlessly remove from Wikipedia what is not encyclopedic in the first place.
Thanks, GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
What Gerard suggests is NOT a solution. There are reasons people are spamming
Wikipedia and not adding content to Yellowiki. We are the fourteenth largest website in the world, while Yellowiki does not count in the top one hundred thousand. We have a consistently high google rating and our links ensure that they will have a high google rating, Yellowiki does not. We can offer some modicum of respectability, while they cannot Compare these two statements: "Look at me! I'm in the encyclopedia!" v. "Look at me! I'm in the phonebook! "
The fact is that they do not want to be on Yellowiki, which no one has ever
heard of. They want to be on Wikipedia, which is a household name. And for that we need real solutions.
Danny
-----Original Message----- From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Cc: bpatrick@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement
Hoi, There are two issues that may be addressed. There is an apparant need for organisations to be VISIBLE. They want to use Wikipedia for that while we do not consider them to be of relevance in an encyclopedic setting. The content that they created would be of some value to Yellowikis. This is where this information is welcomed.
By moving it sideways, we do exactly what is current practice for other content that does not fit Wikipedia. We are not as confrontational as we could be, but the teflon quality of our projects would be increased and this may lead to fewer angry people in our projects as well.
PS I am totally behind the notion that we should not have non-encyclopedic content in Wikipedia.. for me it is a matter of strategy.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/29/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Brad,
One very easy solution to all of this is to segregate the live edited wikipedia site from the published site scraped by the search engines.
In other words, setup the community server "anyone can edit" at something like draften.wikipedia.org and publish reviewed dumps of the community server to a read only external server for scraping like I am doing at Wikigadugi. I have ZERO vandalism problems , ZERO content dispute problems, and ZERO vanity page problems and I host the entire English wikipedia as well as several other languages.
Very simple solution. People won't waste the time creating vanity pages when they know they may not get published in the "official" external official site.
Jeff
Brad Patrick wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Hoi, When people have been removed from Wikipedia with us providing a reasonable alternative, we have taken the moral highground. When all we can do is destroy, there is reason to be indignant. The solution that Yellowikis provides us with is that we provide both a "reasonable" argument and a "reasonable" alternative.
It therefore does solve a problem; it makes us seem reasonable.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That does not solve any problems. The problem is not that they want to be online. Many of them have their own websites which get considerable traffic. The problem is that they want to be on Wikipedia. That is all they want. And as long as they are not on Wikipedia, they will keep coming back, regardless of whether they are on Yellowiki or not.
-----Original Message----- From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement
Hoi, By saying that we are big and they are small, it must be clear that it is NOT a solution right ??. So the solution is to be blunt and destroy all the effort that these people did put into what they hoped to be acceptable for Wikipedia.
By moving it to Yellowikis, Yellowikis gets content that it wants to have; their content is GFDL as well so there is NO problem in doing exactly this. By providing an alternative we give less of a reason to complain and we provide Yellowikis with the content that is what they are there for. What you could appreciate is that by having such a teflon strategy, we will be better able to ruthlessly remove from Wikipedia what is not encyclopedic in the first place.
Thanks, GerardM
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
What Gerard suggests is NOT a solution. There are reasons people are
spamming Wikipedia and not adding content to Yellowiki. We are the fourteenth largest website in the world, while Yellowiki does not count in the top one hundred thousand. We have a consistently high google rating and our links ensure that they will have a high google rating, Yellowiki does not. We can offer some modicum of respectability, while they cannot Compare these two statements: "Look at me! I'm in the encyclopedia!" v. "Look at me! I'm in the phonebook! "
The fact is that they do not want to be on Yellowiki, which no one has
ever heard of. They want to be on Wikipedia, which is a household name. And for that we need real solutions.
Danny
-----Original Message----- From: gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Cc: bpatrick@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement
Hoi, There are two issues that may be addressed. There is an apparant need
for
organisations to be VISIBLE. They want to use Wikipedia for that while
we do
not consider them to be of relevance in an encyclopedic setting. The
content
that they created would be of some value to Yellowikis. This is where
this
information is welcomed.
By moving it sideways, we do exactly what is current practice for other content that does not fit Wikipedia. We are not as confrontational as we could be, but the teflon quality of our projects would be increased and
this
may lead to fewer angry people in our projects as well.
PS I am totally behind the notion that we should not have
non-encyclopedic
content in Wikipedia.. for me it is a matter of strategy.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/29/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Brad,
One very easy solution to all of this is to segregate the live edited wikipedia site from the published site scraped by the search engines.
In other words, setup the community server "anyone can edit" at something like draften.wikipedia.org and publish reviewed dumps of the community server to a read only external server for scraping like I am doing at Wikigadugi. I have ZERO vandalism problems , ZERO content dispute problems, and ZERO vanity
page
problems and I host the entire English wikipedia as well as several other languages.
Very simple solution. People won't waste the time creating vanity pages when they know they may not get published in the "official" external official site.
Jeff
Brad Patrick wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I
am
here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That does not solve any problems. The problem is not that they want to be online. Many of them have their own websites which get considerable traffic. The problem is that they want to be on Wikipedia. That is all they want. And as long as they are not on Wikipedia, they will keep coming back, regardless of whether they are on Yellowiki or not.
The solution seems pretty simple, then. Put them in Wikipedia.
In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
Wikipedia gets what it wants. The companies get what they want. Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article titles.
Anthony
In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony. I disagree.
Wikipedia gets what it wants. The companies get what they want. Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article titles.
You have it backward. Whether we like it or not, people in the world perceive they aren't somebody unless they are in Wikipedia. Companies especially so. Nobody would argue publicly traded companies, Fortune 500, etc. count, I don't believe. But walk a mile in our shoes for a moment. Every numbskull with letterhead on the planet believing they have a "right" to have their brother-in-law marketing partner spam us with corporate schmutz? Please.
But honestly, where is your line? What does it take to plunge off the cliff of oblivion for you before something can be considered non-WP worthy?
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony. I disagree.
In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I suppose, but I don't believe we live in such a perfect world. Please don't misrepresent my position.
Wikipedia gets what it wants. The companies get what they want. Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article titles.
You have it backward. Whether we like it or not, people in the world perceive they aren't somebody unless they are in Wikipedia. Companies especially so.
So what? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to tell people whether or not "they are somebody"? Of course it isn't. Moreover, is the purpose of Wikipedia to tell society whether or not a company is deemed notable by a self-selected group of admins/AfDers/whatever? I'd suggest this isn't the purpose either.
Nobody would argue publicly traded companies, Fortune 500, etc. count, I don't believe. But walk a mile in our shoes for a moment. Every numbskull with letterhead on the planet believing they have a "right" to have their brother-in-law marketing partner spam us with corporate schmutz? Please.
Actually, my suggestion above was that we write the articles, not the marketers.
But honestly, where is your line? What does it take to plunge off the cliff of oblivion for you before something can be considered non-WP worthy?
I believe there are lots of things that are non-WP worthy. Please don't misrepresent my position.
Anthony
On 9/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
What Gerard suggests is NOT a solution. There are reasons people are spamming Wikipedia and not adding content to Yellowiki. We are the fourteenth largest website in the world, while Yellowiki does not count in the top one hundred thousand. We have a consistently high google rating and our links ensure that they will have a high google rating, Yellowiki does not. We can offer some modicum of respectability, while they cannot Compare these two statements: "Look at me! I'm in the encyclopedia!" v. "Look at me! I'm in the phonebook! "
Doesn't this statement about google rating misrepresent how google ratings work? http://en.wikipedia.org/ has a pagerank of 9. http://www.myspace.com/ has a pagerank of 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_Network has a pagerank of 0. http://www.theweddingnetwork.co.uk/ has a pagerank of 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdgeBOX has a pagerank of 0. http://www.edgebox.net/ has a pagerank of 2. The fact that the main page of the English Wikipedia has a high pagerank seems to me to have absolutely no relevance to the fact that people want their companies in it.
I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some modicum of respectability". People want their companies in Wikipedia because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.
Anthony
On 10/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some modicum of respectability". People want their companies in Wikipedia because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.
Not so. Firstly a free link is always worth while. Secondly links from wikipedia will take traffic to your website. Reading SEO forums can be somewhat worrying.
On 9/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some modicum of respectability". People want their companies in Wikipedia because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.
Not so. Firstly a free link is always worth while. Secondly links from wikipedia will take traffic to your website. Reading SEO forums can be somewhat worrying.
Firstly, writing an article about your company and putting it into Wikipedia, then calling Brad and complaining about the fact that it was deleted, is by no means free. Secondly, links from Wikipedia only take traffic to your website if someone a) goes to that article, and b) follows the link.
Finally, why is this thread on foundation-l? This is a project/community issue, not a foundation one.
Anthony
GerardM wrote:
PS I am totally behind the notion that we should not have non-encyclopedic content in Wikipedia.. for me it is a matter of strategy.
Thanks, GerardM
While on the surface I totally support this idea and philosophy, the problem is in the details. There is a legitimate reason to have encyclopedic articles about major notable businesses and organizations such as Coca-Cola and General Motors. The problem is when the POV of these articles shift from a NPOV exercise to simply a glowing P.R. astroturfing exercise that wipes out any criticism or negative (to the company) publicity, even if it is factual and verifiable.
I'm currently engaged directly in one of these efforts where there have been close to 100 edits about a particular company that has been edited to wildly different points of view and little middle ground is seemingly possible. Some of the edits are by (I suspect) employees of the company in question.
As for business that are not notable, that is of course subject to interpretation but even then some sort of good faith ought to go into some of the suggestions. Historical significance should play as much a role as Alexa ranking or other factors. John's "Gently Used Cars" should not be considered a notable business by all of these factors and more, and certainly does not deserve note in Wikipedia, even if it might help improve rankings on Google for their website. This is perhaps one of the motivations for this type of behavior, unfortunately.
There are some companies that while small now, did have a small but important historical significance to the area where they are located, or to the industry they are in.
Somehow I don't think that most of the web pages that Brad is complaining about here really fit this sort of criteria.
On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
Srticles are only one problem. There are aparently people prepared to pay money to people ho can get links into wikipedia.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
This would be covered by CSD a7 for the most part.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
Afd. In theory prod/CSD should take care of most of it. Problem is that figureing out the notibility or whatever of companies is a pain in the neck since most of us don't have a vast amount of experence in that area.
Hoi, I am amazed at this terminology that is such that I do not understand at all what you try to say. Thanks, GerardM
On 9/29/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
Srticles are only one problem. There are aparently people prepared to pay money to people ho can get links into wikipedia.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
This would be covered by CSD a7 for the most part.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. Thank you for your help.
Afd. In theory prod/CSD should take care of most of it. Problem is that figureing out the notibility or whatever of companies is a pain in the neck since most of us don't have a vast amount of experence in that area.
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/29/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am amazed at this terminology that is such that I do not understand at all what you try to say. Thanks, GerardM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#A7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PROD
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This would be covered by CSD a7 for the most part. Afd. In theory prod/CSD should take care of most of it. Problem is that figureing out the notibility or whatever of companies is a pain in the neck since most of us don't have a vast amount of experence in that area.
Yes. The problem is *not* one susceptible to a new rule, because the problem is not the failure of present rules. The problem is keeping up with the firehose of crap and not risking doing something really stupid. Brad, this needs more thought than just adding another rule.
- d.
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The problem is *not* one susceptible to a new rule, because the problem is not the failure of present rules. The problem is keeping up with the firehose of crap and not risking doing something really stupid. Brad, this needs more thought than just adding another rule.
Make it impossible to create orphan articles.
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The problem is *not* one susceptible to a new rule, because the problem is not the failure of present rules. The problem is keeping up with the firehose of crap and not risking doing something really stupid. Brad, this needs more thought than just adding another rule.
Make it impossible to create orphan articles.
"Sorry, you can't have your article unless you apply *this* magic trick we mention on a page you didn't read, did you."
Bites the newbies badly, and doesn't stop editors of bad faith for a second. Rules can't cure malice.
- d.
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: "Sorry, you can't have your article unless you apply *this* magic trick we mention on a page you didn't read, did you."
you don't get that becuase the only way to get to a page that allows you to create a new page is to click a redlink.
Bites the newbies badly, and doesn't stop editors of bad faith for a second. Rules can't cure malice.
You can't create an article that no one else wants without editing an existing article that someone might care about.
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"Sorry, you can't have your article unless you apply *this* magic trick we mention on a page you didn't read, did you."
you don't get that becuase the only way to get to a page that allows you to create a new page is to click a redlink. You can't create an article that no one else wants without editing an existing article that someone might care about.
Or adding a link to an existing article.
You seem to be assuming the marketers of ill faith will be too thick to apply the same procedure to create an article that an editor of good faith would.
Could it be that there is no technical trick that will stop a marketer of ill faith without stopping editors and newbies of good faith the same or worse?
Think!
- d.
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Or adding a link to an existing article.
You seem to be assuming the marketers of ill faith will be too thick to apply the same procedure to create an article that an editor of good faith would.
As soon as you add a link to an existing article you are more likely to be noticed by a wikipedian who knows the area. Ever look at how many prod, speedies and ADFs are orphans?
Could it be that there is no technical trick that will stop a marketer of ill faith without stopping editors and newbies of good faith the same or worse?
Think!
Just because someone is acting in good faith it doesn't mean that they are doing something that we want them to do. There are various tricks (marketers appear to be rather found of our no comercial use lisence option on images for example) which could be used to target marketers but then it gets complex.
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
As soon as you add a link to an existing article you are more likely to be noticed by a wikipedian who knows the area. Ever look at how many prod, speedies and ADFs are orphans?
It'd be quite a major move to have to close off new articles to that extent just because of marketers.
Just because someone is acting in good faith it doesn't mean that they are doing something that we want them to do.
I spent 1.5 hours this afternoon talking to a journalist. About 20 mins of that was him complaining at length that the bureaucracy is too damned intimidating for newcomers as it is. (I proceeded to more or less reiterate [[:en:Wikipedia:Process is important]], which I'm sure those of you who consider me a hack'n'slash enemy of process would find most amusing.)
I'd suggest that if we want better behaviour from newbies, we need to make things suck less for the good ones (like this guy) - the crap newbies will not be stoppable by any force of clue. You watch.
And remember: most text appears to be written by newcomers and occasional editors, not the regulars. (Numbers not firm on this one per AaronSw, but I understand others are checking his work.)
There are various tricks (marketers appear to be rather found of our no comercial use lisence option on images for example) which could be used to target marketers but then it gets complex.
See, that's the sort of thing we're good at. Be open to input from all, even if a tweaked vandal-checking bot puts it in a patrolling admin's "#redirect [[round file]]" list.
- d.
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It'd be quite a major move to have to close off new articles to that extent just because of marketers.
We shut off article creation for anons because of one media circus. If you recall the prevent orphan creation was the alturnative I sugested at that point. It has a lot of benifits. Afd, prod, speedy, all filled with orphans. It also means we are more likely to get a robust index. Articles that are orphans are not part of the community of articles.
I spent 1.5 hours this afternoon talking to a journalist. About 20 mins of that was him complaining at length that the bureaucracy is too damned intimidating for newcomers as it is. (I proceeded to more or less reiterate [[:en:Wikipedia:Process is important]], which I'm sure those of you who consider me a hack'n'slash enemy of process would find most amusing.)
Not really. It's because it is important that process and policy and guidelines should not exist lightly. If process doesn't matter and IAR is to be the order of the day it matters little how much we have.
I'd suggest that if we want better behaviour from newbies, we need to make things suck less for the good ones (like this guy) - the crap newbies will not be stoppable by any force of clue. You watch.
My proposal would effect everyone. Newbies less so because with luck they would not even thing of doing what they are being prevented from doing.
And remember: most text appears to be written by newcomers and occasional editors, not the regulars. (Numbers not firm on this one per AaronSw, but I understand others are checking his work.)
But how much of this text is added in the form of new articles and how much is added to existing articles.
See, that's the sort of thing we're good at. Be open to input from all, even if a tweaked vandal-checking bot puts it in a patrolling admin's "#redirect [[round file]]" list.
Problem is that there isn't much else you can do. Unwikified, linking to a site that contains the article title in the url and created by a one off user (and not linking to myspace). But that could apply to so many things.
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It'd be quite a major move to have to close off new articles to that extent just because of marketers.
We shut off article creation for anons because of one media circus. If you recall the prevent orphan creation was the alturnative I sugested at that point. It has a lot of benifits. Afd, prod, speedy, all filled with orphans. It also means we are more likely to get a robust index. Articles that are orphans are not part of the community of articles.
True. It would still be a drastic move.
I spent 1.5 hours this afternoon talking to a journalist. About 20 mins of that was him complaining at length that the bureaucracy is too damned intimidating for newcomers as it is. (I proceeded to more or less reiterate [[:en:Wikipedia:Process is important]], which I'm sure those of you who consider me a hack'n'slash enemy of process would find most amusing.)
Not really. It's because it is important that process and policy and guidelines should not exist lightly. If process doesn't matter and IAR is to be the order of the day it matters little how much we have.
IAR doesn't mean "do whatever damn fool idea pops into your head" any more than "Anyone can edit!" is an invitation to marketers to spam us.
I'd suggest that if we want better behaviour from newbies, we need to make things suck less for the good ones (like this guy) - the crap newbies will not be stoppable by any force of clue. You watch.
My proposal would effect everyone. Newbies less so because with luck they would not even thing of doing what they are being prevented from doing.
With luck?
And remember: most text appears to be written by newcomers and occasional editors, not the regulars. (Numbers not firm on this one per AaronSw, but I understand others are checking his work.)
But how much of this text is added in the form of new articles and how much is added to existing articles.
I can tell you, I'm eagerly awaiting the
See, that's the sort of thing we're good at. Be open to input from all, even if a tweaked vandal-checking bot puts it in a patrolling admin's "#redirect [[round file]]" list.
Problem is that there isn't much else you can do. Unwikified, linking to a site that contains the article title in the url and created by a one off user (and not linking to myspace). But that could apply to so many things.
So? Linkless articles and orphans are easily added to a round-file list. It's not quite like they hit 'save', think it saved and it disappeared, but it's that with a delay.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And remember: most text appears to be written by newcomers and occasional editors, not the regulars. (Numbers not firm on this one per AaronSw, but I understand others are checking his work.)
Newbies add text because they don't know how to do anything else. They have not evolved far enough yet to be spending their entire day wanking on their policy.
See, that's the sort of thing we're good at. Be open to input from all, even if a tweaked vandal-checking bot puts it in a patrolling admin's "#redirect [[round file]]" list.
Problem is that there isn't much else you can do. Unwikified, linking to a site that contains the article title in the url and created by a one off user (and not linking to myspace). But that could apply to so many things.
So? Linkless articles and orphans are easily added to a round-file list. It's not quite like they hit 'save', think it saved and it disappeared, but it's that with a delay.
It's a lot easier to put an article on the road to deletion than to start creating links on it. There is a risk that wikifying might require thinking about what one is doing.
Ec
geni wrote:
Just because someone is acting in good faith it doesn't mean that they are doing something that we want them to do.
Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want them to do? What rule was wanked into saying that? They are volunteers too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.
Ec
On 10/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want them to do? What rule was wanked into saying that?
All of them.
They are volunteers too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.
And if what they want to do includes orginal research and writeing POV articles?
geni wrote:
On 10/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want them to do? What rule was wanked into saying that?
All of them.
They are volunteers too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.
And if what they want to do includes orginal research and writeing POV articles?
We can't assume that they are doing that. I would at least hope that when they do we can enter into a respectful dialogue with them.
Ec
On 02/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
They are volunteers too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.
And if what they want to do includes orginal research and writeing POV articles?
Then we deal with them in the usual way. Assume Good Faith was policy, I thought.
- d.
geni wrote:
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: "Sorry, you can't have your article unless you apply *this* magic trick we mention on a page you didn't read, did you."
you don't get that becuase the only way to get to a page that allows you to create a new page is to click a redlink.
Bites the newbies badly, and doesn't stop editors of bad faith for a second. Rules can't cure malice.
You can't create an article that no one else wants without editing an existing article that someone might care about.
Wouldn't it be better to apply the filter retroactively, i.e. to delete orphan articles with human confirmation some time after they are created? If we put in profanity filters to prevent bad page saves, Wikipedia would suddenly be overwhelmed with 5H1t, if you understand my meaning. But the current system of IRC notification and semi-automated reversion is strangely effective.
Let's say for argument's sake that maybe there is a way to automatically recognise PR fluff, even if the best method is not by orphan status as geni has suggested. Then you can automate the process of deleting it. Display a big list of articles with a column of checkboxes, click "select all", select "CSD a7" from a drop-down list, click "delete". Wham, all gone. Keep the filters covert as much as possible, e.g. on the client side.
These kinds of features are the things we're trying to encourage with what I've been calling "hybrid" development, i.e. simultaneous development on the client and server. Get the client-side developers interested, ask them what they need on the server side in support, and we server-side developers will see if we can incorporate it into an API or extension.
-- Tim Starling
I'd be interested in helping with any sort of client & server side development. Not only can it be more covert and difficult to analyize and circumvent, but since sending script may sometime be easier than actually running a server-side version, there is the chance that it might be easier on the servers to implement something of this sort.
Tim Starling-2 wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to apply the filter retroactively, i.e. to delete orphan articles with human confirmation some time after they are created? If we put in profanity filters to prevent bad page saves, Wikipedia would suddenly be overwhelmed with 5H1t, if you understand my meaning. But the current system of IRC notification and semi-automated reversion is strangely effective.
Let's say for argument's sake that maybe there is a way to automatically recognise PR fluff, even if the best method is not by orphan status as geni has suggested. Then you can automate the process of deleting it. Display a big list of articles with a column of checkboxes, click "select all", select "CSD a7" from a drop-down list, click "delete". Wham, all gone. Keep the filters covert as much as possible, e.g. on the client side.
These kinds of features are the things we're trying to encourage with what I've been calling "hybrid" development, i.e. simultaneous development on the client and server. Get the client-side developers interested, ask them what they need on the server side in support, and we server-side developers will see if we can incorporate it into an API or extension.
-- Tim Starling
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org