My attention has repeatedly been drawn to serious negative effects created by the ability of Google and other searches to search and display pages outside the mainspace, including pages such as XfD's, DRV's, AN/I discussions, and the like. Some of these discussions have taken place on-wiki and others, I am advised, on discussion of OTRS tickets posted by affected persons.
Given the visibility of Wikipedia results on Google and other searches, and consistent with the overall intent of [[WP:BLP]] on En-Wiki (and what I hope is its equivalent on other projects), we have a serious responsibility to ensure that the overall effect of Wikipedia content is a responsible one. This includes eliminating the likelihood that the first hit on the Google search for a living person is not (for example) a deletion discussion on how insignificant and non-notable that individual is, or a page discussing the ban of that individual (who might be a minor, for example) who chose to edit Wikipedia under his or her real name and made some mistakes in doing so and was criticized or even banned as a result.
There has been discussion from time to time about implementing a technical modification such that only mainspace pages (or such other pages as the community might consciously choose) would be visible to searches. In view of the number of concerns raised about the current situation where everything is searchable, it seems to me that the necessary changes should be developed and implemented quickly.
The main argument in opposition to this change that I have seen is that the internal Wikipedia search capability is not as strong as the external search engines, so that it is desirable that the ability to conduct a complete external search be maintained. I know that I have sometimes found it useful to be able to search all spaces within the site in, for example, looking for precedent cases while drafting EnWiki arbitration decisions. It therefore would probably be desirable to upgrade our internal search capability. However, in view of the number of third parties affected by the current practice, I do not believe that implementation of the non-search capability should await this development.
As a matter of disclosure, although I have raised this concern in passing on prior occasions, my attention has been focused (this is something of an understatement) on it again by an ongoing and extremely unpleasant thread concerning me on the Wikipedia Review site. I understand that my concerns in this matter might be discounted for that reason. Nonetheless, they are sincere, of long standing, and I urge that they receive priority attention.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
My attention has repeatedly been drawn to serious negative effects created by the ability of Google and other searches to search and display pages outside the mainspace, including pages such as XfD's, DRV's, AN/I discussions, and the like. Some of these discussions have taken place on-wiki and others, I am advised, on discussion of OTRS tickets posted by affected persons.
Given the visibility of Wikipedia results on Google and other searches, and consistent with the overall intent of [[WP:BLP]] on En-Wiki (and what I hope is its equivalent on other projects), we have a serious responsibility to ensure that the overall effect of Wikipedia content is a responsible one. This includes eliminating the likelihood that the first hit on the Google search for a living person is not (for example) a deletion discussion on how insignificant and non-notable that individual is, or a page discussing the ban of that individual (who might be a minor, for example) who chose to edit Wikipedia under his or her real name and made some mistakes in doing so and was criticized or even banned as a result.
There has been discussion from time to time about implementing a technical modification such that only mainspace pages (or such other pages as the community might consciously choose) would be visible to searches. In view of the number of concerns raised about the current situation where everything is searchable, it seems to me that the necessary changes should be developed and implemented quickly.
The main argument in opposition to this change that I have seen is that the internal Wikipedia search capability is not as strong as the external search engines, so that it is desirable that the ability to conduct a complete external search be maintained. I know that I have sometimes found it useful to be able to search all spaces within the site in, for example, looking for precedent cases while drafting EnWiki arbitration decisions. It therefore would probably be desirable to upgrade our internal search capability. However, in view of the number of third parties affected by the current practice, I do not believe that implementation of the non-search capability should await this development.
As a matter of disclosure, although I have raised this concern in passing on prior occasions, my attention has been focused (this is something of an understatement) on it again by an ongoing and extremely unpleasant thread concerning me on the Wikipedia Review site. I understand that my concerns in this matter might be discounted for that reason. Nonetheless, they are sincere, of long standing, and I urge that they receive priority attention.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What about developing a functionality where editors (or perhaps admins and up only) could set an individual non-mainspace page to be excluded? The vast majority of non-articlespace content is not problematic, so the proposed sledgehammer solution seems a bit overkill as compared to handling individual pages, and would certainly be much less deleterious to the ability to use superior external search capability while improved internal search is developed, while still addressing the fact that some pages are problematic if they show on search engines and allowing us to respond appropriately to complaints and concerns about the same.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What about developing a functionality where editors (or perhaps admins and up only) could set an individual non-mainspace page to be excluded? The vast majority of non-articlespace content is not problematic, so the proposed sledgehammer solution seems a bit overkill as compared to handling individual pages, and would certainly be much less deleterious to the ability to use superior external search capability while improved internal search is developed, while still addressing the fact that some pages are problematic if they show on search engines and allowing us to respond appropriately to complaints and concerns about the same.
Something like a special keywork such as "__NOINDEX__" would be just about perfect. Then it is could be embedded in templates and the like and placed on individual pages as appropriate.
I generally agree with Todd that blocking search engines from all non-Article pages is effectively using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
-Robert Rohde
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
What about developing a functionality where editors (or perhaps admins and up only) could set an individual non-mainspace page to be excluded? The vast majority of non-articlespace content is not problematic, so the proposed sledgehammer solution seems a bit overkill as compared to handling individual pages, and would certainly be much less deleterious to the ability to use superior external search capability while improved internal search is developed, while still addressing the fact that some pages are problematic if they show on search engines and allowing us to respond appropriately to complaints and concerns about the same.
Something like a special keywork such as "__NOINDEX__" would be just about perfect. Then it is could be embedded in templates and the like and placed on individual pages as appropriate.
I generally agree with Todd that blocking search engines from all non-Article pages is effectively using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
-Robert Rohde
It appears the idea of a "__NOINDEX__" keyword is not a new one: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8068
-Robert Rohde
I think that this is a fairly awful idea. If there is a problem with how discussions are being conducted on a particular project, the correct procedure is to remind those involved of the basic rules of wikiquette, and take appropriate measures against those who persist in violating basic norms. Our processes should be self-vindicating in this regard. If not, we have a problem, but should not fear the light of day.
That said, I believe it would be an enormous boon to Wikipedia (and any other project which achieves a high pagerank in the future) if it was *completely* removed from Google search. The website is a dangerous distraction from the real work of creating high-quality, freely redistributable content. As far as I know, however, I am alone in this belief. :-)
Anyway, given that AFAICT the Foundation has deliberately restricted itself to the role of ISP, not intervening in the affairs of the projects (even when such intervention is desperately needed) except where required by law, there is surely no role for it to play here.
-- Visviva (EN Wiktionary/Wikipedia)
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) < newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
My attention has repeatedly been drawn to serious negative effects created by the ability of Google and other searches to search and display pages outside the mainspace, including pages such as XfD's, DRV's, AN/I discussions, and the like. Some of these discussions have taken place on-wiki and others, I am advised, on discussion of OTRS tickets posted by affected persons.
Given the visibility of Wikipedia results on Google and other searches, and consistent with the overall intent of [[WP:BLP]] on En-Wiki (and what I hope is its equivalent on other projects), we have a serious responsibility to ensure that the overall effect of Wikipedia content is a responsible one. This includes eliminating the likelihood that the first hit on the Google search for a living person is not (for example) a deletion discussion on how insignificant and non-notable that individual is, or a page discussing the ban of that individual (who might be a minor, for example) who chose to edit Wikipedia under his or her real name and made some mistakes in doing so and was criticized or even banned as a result.
There has been discussion from time to time about implementing a technical modification such that only mainspace pages (or such other pages as the community might consciously choose) would be visible to searches. In view of the number of concerns raised about the current situation where everything is searchable, it seems to me that the necessary changes should be developed and implemented quickly.
The main argument in opposition to this change that I have seen is that the internal Wikipedia search capability is not as strong as the external search engines, so that it is desirable that the ability to conduct a complete external search be maintained. I know that I have sometimes found it useful to be able to search all spaces within the site in, for example, looking for precedent cases while drafting EnWiki arbitration decisions. It therefore would probably be desirable to upgrade our internal search capability. However, in view of the number of third parties affected by the current practice, I do not believe that implementation of the non-search capability should await this development.
As a matter of disclosure, although I have raised this concern in passing on prior occasions, my attention has been focused (this is something of an understatement) on it again by an ongoing and extremely unpleasant thread concerning me on the Wikipedia Review site. I understand that my concerns in this matter might be discounted for that reason. Nonetheless, they are sincere, of long standing, and I urge that they receive priority attention.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: | My attention has repeatedly been drawn to serious negative effects created | by the ability of Google and other searches to search and display pages | outside the mainspace, including pages such as XfD's, DRV's, AN/I | discussions, and the like. Some of these discussions have taken place | on-wiki and others, I am advised, on discussion of OTRS tickets posted by | affected persons. | | Given the visibility of Wikipedia results on Google and other searches, and | consistent with the overall intent of [[WP:BLP]] on En-Wiki (and what I hope | is its equivalent on other projects), we have a serious responsibility to | ensure that the overall effect of Wikipedia content is a responsible one. | This includes eliminating the likelihood that the first hit on the Google | search for a living person is not (for example) a deletion discussion on how | insignificant and non-notable that individual is, or a page discussing the | ban of that individual (who might be a minor, for example) who chose to edit | Wikipedia under his or her real name and made some mistakes in doing so and | was criticized or even banned as a result. | | There has been discussion from time to time about implementing a technical | modification such that only mainspace pages (or such other pages as the | community might consciously choose) would be visible to searches. In view | of the number of concerns raised about the current situation where | everything is searchable, it seems to me that the necessary changes should | be developed and implemented quickly. | | The main argument in opposition to this change that I have seen is that the | internal Wikipedia search capability is not as strong as the external search | engines, so that it is desirable that the ability to conduct a complete | external search be maintained. I know that I have sometimes found it useful | to be able to search all spaces within the site in, for example, looking for | precedent cases while drafting EnWiki arbitration decisions. It therefore | would probably be desirable to upgrade our internal search capability. | However, in view of the number of third parties affected by the current | practice, I do not believe that implementation of the non-search capability | should await this development. | | As a matter of disclosure, although I have raised this concern in passing on | prior occasions, my attention has been focused (this is something of an | understatement) on it again by an ongoing and extremely unpleasant thread | concerning me on the Wikipedia Review site. I understand that my concerns | in this matter might be discounted for that reason. Nonetheless, they are | sincere, of long standing, and I urge that they receive priority attention. | | Newyorkbrad
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/04/29/robotstxt/
I had actually drafted this blog post up before Newyorkbrad's post (I had several people looking at it for me who can probably attest to it) but was delayed in posting it.
I believe it bears relevance to this thread as well.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
My attention has repeatedly been drawn to serious negative effects created by the ability of Google and other searches to search and display pages outside the mainspace, including pages such as XfD's, DRV's, AN/I discussions, and the like. Some of these discussions have taken place on-wiki and others, I am advised, on discussion of OTRS tickets posted by affected persons.
...
As a matter of disclosure, although I have raised this concern in passing on prior occasions, my attention has been focused (this is something of an understatement) on it again by an ongoing and extremely unpleasant thread concerning me on the Wikipedia Review site. I understand that my concerns in this matter might be discounted for that reason. Nonetheless, they are sincere, of long standing, and I urge that they receive priority attention.
Not at all. Your concerns sound healthy and thoughtful. Thanks for bringing it up.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org