Luca de Alfaro wrote:
For one thing, this would delegate spam fighting almost entirely to a cadre of editors: others, even though they are motivated contributors, would not bother manually checking the latest page for every page they read, and thus, they would not discover whether the latest page is altered. The "good samaritan" phenomenon of people casually landing on a page, and fixing it, would be much reduced.
This is a circular argument, though :-) , as the current last edit/default view policy is what makes things such as link-spamming effective. And while I agree discouraging casual contributions is a very important concern, one could also play devil's advocate and point out its drawbacks, particularly the accretion of small nibblets of information on an article until whatever style it once had is ruined.
But in any case I completely agree that more data is needed, and very likely different policies may be warranted across different Wikipedias (or within the same Wikipedia at different stages of its development). Here are some possible determinants of when an article's default view should be its last flagged revision, which lend themselves naturally to configuration options on the extension:
* after an article has been featured * after an article has accumulated X # of stable revisions * if an article is in a poorly covered category (this option should support recursive flagging down the category tree)
More determinants can probably be suggested or uncovered after the extension has been deployed.
To discourage link-spamming, one way could be:
- Have a notion of stable revisions, either marked by hand, or in the future I hope via a collaboration of hand marking and trust (algorithmic marking).
- Sell to search engines a stable revision feed. I believe that search engines would much rather index stable revisions of articles, and they would be willing to pay for it, giving the visibility of the Wikipedia as a search target.
The advantages of this scheme are:
- Link spamming becomes useless - We raise money - We can continue to present visitors the latest version whenever we feel this is appropriate for the Wikipedia evolution, without regards to spammer behavior.
Luca
This is a circular argument, though :-) , as the current last
edit/default view policy is what makes things such as link-spamming effective.
On 10/10/07, Luca de Alfaro luca@soe.ucsc.edu wrote:
To discourage link-spamming, one way could be:
[snip]
The advantages of this scheme are:
- Link spamming becomes useless
[snip]
Why do you expect that the not vandalized flag would have any impact on link quality?
I have seen no evidence to suggest that we have a real amount of people trying to benefit from putting links in quickly in a race with the vandalism reverting. .. at least not any more. The link insertion captchas, blocking, and Wikimedia SBL appear to have stopped that kind of behavior very effectively.
Our external links are already no-followed which dampens the ability of marketers to use Wikipedia in order to influence their search position. As such, giving flagged revisions to search engines should have no effect with respect to linking, unless we also stopped using no-follow in which case it would only increase the value of links placed in Wikipedia.
On English Wikipedia, unscrupulous marketers seem to be work more frequently by taking advantage of our lack of editorial oversight on links (which measurable by the high durability of obviously broken links) and our huge amount of traffic to bring in actual eyeballs. For this what we send to the search engine is irrelevant.
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org