[WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

Wed Jan 14 13:22:37 UTC 2009

Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.

--
Alvaro

On 13-01-2009, at 5:53, "White Cat" <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without  
> backing
> such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other  
> side
> does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back  
> with
> equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two  
> sides
> disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the  
> outstanding
> problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is  
> the
> first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus  
> everyone
> can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you  
> have said
> so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this.
>
> As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their  
> search
> results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.
>
> Consider "Beowulf"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Google+Search
>
> As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem)  
> is #1.
> 2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3.
>
> Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real  
> world topic.
> In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than  
> the real
> world topic.
>
> Consider "Enterprise"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 and #3 is a fiction related.
>
> The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before  
> the
> fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit.
>
> Consider "Voyager"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction
> related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at  
> #21.
>
> Consider "Zero"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> #1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the  
> least. #2
> is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional
> character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining  
> topics
> are either disambiguation or real world related articles.
>
> Of course when I do a search on "Naruto"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a  
> real world
> topic!
>
> So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind  
> that I
> made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I  
> posted
> so far.
>
> Had I searched for "Naruto -anime"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words.
>
> Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+- 
> "Wikipedia:featured"+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+- 
> >
>
> I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results.  
> Or... I
> could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for.
>
> Consider: "Naruto University"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search
>
> All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all  
> fiction
> related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles  
> each month.
> Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
>
> So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related  
> articles
> as a whole?
>
> - White Cat
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
>>
>> That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can  
>> find,
>> and
>> then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed  
>> ready to go
>> to prime time.
>>
>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so  
>> reader
>> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
>> mainstream,
>> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and  
>> edit.
>>
>> It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in  
>> just 2 easy
>> steps!
>> (
>> http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
>> cemailfooterNO62<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62 
>> >
>> )
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l