GFDL link spam

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GFDL link spam

Bogdan Giusca
I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
content from his website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&oldid=53310531
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldid=57357638
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&oldid=43473655
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=58912687&oldid=58596625
etc.

He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to
wikipedia, while adding the same template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy)
etc.

Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that
his new articles were first published on his website and each such
page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are
very useful for increasing the Google PR)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

geni
On 10/1/06, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
> template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
> content from his website:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&oldid=53310531
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldid=57357638
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&oldid=43473655
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=58912687&oldid=58596625
> etc.
>
> He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to
> wikipedia, while adding the same template.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy)
> etc.
>
> Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that
> his new articles were first published on his website and each such
> page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are
> very useful for increasing the Google PR)

Since the authoy is credited in our history there is no need for a
link to the external site how much you want to push this point is up
to you.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Lucas Hoffmann
In reply to this post by Bogdan Giusca
Bogdan Giusca wrote:

> I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
> template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
> content from his website:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&oldid=53310531
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldid=57357638
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&oldid=43473655
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=58912687&oldid=58596625
> etc.
>
> He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to
> wikipedia, while adding the same template.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy)
> etc.
>
> Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that
> his new articles were first published on his website and each such
> page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are
> very useful for increasing the Google PR)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>  
Comparing the histories of the articles shows that Wikipedia's were the
original.  The psychwiki pages also have many redlinks in the same
places the Wikipedia articles have valid links.

I'm still not very well versed in Wikipedia's policies like most people
here, but I think this practice should be prohibited.  Even though
Wikipedia's articles are free to be used by anybody, this person is
claiming Wikipedia editors took content from his wiki, which is not the
case.  In my opinion, it looks like a way to advertise that wiki.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

David Gerard-2
On 01/10/06, Lucas Hoffmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm still not very well versed in Wikipedia's policies like most people
> here, but I think this practice should be prohibited.  Even though
> Wikipedia's articles are free to be used by anybody, this person is
> claiming Wikipedia editors took content from his wiki, which is not the
> case.  In my opinion, it looks like a way to advertise that wiki.


The wiki in question is one hosted on wikia.com . So he wouldn't be
getting personal benefit from the ad links. (Jimbo and Angela would,
for the conspiracy theorists out there.)

Possibly the best first approach would be to, er, ask why he's doing this?


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Bogdan Giusca
On 10/1/06, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
> template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
> content from his website:

I just read this on IRC, then saw this message. I've already sent
Angela an e-mail about it. My suggestion is that the user shouldn't do
this for his own work, but only for significant changes contributed by
others on his wiki. Otherwise we have too much of a loophole for
spamming Wikipedia with links to external sites.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Angela-5
In reply to this post by Bogdan Giusca
On 10/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
> template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
> content from his website

I've emailed Joe Kiff, the user who was adding these links, so he may
be able to explain why he was adding them. All of the templates have
now been removed by Tawker's bot.

I expect the confusion about the need to attribute the wiki came from
the large number of similar templates. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Attribution_templates for a
collection of these. Wikia has similar templates for content from
Wikipedia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Wikipedia

The difference in this case is that the template was not legally
necessary since Joe was the author of the original content anyway.
I've added a note about this to Wikia's copyrights policy to make it
clearer for other Wikians wanting to copy their own content to
Wikipedia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_copyrights#Attribution_templates

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy on using these attribution
templates. In some cases the spam policy may apply but there are
certainly cases where it doesn't and where these need to be used. I
think this needs to be looked into, especially if Wikipedia wants to
benefit from content of other wikis and even from forks from itself.
For example, the PR around Citizendium has had various Wikimedians
saying this is fine since Wikipedia can benefit from any improvements
to the content which that project makes, but that may involve linking
to it with these sorts of templates.

Some way of adding attribution on the history page (which isn't
indexed by Google and therefore useless to spammers) may be a better
solution than adding these to the article. It probably also makes more
sense in terms of the GFDL if the history is all on the history page
and not partly there, partly on the talk page, and partly on the
article itself.

Angela
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Erik Moeller-4
On 10/2/06, Angela <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For example, the PR around Citizendium has had various Wikimedians
> saying this is fine since Wikipedia can benefit from any improvements
> to the content which that project makes, but that may involve linking
> to it with these sorts of templates.

I think that would be fine if Citizendium gains critical mass. I have
more of a problem when the appearance is that it is used to _build_
critical mass.

> Some way of adding attribution on the history page (which isn't
> indexed by Google and therefore useless to spammers) may be a better
> solution than adding these to the article. It probably also makes more
> sense in terms of the GFDL if the history is all on the history page
> and not partly there, partly on the talk page, and partly on the
> article itself.

Perhaps, if it is only and very specifically used for contributions
from external sources. A sort of "External History:" namespace whose
contents are shown and linked to on top of the history might be
workable.  Right now I'm not sure the problem is prevalent enough to
justify prioritizing such a change.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Gregory Maxwell
On 10/1/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps, if it is only and very specifically used for contributions
> from external sources. A sort of "External History:" namespace whose
> contents are shown and linked to on top of the history might be
> workable.  Right now I'm not sure the problem is prevalent enough to
> justify prioritizing such a change.

Of course... we could just have a wikieditable credits page. :)

I noticed this issue about .. er a year ago. And attempted to
demonstrate the risk by something of a  [[WP:POINT]] violation.  Try
as I might, no one was really cared. :)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Heinz-Josef Lücking-2
In reply to this post by geni
geni schrieb:
>> very useful for increasing the Google PR)
>
> Since the authoy is credited in our history there is no need for a
> link to the external site how much you want to push this point is up
> to you.
>
>
So if i use text from wikipedia in an other wiki i only have to write a
comment ("from ... ") into the history when adding it ?

HeinzJ

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Jim-60
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 10/1/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/2/06, Angela <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Some way of adding attribution on the history page (which isn't
> > indexed by Google and therefore useless to spammers) may be a better
> > solution than adding these to the article. It probably also makes more
> > sense in terms of the GFDL if the history is all on the history page
> > and not partly there, partly on the talk page, and partly on the
> > article itself.
>
> Perhaps, if it is only and very specifically used for contributions
> from external sources. A sort of "External History:" namespace whose
> contents are shown and linked to on top of the history might be
> workable.  Right now I'm not sure the problem is prevalent enough to
> justify prioritizing such a change.
>
> I see another potential use for this - and that is finding reference that
have been deleted. Unfortunately, new editors will remove <ref> tags. I hate
going to an article, and not finding a reference that was there before - if
I added it then it is not too difficult to find it in the history, but on
some articles it is difficult to find the prior reference. If this feature
could do two things: allow one to include a reference for GFDL material, and
provide a list of links that have been used in the article (along with the
linked text) - then that would be very helpful in identifying prior
reference material.

I always thought this would not work because it would be something else to
attract link-spammers - but if the link history page is not indexed, then
that seems to mitigate potential negative effects.

Jim
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

geni
In reply to this post by Heinz-Josef Lücking-2
On 10/5/06, HeinzJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So if i use text from wikipedia in an other wiki i only have to write a
> comment ("from ... ") into the history when adding it ?
>
> HeinzJ

That would depend on the  number of authors and if you were following
the other terms of the lisence.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GFDL link spam

Fastfission
In reply to this post by Heinz-Josef Lücking-2
On 10/5/06, HeinzJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> geni schrieb:
> >> very useful for increasing the Google PR)
> >
> > Since the authoy is credited in our history there is no need for a
> > link to the external site how much you want to push this point is up
> > to you.
> >
> So if i use text from wikipedia in an other wiki i only have to write a
> comment ("from ... ") into the history when adding it ?

If the other wiki is also licensed under the GFDL, then yes, pretty
much. The GFDL has more complicated attribution requirements (i.e. the
last five authors, or the most prominent five authors, or something
like that) but to my knowledge very few people follow them or take
them seriously in the context of community-edited documents, and
attribution to Wikipedia itself is probably the most anyone can
expect.

FF
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l