Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

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

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Brad Patrick


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
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

jmerkey-3

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
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >[hidden email]
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

geni
In reply to this post by Brad Patrick
On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

geni
On 9/29/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> 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

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

daniwo59
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
 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: [hidden email]
 To: [hidden email]
 Cc: [hidden email]
 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >[hidden email]
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
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
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

geni
On 9/29/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by daniwo59
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


[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
>  To: [hidden email]
>  Cc: [hidden email]
>  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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

daniwo59
 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: [hidden email]
 To: [hidden email]
 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


[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
>  To: [hidden email]
>  Cc: [hidden email]
>  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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
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
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Łukasz Garczewski
In reply to this post by geni
geni napisał(a):
> On 9/29/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> 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).

--
TOR
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by daniwo59
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, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> 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
>
>
> [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> >  To: [hidden email]
> >  Cc: [hidden email]
> >  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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

geni
In reply to this post by Łukasz Garczewski
On 9/29/06, Łukasz Garczewski <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

Łukasz Garczewski
geni napisał(a):
> On 9/29/06, Łukasz Garczewski <[hidden email]> 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. ;)

--
TOR
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by geni
On 29/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> 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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

geni
On 9/29/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> 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.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
On 29/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 9/29/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> 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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

geni
On 9/29/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 29/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> 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.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement

David Gerard-2
On 29/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 9/29/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 29/09/06, geni <[hidden email]> 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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12