Re: [WikiEN-l] a few new wrinkles in the external link issue
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> Except, that in order to get approved, bots must go on a trial period
> so we can evaluate what and how it does. I believe the consensus on
> those who got involved was that the bot was good.
Of course, [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. Not a lot of people pay
attention to the bot approval process, and if people see the bot not
working the way it's expected or in a way they like, that might have to be
dealt with. There was next to no discussion regarding Shadowbot1, for
> David Gerard wrote:
>> Because there were enough MySpace blogs in particular being used as
>> spam links to be a discernible individual problem, with no known cases
>> where they were the right link and just the MySpace page itself
> There are enough external links being used as spam links to warrant the
> same thing. I'm still not buying it.
>> What actual (non-hypothetical examples) do you have where the blog is
>> an apposite link rather than the MySpace page itself?
> I can't give anything but hypotheticals, but the idea that MySpace blogs
> can't be useful as primary sources for their subjects is crazy.
True. For example, http://www.myspace.com/mkaku is a good source for Dr. [[Michio
Kaku]], though it looks like the current editors of the article have
removed it from everything except External links.
> > I can't give anything but hypotheticals, but the idea that MySpace blogs
> > can't be useful as primary sources for their subjects is crazy.
> True. For example, http://www.myspace.com/mkaku is a good source for Dr. [[Michio
> Kaku]], though it looks like the current editors of the article have
> removed it from everything except External links.
That's the MySpace page, rather than the attached blog.
www.myspace.com is not on the spam list.
There was extensive discussion about Shadowbot and how it should operate I
am a Member of [[WP:BAG]] and If there is a bot not functioning properly
PLEASE let BAG know. yes there was a glitch with shadowbot at one point with
a good link being added to is blacklist but that was quickly handled. As
with anyone/anything they make mistakes. I am also a bot operator myself. I
have had my bot break at times. But that was for short period and I have
built in safety overrides. If you would like to see the Impact of what
spamming can do let me point out a recent e-mail that was on the -tech
mailing list. (I will add full text at the bottom of this e-mail). Also if
you need to contact anyone in the anti-spam / shadowbot effort the best way
to contact them is in
the associated talk channel
is the best way to see spam in full context or you can check
[[User:Veinor/Links]] for a full off line daily report. lets see you come to
the front lines and SEE what non notable crap we handle and the amount of
SEO (Search Engine Optimization) spammers we have to deal with. And prove
also see the discussion at [[WT:EL]] about this.
E-Mail from Wiki-Tech mailing list:
there is a infamous person in Germany named "Mario Dolzer" (try Google
if you speak German) who is mostly known for spreading dialers.
He is building a massive SEO network for his activities. And since
several weeks he uses dynamically grabbed wikipedia content.
He is not only ignoring "official" OTRS-Mails to him but announce to
sell his "Wikipedia-SEO-Script".
Most probably it will be best to sue him - that is not an easy job.
Second best option seems to be to cut him off.
The good thing: Most of his domains are located in a small adress space.
On 22/01/07, John Doe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> regarding this HAVE YOU NO CLUE what spam is? there have been massive
> attacks by spammers recently there was one user that added 142 links to the
> same site, the reason? to increase the sites rank in google.
Good lord. What a novel idea of theirs. I can't believe I've never
seen that happen before; obviously we here have been sheltered from
the hurly-burly of real editing life for years.
> as for blog,
> myspace.com the reason is simple there is no need to link to jimbobs blog as
> per my reasoning at WT:EL
This sounds awfully like the "reliable sources" policy that
arbitrarily decreed Usenet could never be cited. Sure, we're mot in
the business of randomly linking to people's blogs, and we never have
been. That doesn't stop the fact that, occasionally, someone we would
consider reliable may post some information there we would like to
(Indeed, one of our *explicit recommendations* to people we have
articles on is that if there is contradictory information about them
floating around, or basic information which isn't widely known, they
should make sure to mention it on their personal site somewhere...)
>>Other blogs aren't a-okay, but it's simply not possible to block all blogs.
>>Personally, I will allow blogs as sources when its contents can clearly be
>>attributed to a notable individual. 99% of MySpace members isn't remotely
>>notable at all.
>So because most blogs aren't useful, we'll simply assume they all
>aren't. Hey, most websites aren't useful, either, why not disable all
>external linking altogether?
Mgm is allowing for 1% good ones. That's important progress because it
means that people actually have to pay attention to what they're doing.
If someone is doing that I'm happy to concede the other 99%. It's the
absolutist stand that some take that's the problem.
> On 1/22/07, Jeff Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 1) If we're going to blindly attach "nofollow" to all the external
>> links, why are we allowing Wikia links to be propped up artificially?
>> Are we in the business of conflict of interest now?
> I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I think you're asking why
> nofollow is applied to links to pages hosted at Wikia. The answer to
> that is that MediaWiki treats external links  differently to
> interwiki links, and nofollow is only applied to external links.
> So if my wikitext had [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite] I
> would get an external link, with nofollow, but if I had
> [[w:de:Hauptseite]] I would get an interwiki link without nofollow.
> This is sort of a bug, since there are many many sites which can be
> linked to this way: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map >
... which is why it's an inter-WIKI map, and is protected.
Re: [WikiEN-l] a few new wrinkles in the external link issue
On 1/23/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
> > This is sort of a bug, since there are many many sites which can be
> > linked to this way: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map >
> ... which is why it's an inter-WIKI map, and is protected.
I meant that it's a bug in the sense that someone with, say, a Wikia
wiki can evade having nofollow on links to them by changing external
links to interwiki links.