Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This page was nominated for deletion on June 24, 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
1 |
Hobit asked me to comment on this link in Further reading. I can't see what the objection could be. This essay discusses main-page exposure in Wikipedia as valuable in terms of SEO and promotion. The article Hobit objects to is about the value of main-page exposure in Wikipedia. It's therefore relevant further reading, and it's in the Further reading section. I don't know what else can be said about it. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful here to keep this essay as some general comments. What I was trying to get at above, and forgive me for being unclear, is that if we include a page on the main page, with links to a site not capable of handling a lot of traffic, we can inadvertently cause a DOS on that site. Time was obviously able to handle the load, and (since I don't ever go to the main page), I have no idea if we have caused something like this, but I do run into this issue about once a week follow back stories on Ars, Daring Fireball, etc. I'm not concerned about NPOV, as we have policies and guidelines for that, and I see that as outside the scope here. What would like to add is something to the effect that we should keep in mind potential side effects on other sites we may have when we feature articles in prominent locations on WP. I do not think we understand now, or perhaps ever will be able to predict with any real accuracy how we will influence the ecosystem of the internet, but I do think we should recognize that we are an elephant compared to most other sites and should think about possible negative effects our actions may have. In terms of the attack question, I think for this essay, we have lots of time to work out issues here, so we can leave out anything that might be considered a linkage for the time being until the questions around the attack are resolved and those issues fade in the minds of most editors. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Google bomb" was coined to describe the use of webpages to connect a derogatory comment with an individual. Is there a problem with using Wikipedia pages to attack Wikipedia editors, using much the same technique? For example, Let's say that some editors are trying to disparage an editor. Wouldn't posting many complaints and links to those complaints, about that editor have the effect of "bombing" them? Will Beback talk 01:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Will Beback, you have touched upon an issue that I've been wondering about, specifically, why do we not block indexing of talk pages and user pages? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the background behind this essay, but I presume it must have been written for a reason. It seems to be tied up with a particular recent controversy, but there's a dispute over whether that's actually a good example of it. So: are there any undisputed examples of Wikipedia being abused for search engine optimisation? (That is, cases where a user has clearly been intentionally editing Wikipedia to help promote something on search engines, as opposed to cases where that is an unintentional result of their editing.) If there are, can we mention them in the essay? If there aren't, then is this something we really need to warn against, if it hasn't actually happened yet? Robofish ( talk) 12:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
01-July-2011: Due to concerns of promoting attacks about specific editors or articles, we can just talk about the generalized real cases (rather than name articles), such as a navbox for a barely notable rock band, where each member, or song, is listed in the navbox. While the individual band members or songs are typically NOT notable beyond a famous album, a navbox has been created, with redlinks to member names and song titles, as if preparing that each item will gain "individual notability" (wide news coverage beyond the whole band). Then that navbox is tacked to the bottom of remotely-related articles, such as a large festival in which the band briefly appeared, but using the navbox to name every member and song, even if they were not individually noted in major reports about the festival. The navbox is being used as the "boxified contents" of an article tacked onto another article, to "text-spam" the detailed band member names and songs, where a simple wikilink to the band article would have been within WP:UNDUE limits of extra text. In another example, a person's article is linked in the intro lede text of a remotely related famous person, major city or invention: "rocker [John Q. Publicson] was very popular in this city's 2007 Music Festival" or "researcher [John Q. Publicman] was on the team of 20 which tested this major medical advancement" (similar to real text placed in the top lede paragraphs of a city or invention). There are many similar cases, where the rare article or redlinked names are placed in several other remotely related articles, with prominent top-placement or eye-catching navboxes. Those are some generalized examples of real instances where wikibombing occurred, when there was no essay to deter the pattern of excessive linking or copying of text. I hope that explains the reality, without targetting any specific articles. - Wikid77 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
01-July-2011: This essay should not mention many actual-case specifics, to avoid being used as an attack page of specific articles or editors. Some people have noted how there has been a temptation to use the essay to pinpoint specfic cases, in extreme detail, which can make the essay lose NPOV-neutral balance for many general readers of the topic. Instead, examples could be generalized, briefly, as almost hypothetical cases. Otherwise, if a specific political party were used as an example, then an NPOV balance to note numerous other political parties could be expected as related examples. However, the essay could offer some counts as to how many redlinks in a navbox would seem excessive, or how many articles should contain a navbox, compared to the number of wikilinks within that navbox. What are some other topics to avoid within the essay, to keep the topic focused on the general concepts of wikibombing? - Wikid77 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's me, but it feels like the "See Also" section is duplicating several essays to try and get this essay more notice. Therefore, I'd like to recommend that the see also be narrowed to be
The problem is many of these are very tangentially related (or were present in the occurrence that spawned this essay) but not applicable everywhere. WP:SOAP and WP:ADVERTISING go to the exact same section. Hearing no objections, I intend to make this change in about a week (give everyone plenty of time to discuss). I am proposing the change this way as I prefer Discuss, Change, Revert, Discuss on content that is contentious. And yes, my title for the section is poking fun at the essay at this time Hasteur ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That is the conclusion of a detailed experiment that I've been running to evaluate whether claims of "Wikibombing" have any validity. For them to have validity, it must be the case that specific editorial activities on Wikipedia have a measurable effect on the ranking of articles by major search engines (focusing on Google as the overwhelming market leader). However, the experiment that I have been carrying out suggests that consciously attempting to influence search rankings through such methods as adding templates, greatly increasing the number of inbound links and even having articles appear on the Main Page makes no measurable impact on search rankings. A number of editors suggested above that a counter-essay should be produced and linked from this one; I intend to write one, based on the findings of this experiment.
A writeup of the experiment can be read at User:Prioryman/Use of SEO techniques on Wikipedia. I would welcome any feedback from editors on my findings. Prioryman ( talk) 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just, uh, a heads up. It appears there's a concerted effort to Wikibomb going on. And those involved are too stupid to have kept their actions secret.
Should we be dealing with the articles in question? Especially since they're doing so with a deliberate agenda (hiding male scientists, flooding us with unsources and deletion worthy feminist articles). 106.69.83.44 ( talk) 09:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Harlequin
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This page was nominated for deletion on June 24, 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
1 |
Hobit asked me to comment on this link in Further reading. I can't see what the objection could be. This essay discusses main-page exposure in Wikipedia as valuable in terms of SEO and promotion. The article Hobit objects to is about the value of main-page exposure in Wikipedia. It's therefore relevant further reading, and it's in the Further reading section. I don't know what else can be said about it. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful here to keep this essay as some general comments. What I was trying to get at above, and forgive me for being unclear, is that if we include a page on the main page, with links to a site not capable of handling a lot of traffic, we can inadvertently cause a DOS on that site. Time was obviously able to handle the load, and (since I don't ever go to the main page), I have no idea if we have caused something like this, but I do run into this issue about once a week follow back stories on Ars, Daring Fireball, etc. I'm not concerned about NPOV, as we have policies and guidelines for that, and I see that as outside the scope here. What would like to add is something to the effect that we should keep in mind potential side effects on other sites we may have when we feature articles in prominent locations on WP. I do not think we understand now, or perhaps ever will be able to predict with any real accuracy how we will influence the ecosystem of the internet, but I do think we should recognize that we are an elephant compared to most other sites and should think about possible negative effects our actions may have. In terms of the attack question, I think for this essay, we have lots of time to work out issues here, so we can leave out anything that might be considered a linkage for the time being until the questions around the attack are resolved and those issues fade in the minds of most editors. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Google bomb" was coined to describe the use of webpages to connect a derogatory comment with an individual. Is there a problem with using Wikipedia pages to attack Wikipedia editors, using much the same technique? For example, Let's say that some editors are trying to disparage an editor. Wouldn't posting many complaints and links to those complaints, about that editor have the effect of "bombing" them? Will Beback talk 01:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Will Beback, you have touched upon an issue that I've been wondering about, specifically, why do we not block indexing of talk pages and user pages? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the background behind this essay, but I presume it must have been written for a reason. It seems to be tied up with a particular recent controversy, but there's a dispute over whether that's actually a good example of it. So: are there any undisputed examples of Wikipedia being abused for search engine optimisation? (That is, cases where a user has clearly been intentionally editing Wikipedia to help promote something on search engines, as opposed to cases where that is an unintentional result of their editing.) If there are, can we mention them in the essay? If there aren't, then is this something we really need to warn against, if it hasn't actually happened yet? Robofish ( talk) 12:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
01-July-2011: Due to concerns of promoting attacks about specific editors or articles, we can just talk about the generalized real cases (rather than name articles), such as a navbox for a barely notable rock band, where each member, or song, is listed in the navbox. While the individual band members or songs are typically NOT notable beyond a famous album, a navbox has been created, with redlinks to member names and song titles, as if preparing that each item will gain "individual notability" (wide news coverage beyond the whole band). Then that navbox is tacked to the bottom of remotely-related articles, such as a large festival in which the band briefly appeared, but using the navbox to name every member and song, even if they were not individually noted in major reports about the festival. The navbox is being used as the "boxified contents" of an article tacked onto another article, to "text-spam" the detailed band member names and songs, where a simple wikilink to the band article would have been within WP:UNDUE limits of extra text. In another example, a person's article is linked in the intro lede text of a remotely related famous person, major city or invention: "rocker [John Q. Publicson] was very popular in this city's 2007 Music Festival" or "researcher [John Q. Publicman] was on the team of 20 which tested this major medical advancement" (similar to real text placed in the top lede paragraphs of a city or invention). There are many similar cases, where the rare article or redlinked names are placed in several other remotely related articles, with prominent top-placement or eye-catching navboxes. Those are some generalized examples of real instances where wikibombing occurred, when there was no essay to deter the pattern of excessive linking or copying of text. I hope that explains the reality, without targetting any specific articles. - Wikid77 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
01-July-2011: This essay should not mention many actual-case specifics, to avoid being used as an attack page of specific articles or editors. Some people have noted how there has been a temptation to use the essay to pinpoint specfic cases, in extreme detail, which can make the essay lose NPOV-neutral balance for many general readers of the topic. Instead, examples could be generalized, briefly, as almost hypothetical cases. Otherwise, if a specific political party were used as an example, then an NPOV balance to note numerous other political parties could be expected as related examples. However, the essay could offer some counts as to how many redlinks in a navbox would seem excessive, or how many articles should contain a navbox, compared to the number of wikilinks within that navbox. What are some other topics to avoid within the essay, to keep the topic focused on the general concepts of wikibombing? - Wikid77 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's me, but it feels like the "See Also" section is duplicating several essays to try and get this essay more notice. Therefore, I'd like to recommend that the see also be narrowed to be
The problem is many of these are very tangentially related (or were present in the occurrence that spawned this essay) but not applicable everywhere. WP:SOAP and WP:ADVERTISING go to the exact same section. Hearing no objections, I intend to make this change in about a week (give everyone plenty of time to discuss). I am proposing the change this way as I prefer Discuss, Change, Revert, Discuss on content that is contentious. And yes, my title for the section is poking fun at the essay at this time Hasteur ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That is the conclusion of a detailed experiment that I've been running to evaluate whether claims of "Wikibombing" have any validity. For them to have validity, it must be the case that specific editorial activities on Wikipedia have a measurable effect on the ranking of articles by major search engines (focusing on Google as the overwhelming market leader). However, the experiment that I have been carrying out suggests that consciously attempting to influence search rankings through such methods as adding templates, greatly increasing the number of inbound links and even having articles appear on the Main Page makes no measurable impact on search rankings. A number of editors suggested above that a counter-essay should be produced and linked from this one; I intend to write one, based on the findings of this experiment.
A writeup of the experiment can be read at User:Prioryman/Use of SEO techniques on Wikipedia. I would welcome any feedback from editors on my findings. Prioryman ( talk) 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just, uh, a heads up. It appears there's a concerted effort to Wikibomb going on. And those involved are too stupid to have kept their actions secret.
Should we be dealing with the articles in question? Especially since they're doing so with a deliberate agenda (hiding male scientists, flooding us with unsources and deletion worthy feminist articles). 106.69.83.44 ( talk) 09:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Harlequin