Mailing List Archive

Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
On 9/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> 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.
>
The solution seems pretty simple, then. Put them in Wikipedia.

In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable
neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.

Wikipedia gets what it wants. The companies get what they want.
Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the
value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article
titles.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
> In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable
> neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
>

True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony. I disagree.

> Wikipedia gets what it wants. The companies get what they want.
> Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the
> value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article
> titles.

You have it backward. Whether we like it or not, people in the world
perceive they aren't somebody unless they are in Wikipedia. Companies
especially so. Nobody would argue publicly traded companies, Fortune
500, etc. count, I don't believe. But walk a mile in our shoes for a
moment. Every numbskull with letterhead on the planet believing they
have a "right" to have their brother-in-law marketing partner spam us
with corporate schmutz? Please.

But honestly, where is your line? What does it take to plunge off the
cliff of oblivion for you before something can be considered non-WP
worthy?

>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf@gmail.com
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
I'd be interested in helping with any sort of client & server side
development. Not only can it be more covert and difficult to analyize and
circumvent, but since sending script may sometime be easier than actually
running a server-side version, there is the chance that it might be easier
on the servers to implement something of this sort.


Tim Starling-2 wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be better to apply the filter retroactively, i.e. to delete
> orphan articles with human confirmation some time after they are created?
> If
> we put in profanity filters to prevent bad page saves, Wikipedia would
> suddenly be overwhelmed with 5H1t, if you understand my meaning. But the
> current system of IRC notification and semi-automated reversion is
> strangely
> effective.
>
> Let's say for argument's sake that maybe there is a way to automatically
> recognise PR fluff, even if the best method is not by orphan status as
> geni
> has suggested. Then you can automate the process of deleting it. Display a
> big list of articles with a column of checkboxes, click "select all",
> select
> "CSD a7" from a drop-down list, click "delete". Wham, all gone. Keep the
> filters covert as much as possible, e.g. on the client side.
>
> These kinds of features are the things we're trying to encourage with what
> I've been calling "hybrid" development, i.e. simultaneous development on
> the
> client and server. Get the client-side developers interested, ask them
> what
> they need on the server side in support, and we server-side developers
> will
> see if we can incorporate it into an API or extension.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Corporate-vanity-policy-enforcement-tf2358125.html#a6582111
Sent from the WikiMedia Foundation mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable
> > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> >
>
> True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony. I disagree.
>
In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I suppose, but
I don't believe we live in such a perfect world. Please don't
misrepresent my position.

> > Wikipedia gets what it wants. The companies get what they want.
> > Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the
> > value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article
> > titles.
>
> You have it backward. Whether we like it or not, people in the world
> perceive they aren't somebody unless they are in Wikipedia. Companies
> especially so.

So what? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to tell people whether or not
"they are somebody"? Of course it isn't. Moreover, is the purpose of
Wikipedia to tell society whether or not a company is deemed notable
by a self-selected group of admins/AfDers/whatever? I'd suggest this
isn't the purpose either.

> Nobody would argue publicly traded companies, Fortune
> 500, etc. count, I don't believe. But walk a mile in our shoes for a
> moment. Every numbskull with letterhead on the planet believing they
> have a "right" to have their brother-in-law marketing partner spam us
> with corporate schmutz? Please.
>
Actually, my suggestion above was that we write the articles, not the
marketers.

> But honestly, where is your line? What does it take to plunge off the
> cliff of oblivion for you before something can be considered non-WP
> worthy?
>
I believe there are lots of things that are non-WP worthy. Please
don't misrepresent my position.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
On 9/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> 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! "
>
Doesn't this statement about google rating misrepresent how google
ratings work? http://en.wikipedia.org/ has a pagerank of 9.
http://www.myspace.com/ has a pagerank of 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_Network has a pagerank of 0.
http://www.theweddingnetwork.co.uk/ has a pagerank of 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdgeBOX has a pagerank of 0.
http://www.edgebox.net/ has a pagerank of 2. The fact that the main
page of the English Wikipedia has a high pagerank seems to me to have
absolutely no relevance to the fact that people want their companies
in it.

I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want
their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some
modicum of respectability". People want their companies in Wikipedia
because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
On 10/1/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
> I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want
> their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some
> modicum of respectability". People want their companies in Wikipedia
> because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.
>

Not so. Firstly a free link is always worth while. Secondly links from
wikipedia will take traffic to your website. Reading SEO forums can be
somewhat worrying.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
On 9/30/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
> > I think you come the closest to an explanation of why people want
> > their companies in Wikipedia when you talk about offering "some
> > modicum of respectability". People want their companies in Wikipedia
> > because it's relatively hard to get a company in Wikipedia.
> >
>
> Not so. Firstly a free link is always worth while. Secondly links from
> wikipedia will take traffic to your website. Reading SEO forums can be
> somewhat worrying.
>
Firstly, writing an article about your company and putting it into
Wikipedia, then calling Brad and complaining about the fact that it
was deleted, is by no means free. Secondly, links from Wikipedia only
take traffic to your website if someone a) goes to that article, and
b) follows the link.

Finally, why is this thread on foundation-l? This is a
project/community issue, not a foundation one.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
geni wrote:

>Just because someone is acting in good faith it doesn't mean that they
>are doing something that we want them to do.
>
Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want
them to do? What rule was wanked into saying that? They are volunteers
too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
David Gerard wrote:

>On 29/09/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 9/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And remember: most text appears to be written by newcomers and
>>>occasional editors, not the regulars. (Numbers not firm on this one
>>>per AaronSw, but I understand others are checking his work.)
>>>
>>>
Newbies add text because they don't know how to do anything else. They
have not evolved far enough yet to be spending their entire day wanking
on their policy.

>>>See, that's the sort of thing we're good at. Be open to input from
>>>all, even if a tweaked vandal-checking bot puts it in a patrolling
>>>admin's "#redirect [[round file]]" list.
>>>
>>>
>>Problem is that there isn't much else you can do. Unwikified, linking
>>to a site that contains the article title in the url and created by a
>>one off user (and not linking to myspace). But that could apply to so
>>many things.
>>
>>
>So? Linkless articles and orphans are easily added to a round-file
>list. It's not quite like they hit 'save', think it saved and it
>disappeared, but it's that with a delay.
>
It's a lot easier to put an article on the road to deletion than to
start creating links on it. There is a risk that wikifying might
require thinking about what one is doing.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
On 10/1/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want
> them to do? What rule was wanked into saying that?

All of them.

>They are volunteers
> too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.
>

And if what they want to do includes orginal research and writeing POV articles?



--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
geni wrote:

>On 10/1/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want
>>them to do? What rule was wanked into saying that?
>>
>>
>All of them.
>
>
>>They are volunteers
>>too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.
>>
>>
>And if what they want to do includes orginal research and writeing POV articles?
>
We can't assume that they are doing that. I would at least hope that
when they do we can enter into a respectful dialogue with them.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement [ In reply to ]
On 02/10/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> >They are volunteers
> > too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.

> And if what they want to do includes orginal research and writeing POV articles?


Then we deal with them in the usual way. Assume Good Faith was policy,
I thought.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All