They think it is or they wouldn't do it.
Fred
On Nov 30, 2005, at 9:30 AM, jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I wasn't aware that Google results were
influenced by material on
Talk pages.
If this is true, it explains instances in which I have seen anons
post some
ideological screed in the article, have it removed, and then re-
post it
repeatedly into the article's Talk page. Is this actually that
effective a
tactic for using Wikipedia as a soapbox?
Jason
Quoting slimvirgin(a)gmail.com:
On 11/30/05, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
This case Slim Virgin mentions is in arbitration
now and a blatant
example of gaming Google by associating the name of the person
with a
lot of accusations he has only a marginal connection with ...
At a minimum we need to not allow Google to index our talk pages. We
talk about a lot of things. They may be about information but they
are not encyclopedic.
Fred, the case I was referring to isn't the one that's in
arbitration,
though I know the one you mean, and it's quite similar. I'm starting
to wonder whether this is happening a lot: that troublemakers see our
talk pages as a sort of Trojan horse. They pretend to be having an
innocent conversation designed to sort out the good from the bad
material, whereas in fact the discussion is only a vehicle being used
to spread the bad stuff, which they know won't survive in our
articles.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l