-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Ben Yates wrote: Quite easily... Take off every Zig! You know what you doing. Move Zig. For great justice. - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

On 15/08/05, Ben Yates <bluephonic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Doubt it's even true. Some tiny article hidden in the depths which gets four visitors a month (ie new page patrollers!) probably isn't the best way to promote a product/whatever... Dan

On 8/15/05, Ben Yates <bluephonic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not well, but it doesn't matter much. If it is information about something somebody cares or knows about, interested people will see it and verify it or change it and so forth. If it is not something someone cares about, then it hardly matters, except when people gloat about how they "gamed Wikipedia" by doing something nobody noticed. It's not worth getting any more flustered about that sort of thing than it is the occasional journalist or whomever who adds deliberate misinformation to a page about some obscure Tsar and then says, "Ha, Wikipedia couldn't demarcate truth and fiction for a whole week!" The people who think that every page of Wikipedia will be accurate 100% of the time and that 100% of all errors (deliberate or accidental) will be caught are the same people who probably 1. don't understand the point of Wikipedia anyway, 2. wouldn't like that point even if they understood it. In reality, if Wikipedia proves useful and reliable enough for most people, it will be used and enjoyed. Such has been demonstrated adequately so far and will continue to be in the future. If a few people want to misuse Wikipedia, so be it. Not even the hard sciences can protect against deliberate fraud. FF

On 15/08/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote: Probably a waste of time - any PR company that fancies trying their luck isn't going to consult past arbcom cases, and won't care if they get blocked anyway. Dan

On 8/15/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Even better: savage their *clients* for choosing such a daft PR firm, where appropriate. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

Sean Barrett (sean(a)epoptic.org) [050816 01:34]: The latest case being the BBC, it would be well above AC level ;-) - d.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Sean Barrett wrote: I'd assume that a body corporate like the BBC would have its own range of IP adddresses. If they will hold us to ransom, we could quite easily block their entire IP range from editing, consequences be damned; better yet, encourage people (read: slashdot users) to DDoS BBC until they cease and desist. Remember, it's our site, we make the rules. - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 David Gerard wrote: In the last 2 days 5 sites have been picked up by Google Alerts as being about the viral marketing campaign. The first summary was: then: I haven't read the stories, but some nutter in the marketing department will probably not respond to diplomacy. And meanwhile, we, the community, have to put up with this crap. We don't go and abuse their services, do we?? People need to learn that Wikipedia has power far beyond deleting and blocking. For one thing, we have NPOV, and your remarks on its power are fondly remembered :) For another, we have plenty of users who would gladly go out of their way to defend us. DDoS has been remarkably effective in changing corporate minds in the past. Look at the case of eToy. - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

On 16/08/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:> And couldn't happen. Remember - the BBC was serving 10Gb a *second* on the morning of July 7. Slashdot's influence is so small it doesn't even produce a noticeable blip in our requests per second. Jimbo pretty much hits the nail on the head - for a small PR firm, the hullabaloo would be great for them, and far more effective than if their "viral" campaign had gone unnoticed. However if you want to start entertaining the idea of range-blocking the BBC or other big company - which would make the news wires, I'd imagine - you need a very high level of proof, or you're going to look stupid in front the world. Not good for image (but would sure drive WP a lot of traffic :-) ). I believe the Jamie Kane article was started by a username. It may be possible to get the devs to find out the IP address assoicated with that name (I believe the last-used IP for that address is recorded, but nothing more). If that IP resolves to the BBC... well, that's something. But the BBC has some 20,000+ employees and it could still all be a co-incidence, albeit a suspicious one. Dan

On 16/08/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't think the new colo has a traffic meter, but before the June 7 move peak was about 120Mb/s, around 1/100th of the BBC's peak, so we'd have no effect whatsoever. (In terms of traffic, we get about half: http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=640&h=480&r=6m&y=r&u=wikip… . Bear in mind the BBC has much more multimedia on their site than us, hence the disproportionally high data flow for them.) I don't know. One incident is news worthy. A second is "Already been done. Goodbye" from the point of view of the media. Our top priority has to be coming away from this without harming our - or Jimbo's personal - reputation. Making big claims which could hit the media without a high level of proof wouldn't be a Good Thing. Remember we only have a few hundred active editors on any one day. The BBC's web infrastructure is extremely powerful - our is nothing in comparison, and in turn /. is nothing compared to us! Anyway two wrongs don't make a right. Dan

sod all cheack out their alexa rank http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=me… They run along with everthing else a news site. After spet 11 they have learned. The bad publictly for wikipedia would bite big time. Doubtful. Remember with the exception of a few spin off enterprizes the BBC is non profit makeing. Not a significant number since the BCC is one of the planets most respected news organisations. They are the number 1 site in the uk. You'd get almost no supporters and I doubt they would even notice any such "attack". -- geni

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Tim Starling wrote: Don't you dare cloud my opinions with facts! Yes, but you're taking the universe out of context... Did you expect mere proof to sway my opinion? Handy Hint: Save money on booze by drinking cold tea instead of whiskey. To simulate a hangover next morning, drink a thimblefull of dishwashing liquid and repeatedly bang your head against the wall. - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

On 8/16/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just quietly, but if you were looking at people NOT to make made at you, the BBC and other large mass media organisations would be top of the list. The sensible thing to do would be to talk it over behind the scenes, rather than start calling hostile press conferences and mobilising the troops to conduct illegal operations. -- Peter in Canberra