Bogdan Giusca wrote:
I noticed that there's a user who is making minor
changes, then adds a
template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
content from his website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&o…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&old…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&a…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=58912…
etc.
He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to
wikipedia, while adding the same template.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy)
etc.
Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that
his new articles were first published on his website and each such
page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are
very useful for increasing the Google PR)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Comparing the histories of the articles shows that Wikipedia's were the
original. The psychwiki pages also have many redlinks in the same
places the Wikipedia articles have valid links.
I'm still not very well versed in Wikipedia's policies like most people
here, but I think this practice should be prohibited. Even though
Wikipedia's articles are free to be used by anybody, this person is
claiming Wikipedia editors took content from his wiki, which is not the
case. In my opinion, it looks like a way to advertise that wiki.