No-indexing of project-space pages

[Anthony-73]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:12 AM, David Katz <dkatz2001@...> wrote:
> Would this prevent mirror sites from 'scraping' noindex pages? This
> would be a definite improvement as talk pages are often a depository
> of libel and whilst we can remove and oversight material on wp pages
> we're powerless to do anything on a mirror
>
Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place?  I don't
see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of
libel.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Katz-5]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Anthony <wikimail@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:12 AM, David Katz <dkatz2001@...> wrote:
>> Would this prevent mirror sites from 'scraping' noindex pages? This
>> would be a definite improvement as talk pages are often a depository
>> of libel and whilst we can remove and oversight material on wp pages
>> we're powerless to do anything on a mirror
>>
> Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place?  I don't
> see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of
> libel.

It's not tolerated as much as a) it often takes longer to notice and
b) the removal of BLP violations from an article often results in a
debate on the Talk pages in which the BLP violation is not only
repeated but expanded.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 7/30/2008 9:07:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dkatz2001@... writes:

> It's not tolerated as much as a) it often takes longer to notice and
> b) the removal of BLP violations from an article often results in a
> debate on the Talk pages in which the BLP violation is not only
> repeated but expanded.>>

-----------

Ha.  Nice way to declare the defendent as guilty before the trial starts....

A declaration of a BLP violation is not a BLP violation.
Opponents will construe BLP in whatever way is necessary in order to win.  
Any actual BLP violation can be simply deleted or oversighted as the case may
be, but the mere declaration that one exists can never be used to halt the
debate on whether one exists or not, why, how, etc.  It's a necessarily part of the
process.

Which is why WP;BLP was just a really bad mistake in the first place in my
opinion.

By the way, on that note, neither Shawn Hornbeck nor any of his
representatives has ever contacted me to complain about the article on him that I have up.

Will Johnson


**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
     
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 7/31/2008 3:12:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikimail@... writes:


> Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place?  I don't
> see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of
> libel.>>
> ----------

It isn't.  This is just a tired old horse that keeps getting trotted out by
those who want to destroy the transparency that others have to constantly fight
to keep.

Some people don't like the idea that what they say today, can be compared to
what they said last year, and that this can be done by anyone with the
persistence to dig.

Any true libel, can and is, removed as soon as it's found.  However in the
U.S. "you can't libel garbage by saying it stinks" and opinions are not libel,
so instead you get smoke screens like this trying to confuse the evidence.  And
we operate under U.S. laws no matter what craziness Britain institutes :)

Will


**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
     
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

On 7/31/08, WJhonson@... <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 7/31/2008 3:12:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wikimail@... writes:
>
>
> > Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place?  I don't
> > see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of
> > libel.>>
> > ----------
>
> It isn't.  This is just a tired old horse that keeps getting trotted out by
> those who want to destroy the transparency that others have to constantly
> fight
> to keep.
>
> Some people don't like the idea that what they say today, can be compared
> to
> what they said last year, and that this can be done by anyone with the
> persistence to dig.
>
> Any true libel, can and is, removed as soon as it's found.  However in the
> U.S. "you can't libel garbage by saying it stinks" and opinions are not
> libel,
> so instead you get smoke screens like this trying to confuse the
> evidence.  And
> we operate under U.S. laws no matter what craziness Britain institutes :)
>
> Will

As I understand your position, it is that as a matter of principle,
petty disputes among Wikipedia contributors (many of whom edit under their
real names), as well as negative remarks about subjects of deleted articles
and the like, should not only be preserved on Wikipedia itself, but they
must remain readily available as top Google hits for the people in question,
presumably in perpetuity.  This position is not defensible.
It remains entirely unacceptable for the best-known and most popular
participatory website in the world to treat people in this manner.

There are very legitimate and debatable questions about the
precise demarcation of where the no-indexing codes should and should not be
used, as well as precisely what technical features should be implemented to
use them.   However, I have seen no seriously reasoned objection here
or elsewhere to the no-indexing of the varius RfA, RfAr, XfD, and
BLP/N pages and their archives that was apparently implemented some time
ago.  Now, at a minimum, to the extent it hasn't been already, this should
be extended to DRV, AN/ANI/AN3, SSP, RfCU, WQA, and the old CSN and PAIN
archives, all of which can rightly be regarded as pages for the
resolution of internal Wikipedia issues whose searchability outside
the project is plainly going to continue doing far more harm than good.

Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 8/3/2008 6:09:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
newyorkbrad@... writes:


As I  understand your position, it is that as a matter of principle,
petty  disputes among Wikipedia contributors (many of whom edit under their
real  names), as well as negative remarks about subjects of deleted articles
and  the like, should not only be preserved on Wikipedia itself, but they
must  remain readily available as top Google hits for the people in  question,
presumably in perpetuity.  This position is not  defensible.>>


-----------------
It's then a good thing I suppose that this isn't my position.
My position is that we already have internal mechanisms to handle the  
objections you first broached.
 
We're not babysitters and we shouldn't act like cyber cops.  If people  call
each other hateful names, that's what they did.  The entire blame for  their
actions rests solely on their own shoulders.  I feel no  responsibility for
what someone else did, and that they did it, knowing full  well that others would
and have seen it.  That is the very nature of a  public forum.
 
If a particular instance can be shown to require oversight, than it should,  
and has.  That we should make a sweeping change for a few minor issues is  
vast overkill and in the light that there are other options.
 
Will Johnson



**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

On 8/3/08, WJhonson@... <WJhonson@...> wrote:

>
>
> In a message dated 8/3/2008 6:09:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> newyorkbrad@... writes:
>
> As I understand your position, it is that as a matter of principle,
> petty  disputes among Wikipedia contributors (many of whom edit under their
> real  names), as well as negative remarks about subjects of deleted articles
> and  the like, should not only be preserved on Wikipedia itself, but they
> must  remain readily available as top Google hits for the people
> in  question, presumably in perpetuity.  This position is not  defensible.>>
>
> -----------------
> It's then a good thing I suppose that this isn't my position.
> My position is that we already have internal mechanisms to handle the
> objections you first broached.
>
> We're not babysitters and we shouldn't act like cyber cops.  If
> people  call
> each other hateful names, that's what they did.  The entire blame
> for  their
> actions rests solely on their own shoulders.  I feel no  responsibility for
> what someone else did, and that they did it, knowing full  well that others
> would
> and have seen it.  That is the very nature of a  public forum.
>
> If a particular instance can be shown to require oversight, than it should,
> and has.  That we should make a sweeping change for a few minor issues is
> vast overkill and in the light that there are other options.
>
> Will Johnson

In the first place, not every instance in which indexed results reflect
adversely on an individual are that individual's fault, directly or
indirectly.  In the second place, in the absence of truly extraordinary
circumstances, no one's off-wiki life should be allowed to be adversely
affected by his or her editing on Wikipedia if we can help it.  In the third
place, not everyone affected by this issue is a Wikipedian at all.

I also do not understand your apparent suggestion that there is no place on
a continuum between publishing the details of all our onsite quarrels
broadcast to the world, and actually oversighting the edits from the
database (a step which truly does suppress edits from later scrutiny if it
is needed, albeit for good and necessary reasons when appropriately use).

The fact that pages such as XfD, RfA, RfAr, and BLP/N went to no-index some
time ago with apparently little notice or complaint suggests that your
objections to this practice are more theoretical than real.  I am sensitive
to the value of such principle-based objections, but not when the objections
are, in the opinion of most participants in the discussion, so thoroughly
outweighed by the benefits of the measure proposed.  I repeat the urging in
my prior post that at least the pages I listed there (DRV, AN/ANI/AN3, SSP,
RfCU, WQA, former CSN and PAIN, and their archives) be added to the
no-indexing protocol if this has not already been done.

A post the other day reminded me of our earlier encounter in the context of
a controversial deletion discussion last year.  Between that discussion and
this one, I am gaining the impression that you disdain any consideration
of the real-life consequences of Wikipedia coverage on living people who
might be affected by them, whether they be article subjects or our own
contributors.  I hope that is not the case.

Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joe Szilagyi]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:31 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> We're not babysitters and we shouldn't act like cyber cops.  If people
>  call
> each other hateful names, that's what they did.  The entire blame for
>  their
> actions rests solely on their own shoulders.  I feel no  responsibility for
> what someone else did, and that they did it, knowing full  well that others
> would
> and have seen it.  That is the very nature of a  public forum.
>
>

This is just a vile point of view since it's heartless to people who may
have extremely nasty crap posted about them on Wikipedia, probably the site
on Earth with the most Google firepower of all time. So if there was an
article, [[Will Johnson]] about yourself, and the talk page came up near the
top of the searches with extremely inappropriate and negative commentary
about you for clients, possible employers, and family to find, you'd have no
problem with this?

Even if YOU have no problem with yourself being defamed online, other people
do. Since BLP is supposed to apply in even strength everywhere on Wikipedia,
but talk pages rather stupidly tend to be a free for all, this will keep any
nasty crap that may get editors or the WMF itself sued out of the search
engines. It's a step in the right direction to protect a whole lot of people
from extremely unpleasant material being online about them.

If I seem to recall, you have gotten into extremely nasty BLP fights with
subjects of articles like that Matt Sanchez guy, right, and others, and have
pushed to include negative or loosely sourced material on BLPs? Your voice
and opinion here then as the sole major dissenting voice isn't worth much of
anything, if that's the case. BLP trumps a whole lot of everything else.

- Joe
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 8/4/2008 9:12:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
szilagyi@... writes:


> So if there was an
> article, [[Will Johnson]] about yourself, and the talk page came up near the
> top of the searches with extremely inappropriate and negative commentary
> about you for clients, possible employers, and family to find, you'd have no
> problem with this?>>

---------
That's why we have oversight.
In my opinion, short of oversight, there is absolutely no reason now or ever
to delete material which some may find objectionable.  The responsibility for
what is said, rests completely on the shoulders of the speaker.

The responsibility for requesting oversight, rests completely on the
shoulders of the subject.

If the subject doesn't care, and no one cares enought to tell the subject, or
warn the speaker or anything else except speak in vague and general terms
about the "world" then there is no problem, just a theory.  Hypothetical cases
don't persuade me, real-life cases might.  Depends on the issue, the verbage and
the subject.

I would have no problem whatosever with negative commentary about myself, if
it was evidence-based.  I've been the subject, as have we all, of senseless
carping and wailing and bitching.  That doesn't bother me one bit.  It's  a part
of real life.

Libel is not the same as "you smell and you suck!"

I think we should appreciate that distinction.

Will Johnson


**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
     
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 8/4/2008 9:12:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
szilagyi@... writes:


> Since BLP is supposed to apply in even strength everywhere on Wikipedia,
> but talk pages rather stupidly tend to be a free for all, this will keep any
> nasty crap that may get editors or the WMF itself sued out of the search
> engines. >>>
> --------------

Nein my friend.  You cannot be sued for bitching at someone or calling them
names.  Or rather you problem *can* but the complainent would be laughed out of
court.

WMF itself cannot be sued for what *I* or *you* say.  The responsibility for
what we say is ours, no one elses.

Talk pages are not a "free-for-all".  If you really think this then you can't
have been around any controversial pages much.  They are quite frequently
wiped, erased, edited, oversighted and so on for issues of BLP and/or libel.

Again this is just more about something which doesn't actually exist, in
order to try to get something we shouldn't really want implemented for quite
another reason.  The way the system is working now is just fine.

Will Johnson


**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
     
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Chris Howie]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM,  <WJhonson@...> wrote:
> The responsibility for requesting oversight, rests completely on the
> shoulders of the subject.

A ridiculous claim.  How does this play out for people who have not
used, heard of, nor care about Wikipedia and yet are the subject of an
existing article with a history of heated debate?

--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 8/4/2008 12:16:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cdhowie@... writes:


> A ridiculous claim.  How does this play out for people who have not
> used, heard of, nor care about Wikipedia and yet are the subject of an
> existing article with a history of heated debate?>>
>

----------------
Heated debate is not libel.
Heated debate does not require oversight.
And heated debate is not necessarily personally negative.

I'm trying to keep this thread *on track* :)
All these excursions make me wonder exactly what people think is really going
on here.  We are not trying to put out the fires.  We want the fires.  The
fires are part of normal debate on controversial subjects.  That is simply a
part of real life.

I had *thought* the point here in this thread, that we'd want to address, are
those situations  where libelous, scandalous, unwarranted accusations are
being thrown about willy-nilly (which is quite rare).  For which we have
oversight.  So far I've seen no valid, logical argument that we need anything more
than oversight.

I'm quite sure that subjects of "heated debate" already know how to handle
"the press" (which includes biographers like us) and that we don't need
brand-new mechanisms to address that.  There are old mechanisms, which are working
just fine.

Will Johnson


**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
     
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

By the way, I didn't say that the subject is "the only person who CAN address
the particular specific instance".  I said that the responsibility for doing
so, rests on them.

We are not and should not feel obligated to root all every negative statement
made about every public figure from every page.  That would be a truly
ridiculous position.  We can try to find some, and address some, which we *already
do*.  And when *others* which can't be simply blanked out (which can by done by
anyone) are brought to the attention of oversighters, etc they can be
addressed as well.  There is no need for anything more than that.

Doing what we're already doing, addresses our own feeling that we should do
something versus nothing.  But we have no responsibility (note that word) to
police the actions of others.  There is no crime in progress here.

Will Johnson


**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
     
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

Will, a couple of points from this conversation that I think you are
missing:

1) NYB mentioned a continuum of problem edits and discussions. Not all
discussion
about inaccurate and negative claims against living people needs to be
oversighted,
nor could it realistically be done. On the other hand, very little if any of
this needs
or should be available at the top of Google search results.

2) Oversight is an imperfect tool - oversighters respond to complaints, but
can't
remove edits they aren't aware of. The segment of "uncaught" edits, many of
which
are likely to be outside article space where policing is more uneven,
remains
available to search results unnecessarily. If a subject doesn't regularly
Google him
or herself, or isn't aware of how to address problems on Wikipedia, or tries
to do
so incorrectly and gets blocked (! - it happens), then this perfect system
of oversight
you describe breaks down. Much damage can be done through falsely negative
info
featured in search results before an alert is passed to an oversighter.

What no-indexing non-article space pages does is simple: it limits the
opportunity
for damaging and false information to make it into circulation because of
Wikipedia's
popularity. It doesn't solve this problem - indeed, it doesn't at all
address the problem
as it exists in article space. But it does make progress, and the arguments
against it
(seemingly navigational, and eminently correctable through improvements to
the
internal search system) are weak.

You argue against the ethos for not indexing these pages - we don't create
the false
claims, we aren't publishing them ourselves, and policing such things is the
responsibility
of the subject. I think you're wrong - the moral responsibility (if not the
legal) absolutely lies
with our community. Even so, while you disagree with its motivation the fact
remains
that the tangible harm to this sort of change is all but nonexistent - and
the benefits are
quite significant.

Nathan

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> By the way, I didn't say that the subject is "the only person who CAN
> address
> the particular specific instance".  I said that the responsibility for
> doing
> so, rests on them.
>
> We are not and should not feel obligated to root all every negative
> statement
> made about every public figure from every page.  That would be a truly
> ridiculous position.  We can try to find some, and address some, which we
> *already
> do*.  And when *others* which can't be simply blanked out (which can by
> done by
> anyone) are brought to the attention of oversighters, etc they can be
> addressed as well.  There is no need for anything more than that.
>
> Doing what we're already doing, addresses our own feeling that we should do
> something versus nothing.  But we have no responsibility (note that word)
> to
> police the actions of others.  There is no crime in progress here.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Anthony-73]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> I had *thought* the point here in this thread, that we'd want to address,
> are
> those situations  where libelous, scandalous, unwarranted accusations are
> being thrown about willy-nilly (which is quite rare).


No, I'm pretty sure the point of this thread is not to be a strawman
argument.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

Hypothetical arguments aren't very convincing to me.
If someone were willing to point out a "real world" case where our indexing  
of user, user-talk and article-talk pages is doing some horrible damage that
is  not already existing in-fact then fine, do so.
 
So far I haven't seen it.  I like fixing problems that actually exist,  
versus ones who only exist potentially.
 
Will Johnson



**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ian Woollard]

2008/8/5  <WJhonson@...>:
> I like fixing problems that actually exist, versus ones who only exist
> potentially.

Me, I like fixing hypothetical problems, because they almost always
*appear* in real life.

Anything not forbidden is mandatory, it *will* occur.

> Will Johnson

--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Anthony-73]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> Hypothetical arguments aren't very convincing to me.
> If someone were willing to point out a "real world" case where our indexing
> of user, user-talk and article-talk pages is doing some horrible damage
> that
> is  not already existing in-fact then fine, do so.
>

I can't do that, but I can point out a lot of examples from the project and
project talk spaces where indexing is doing unnecessary and unproductive
damage.  I'm not going to point out examples publicly, or to you, because in
my experience bringing the issue to light often only exasperates the
problem.

With article talk pages especially, I think there's a converse argument,
though.  Can you point out a "real world" case where indexing of
article-talk pages is providing some wonderful benefit that is not already
existing in-fact?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jonathan Hughes-4]

> From: WJhonson@...
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No-indexing of project-space pages
>
> Hypothetical arguments aren't very convincing to me.
> If someone were willing to point out a "real world" case where our indexing
> of user, user-talk and article-talk pages is doing some horrible damage
> that
> is  not already existing in-fact then fine, do so.
>
> So far I haven't seen it.  I like fixing problems that actually exist,
> versus ones who only exist potentially.
>
> Will Johnson

Perhaps a different angle would help?

One thing no-indexing user and user talk namespaces would help with is to
curb the recent trend of userpage spam.  I see half a dozen or more
userpages a day which are spam or masquerading as articles.  If userspace
wasn't indexed, pretty soon the companies/persons who attempt this sort of
advertising will figure out it doesn't work; no one ever finds their
"article" from Google or Yahoo.

The most recent example that springs into my mind is [[User:Kliff Hanger Dot
Com]] (whose page I didn't think spamish enough to delete, though I still
blanked it), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kliff_Hanger_Dot_Com .
There's no question that page should not be sitting around in userspace
where people can Google it.

Just my two cents on this, since the BLP angle is getting kind of tired.
Cheers.

[[User:Lifebaka]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Gray]

2008/8/5 Jonathan Hughes <lifebaka@...>:

> One thing no-indexing user and user talk namespaces would help with is to
> curb the recent trend of userpage spam.  I see half a dozen or more
> userpages a day which are spam or masquerading as articles.  If userspace
> wasn't indexed, pretty soon the companies/persons who attempt this sort of
> advertising will figure out it doesn't work; no one ever finds their
> "article" from Google or Yahoo.

A lot of these are helpful new-page patrollers moving a spammish
article into userspace, FWIW.

--
- Andrew Gray
 andrew.gray@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l