Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2005 Archive

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Perhaps I could be a good case model to argue over, as I am against link-spamming, but do not consider what I did to fall so neatly into that category.

After deleting/reverting my entry to some sections, Jdavidb wrote: "Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks." What to do when someone is trying to insert links that represent a news and analysis service, such as what I did for Thinking-East? Is it still spam when it's links to articles and arguments that might actually enrich the reader's knowledge of the entry?

Most of my edits I tried to insert at the bottom or in separate sections (usually "Articles") so as not to disturb the continuity, and also to start up a new section in the entry. As to the syntax/format of such links, I've never noticed any uniformity. -Mahmoud September 21, 2005

I just want to add that Thinking-East gets all its coverage from Kygyz, Uzbek and Tajik students actually in Central Asia. It's very important for us that this service exists, even if it was started by two Westerners. I'm a fan, so they don't know about my posting all over Wikipedia. If what I did is link-spamming, please don't it let reflect badly on who I did it for.

Well, it's great if you have links that can actually "enrich the reader's knowledge of the entry." But here are some considerations:

• It is certain that you do not have a site that needs to be linked to from that many articles. You added links to over a dozen.
• If it's your site, or a site you just love very much and wish to promote, then you should not be the one to add the links. If the site is really all that informative, then someone who does not run the site will add it. I don't add links to my own sites, and neither should you. You and I are not unbiased enough to decide that our sites are relevant enough to be linked to from a Wikipedia article. (Even though mine certainly are. :) )
• The fact that something is "a news and analysis service" doesn't give it a gold pass to be inserted into Wikipedia articles willy nilly. Anybody and their dialup account can set up a "news and analysis service." Unless the "news and analysis service" is The New York Times or Time magazine or something everybody on the planet already accepts as "news" (and even those are not infallible) it does not gain any magic claims to relevance or credibility by calling itself that. Many such "services" are nothing more than POV-pushing.
• If you have ONE (1) link that is relevant to ONE (1) article, you can discuss it with that articles editors on the article's talk page. Be aware that such discussions are slow. Mentioning it on the talk page and seeing no response for six hours does not mean you have consensus.
• Get an account and do something to contribute to Wikipedia more than just inserting links to websites. People who show that they are committed to building a good encyclopedia have standing to argue that a link will enhance an article. People who are instead committed to other websites do not.
• This discussion should have happened on the talk page, not this page itself. It will be moved there, and future discussion should occur there. Jdavidb 16:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are taking this issue seriously. But you sound a bit trigger-happy in your definitions and enforcement.

JediMaster16 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

That may be so, but I figure we can start out slightly too aggressive and tone down from there. Mainly I just want to quit giving spammers the chance to debate us for six months, as if they actually had some kind of standing to speak here when they prove day after day that they are only interested in promoting their sites rather than building an encyclopedia. In all cases I propose that spam fighters defer to the regular editors of each article; if those editors deem a removed link relevant, they can freely add it back in. Jdavidb 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Kertbryblanche (
  Wikipedia:Introduction 3
  with a link to his site(also on his user page). Watch for a few weeks, then ignore if nothing more happens.
• JesseW, the juggling janitor
  18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I came here after seeing

Removed link spam. Wikipedia is

NOT a link directory. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

to help!

Yes, and it certainly works for other various fixup WikiProjects.

Perfecto  04:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I definitely concur with the goals of WikiProject Spam and willing to help out. Similarly, I've been working on WikiProject External links to not only deal with linkspam as it's added, but also to work on articles that have very lengthy (or problematic) lists of links that need "weeding". The WikiProject can be a place for people to list articles that need work.

Articles that need work, that I've found include:

• Charles Woodruff Yost
  - 90 links
• Television - 32 links
• Savannah, Georgia - 30 links
• Olympia, Washington - 24 links
• Columbus, Ohio - 23 links

I was inspired by my past experience in weeding the 50+ links in the Hybrid vehicle article. It was a daunting and tedious process to check all the links for usefulness and appropriateness. It's better to battle linkspam, one-by-one as the links are added, as WikiProject Spam aims to do. But, from time-to-time, I still come across articles that have really long or inappropriate list of links.

Also, where needed, I suggest we "beef" up the Wikipedia external links guidelines. One issue, for example, is external links used as a reference in the article vs. external links as further reading.

I'm not sure if we ought to merge these two projects, or just work together closely (as the goals seem closely aligned, though with some differences)? Any thoughts? ---Aude 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recommend merging. I think WPSPAM is easier to market and remember -- "I'm fighting

Perfecto  17:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with a merge, but I'd suggest the opposite direction. I was trying to figure out how to broaden the scope of {{

Cleanup-spam}} to include links which aren't quite spam, but are still inappropriate. Wikipedia:WikiProject External links is easily understood to include the broader goal. I moved comments by Kmf164 to a new section, hope you don't mind. ∴ here…♠ 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree that WP:WPEL has a broader goal. Wikipedia:Spam also covers inappropriate external links. Yes, perhaps there are links that aren't spam but are inappropriate (depending on your judgement) -- but how many are they compared to the links that are both spam and inappropriate? 1 is to 10?

FWIW, I like the name better.

I hold strong to the policy that Wikipedia is not a web directory. Therefore reviewing websites for inclusion, becoming a web guide, is not our mandate. (Join

Perfecto  19:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Similarly, I like the other name better. a) 1 in 10 is still 1 in 10. b) obvious in the name that the project is aimed at external links. c) less agreesive to those affected ( you link has been removed by wikiproject: external links, see policy at

WP:SPAM

, which includes internal spamming and does not include external link policy.

My goals as a participant may be summarized by refining and enforcing

WP:EL, thus I think it would be better if external link were in the project name. ∴ here…♠ 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, unless other WPSPAM participants say otherwise, the two can be sister projects, then. -- 

Perfecto  01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll just explain how I got the idea for using a WikiProject to deal with external links in articles...

Back in October, I came across the Hybrid vehicle article that had 50+ external links (mostly junk). There is no way to expect a reader to pick out the truly useful links from such a long list. I copied all the links to the talk page and then went through them one-by-one, explaining why or why not they should be deleted. It was a very tedious task and could only review half the links in one sitting before tiring of it. I left my comments on the talk page (allowing others to weigh in with their opinions - though none did). I came back later and finished going through the list and pared down the list of external links.

A WikiProject can be a place to make note of articles that need weeding. Secondly, make sure the external links guidelines are adequate enough to back up decisions (rather than decisions be solely based on someone's judgment) to keep or delete links, should we be questioned. Ideally, we deal with linkspam one-by-one, as it's added so the list of links never gets so long. But, I think we'll inevitably come across less than ideal, long lists of links.

The WikiProject page and talk page can also be a place to work out any ideas for improving the guidelines. Once we agree on something, we can then pose it for discussion on Wikipedia:External links talk page and get further consensus, as well as at the Village Pump. In all, the Wikipedia:WikiProject External links is a workspace for these tasks.

Also, the issue of external links vs. references, I believe is quite important towards being able to Verify articles.

We'll see what happens with the WikiProjects, based on the response from the community, and I don't mind at some point if the goals of both merge.

Thanks very much for all the feedback. Discussion is very helpful. ---Aude 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think goals #2 and #3 of WikiProject External links fit well with WPSPAM.

Though, I think there are also some other issues to deal with relating to the External links guidelines:

1. First of all, the three categories are "What should be linked to", "Maybe OK to add", "What should not be linked to". I think maybe there should be another level between "Maybe OK" and "Not okay", such as "Probably NOT okay".

This might include links that:

• Links to a .pdf, requires Flash, etc., that needs to be noted in the external link.
• Links to (paid) subscription-only sites. --Kmf164 03:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Under References (but not External links), exceptions need to be made for scholarly journals and articles, such as Nature or New England Journal of Medicine.

2. External links (as further reading) vs. external links as references; Often, people just put all links under external links, regardless if they were used as

sources

. This distinction needs to be emphasized in the guidelines.

3. Under "What should not be linked to":

• Not okay should include photo galleries (maybe there are rare exceptions?). However, links to photo galleries and personal websites are okay on User pages. Instead, how about uploading some of those photos to Commons or Wikipedia? If you're photos that are on Wikipedia are really great, people might see your User page and links there. But, putting the links to photo galleries in articles isn't appropriate. --Kmf164 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• It is inappropriate and tacky to add external links ("nominate") to your own website — doing so contradicts Wikipedia
  Vanity
  guidelines and is considered advertising. (this is already covered, but if there's anyway to make it more clear in the guidelines, we should do so.)
• Sites with objectional amount of advertising (proportion of informative content needs to overwhelmingly outweight the amount of advertising).

Clarifying any ambiguities in the guidelines, and beefing up (if needed), would help make the task of combatting link spam easier. We could more easily back-up our decisions to get rid of particular links, by being able to point editors to the guidelines that say "...". ---Aude 19:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These ideas are good.

Perfecto  19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Last night, I did some further cleanup of external links on Hybrid vehicle. This brought response from a user, regarding an "op-ed" article external link that was deleted. A little detective work, revealed significant conflicts-of-interest by the person that added the link. The link was added to (1) promote the article (2) POV-pushing (3) linkspam. This is a different kind of linkspam to consider, as the user isn't selling a product or service. See the talk page for details of my exchange with the user.

If you have suggestions on how to handle these, please comment. If nothing else, this can be an example of how to deal with a type of linkspam and cleaning links. ---Aude 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah II of Jordan is being linkspammed with a site that alludes to him being the antichrist. You can believe it too, the site is www.truthroom.com/article.php?article=1 and it is so important this article is number 1!!! Pardon me while I primal scream now... Dominick ^(TALK) 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look into it. -- 

Perfecto  18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

More fisheaters linkspam. I dunno what to do beyond reverting and talking. Like the above issue with the whacko "King of Jordan==Antichrist" site, the people doing this are unjustified in the places they want to insert links, and persistent. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to cool off. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit the below, as needed. Sites affected:

1. Advent
2. Epiphany
3. Rosary
4. Massacre of the Innocents
5. Sacramentals
6. Lent

• Reverted again. -
  [T]/_[C] AfD? 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See this link: [1] - note that the site traffic is now very much lower than before the linkspam was reverted (caveat:seasonal variaiton), suggesting that what little credbility a page rank in the several hundred thousands may have conferred, it was apparently due in no small to inbound traffic from Wikipedia. It looks very much as if we are a (possibly the) major source for promotion of this website. -
  [T]/_[C] AfD? 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Cream a site that's been online since "Online Since: 25-Nov-2005" and gloat over how you think traffic dropped over the Christmas holidays? I want reasons why those few links shouldn't be where they are. Malachias111 04:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been open for a lot longer than that, it previously had a different name, as you know. The traffic aggregated between the two tells the same story (see [2] and [3]). Actually doubly so, since as the links were switched from kensmen to fisheaters the same tailoff happened on kensmen. And "cream?" Nobody's "creamed" anything. Or gloating. It's a statement of fact, made with caveats. All that's been done is to remove links to a site which patently fails

WP:WEB from over 100 articles (more than for catholic.org

, by my count, and that has an Alexa rank of 16,085 and does not, unlike Fisheaters, feature Wikipedia as the major site linking in), which linking has been seen as linkspamming by just about everybody not connected with the site.

As for "few links", I notice that the targeted few has now crept up to a dozen or so per [[this comment. Few means less than five. I am an engineer.

Incidentally, going to

[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• This: [4] shows 140 links to fisheaters from Wikipedia
• This [5]) shows just over 400 offsite links to that site in total, so
• Wikipedia accounts for over one third of external links to fisheaters.com
• This [6] shows U2BA switching the links over from the old domain
• This [7] shows the falloff of traffic to the old domain as those changes were made
• This [8] shows the traffic ramping up to the new domain, and incidentally indicates it is much flatter since the linkspamming was reverted.
• Alexa reports show Wikipedia as the major site linking in to the old domain, the new one has too low a ranking for the report to be there yet I think.

I have to say that you have some work to do here to persuade me that any of these links should stay in. -

Actually the original RfC about this was on USer2BeAnonymous. She made the one on me after I did a RfC on her. Mine just was more popular. I dunno why, I guess people wanna blame me for their own lack of being able to follow rules. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KoC alexa claims shows KofC.org has as it's primary referrer as wiki. There are several dozen other referring sites listed. Not one or two others. the Knights of Columbus is a national organization, not just a website dreamed up as a pert time hobby. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building a user page on residual linkspam from the fisheaters nonsense at

This search: [9] shows >100 links to comicbookresources.com from Wikipedia. The article for the site's forum,

Update: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=comicbookresources.com shows that it is popular, even thought he forum is not independently notable. How much of that is down to extensive linking from Wikipedia I wouldn't like to speculate. -

I say zap the extern links when the article's gone. -- 

Perfecto  03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Grant Morrison

Any opinions on the links in this? Multiple links to some sites, and dozens of interviews - do we need those? -

Initiate a proposal on the Talk page. If no one objects, zap them all except

Perfecto  03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I did some trimming today. --

Perfecto 18:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the entire section from

[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject External links#Articles_that_need_external_links_.27weeded.27. I suggest moving this link to WikiProject Spam, maybe as Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/To-do. A subpage like this can be incorporated on the main project page, as is done with Portals. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the idea of a to-do list is great. So the question is, how do we organise it? Sections for to-do, in progress and done, and inclusion based on consensus here or on its own Talk page? -

[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we already do have a todo list, problem is that this project is not so much focused on past spam (yes we are in a way) but more focused on what is being spammed right now in the present. The best way to get attention to an issue is just to post here, rather then having to maintain a todo list (we have one, and its not used that much). As far as this issue goes, I would just blank all the links, and start anew. ——

Need help? 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]