| 2:53 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
is there a process to appeal this?
| 3:41 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Why appeal? Where's the harm?
| 4:57 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Well, revealing a lot of personal information about a person would generally fit most people's 'bad' category (ie linking their domains together and publishing an internal identifier between the OP and a supplying company, Google)
Its certainly not a good thing!
| 5:00 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I just did a search and I am on the spam list also. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried, I couldnít make myself get mad at Wikipedia. Donít get me wrong, I donít consider myself a spammer and if you look at my link profile you will understand why. I just donít have the link profile of a spammer.
Yes, I use adsense on my site and some ebay links thrown in for good measure. And yes, I would like to make a little money from my efforts. How does the presence of advertisements on my site make me evil? The New York Times, CNN, USA Today, FOX News and several million more sites have advertising of one type or another.
I owe no one an apology for monetizing my very very small portion of the World Wide Web.
So Wikipedia, please delete any links to my sites from your site.
By the way, I once held your site in high esteem even with all you inaccuracies and use of the wimpy nofollow tag. But that was when you were young and open and challenging the ďmanĒ with the whole peopleís knowledge base thing. Now you are the ďmanĒ and you are rapidly closing your doors to a lot of people. Itís all very Orwellian.
Remember how the pigs led a rebellion against the people in Animal Farm and justified their rebellion with a long list of grievances? By the end of the book the pigs had adopted most of the faults they had railed against. The pigs had become men. What happened Wikipedia?
Anyway, enough with my rant.
One last point. Itís for Google, if you are out there. If Wikipedia is really deleting links in mass because of adsense code then Wikipedia is passing judgment on you and the publishers you work with. If I were you I would do a little research on this. It may be time to show them who really owns the internet. Have Matt Cutts do one of those famous manual edits.
| 9:02 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|They took the time and effort to uncover all domains registered to me and my AdSense publisher ID. |
can a search reveal all sites (with adsense ads) belonging to a particular publisher?
| 11:17 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Noop, but one can write a spider easily to find out such information. I
| 11:43 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Ok, I've long since disagreed with a lot of wikipedia, but labeling me as spammer while I've never added any link myself to wikipedia (lots there, but none by myself) is way over the top.
The worst part is that a lot of their articles where I used to be linked as source are now pure plagiarism.
I'm removing all links to wikipedia, who's joining me ?
| 11:57 am on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|They took the time and effort to uncover all domains registered to me and my AdSense publisher ID. |
Doesn't take any time at all. Or effort.
| 12:23 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I'm removing all links to wikipedia, who's joining me ? |
I guess I've already joined you since I've never linked to Wikipedia.
High schools and colleges won't allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reference, businesses and politicians have been caught trying to change their Wikipedia information in their favor, one of the founders tried to start a new version because the current one is filled with unreliable information, some entries are editing based on the personal political/idealogical leanings of the editor, etc.
I don't understand why anyone would even want to link to that neighborhood, unless they were more concerned about personal benefit than having a good site.
The way I look at it, I don't have room to complain about misleading MFA ads appearing in AdSense on my site if I turn around and purposely link to Wikipedia.
| 12:27 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Is there some kind of anti-AdSense vendetta within the Wikipedia community? |
There are people in this world that just can't stand the idea of someone earning a profit. When you meet one of these people, it's an interesting experience.
Does Wikipedia provide some means for you to request your personal information be removed?
| 1:13 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
One can only hope that wiki's management is bright enough to know how to determine whether the "offensive links" were submitted by the actual site owners.
| 1:31 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I just did a search and I am on the spam list also. |
Could you explain how you search for this?
| 2:40 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I second Jean's question. I couldn't find any such thing. I only found a link to a non-wiki blacklist at chongqed(dot)org.
| 3:12 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Don't know if this is allowed in here, so mods please remove when it is deemed inappropriate.
| 3:32 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I just searched Google with my domain and Wikipedia with a space between the domain name and Wikipedia.
A page titled Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam was the number one result.
I did a search this page for my domain and clicked on my domain.
The page has a lot of links, ip addresses, adsenese id, but no reason for the spam label.
| 4:08 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Interesting. There are some guidelines noted at the top. This one seems relevant:
"Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam."
Arguably, someone didn't follow that....
| 5:22 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|- To disable an entry, *remove* it, don't comment it out. |
| 5:38 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I really don't see how it would affect you anyways.
|makes a little sense|
| 8:05 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
These people wouldn't visit your sites anyway, so it's a situation where all this info only serves their limited group. It shouldn't affect your overall financial position.
| 8:10 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|High schools and colleges won't allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reference, |
A very limited number do not allow wikipedia cites. What is becoming generally accepted is that you use wikipedia to figure out where to look. Since you used it, you cite it. But you cannot use it as a primary literature citation (because it is not primary literature)
I rarely link to wikipedia, because my personal preference is to find a primary source. Ever since they started nofollow links, I only give them nofollow links, which is the sam3e policy I apply to every site I cite.
| 9:01 pm on May 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|One of my AdSense sites was linked from a Wikipedia entry at one time. I put the link there myself a long time ago, before I was an AdSense publisher. I probably should have removed it. I understand Wikipedia users wanting to purge the encyclopedia of AdSense; I've myself routinely remove "external links" on Wikipedia that go to AdSense sites. So I understand somebody removing the link to my site. |
Why are You doing this?
I find this is a very unethical behavior. Should only poor people be able to contribute to Wikipedia?
This AdSense phobic behavior is irrational and destructive.
Without AdSense, I would not have the time and money to visit all this fairs to make all this photos, where I link some of them from Wikipedia.
| 7:07 am on May 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I found that WikiTravel (a sister project of Wikipedia) is using Adsense on its pages.
Are WikiTravel links being removed?
| 10:35 pm on May 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
When I challlenged Wikipedia and asked them to remove information about me, they wrote back quickly, and told me to remove it myself. I had outlined in the letter to them, that I don't have time to play the games that go on within the Wikipedia user base, ie... I remove it, another user adds it back in, chase my tail, running in a circle. But, they insisted if I wanted it removed, to do it myself. So, it has stayed.
Some time back, I edited information on Wikipedia that quoted one of my sites, incorrectly, and that is what happened. I edited it, it was replaced, back and forth. Until I gave up.
I find the people that sit on those entries, those I have labeled "Wiki Squatters", have nothing better to do with their time. You can't win if you have a real life and run a real business on the web.
You have to make a decision if it is worth consuming valuable time you need to run and grow your business to go play the games on Wikipedia with the little kids who find being a steady Wiki contributor gives them some kind of power they otherwise would not have in their life. I find it is not worth it.
It is going to take a class action lawsuit to get action. Something that is incorrect on the web, should not remain there, unless you are willing to join a website, so you can personally remove it, over, and over, and over again.
| 11:35 pm on May 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps a lawsuit is not the answer, perhaps the answer is educating the public as to the true validity and reliability of Wikipedia. The great unwashed thinks it is "the" world authority. Unfortunately, own our wonderful benefactors, the big G, don't help the situation by putting Wikipedia up top of every search result.
| 12:24 am on May 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"It is going to take a class action lawsuit to get action. Something that is incorrect on the web, should not remain there, unless you are willing to join a website, so you can personally remove it, over, and over, and over again."
And of course you are willing to have this truth crusade of lawyers edit all your websites and personal pages?
| 10:29 am on May 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|play the games on Wikipedia with the little kids who find being a steady Wiki contributor gives them some kind of power they otherwise would not have in their life. |
This comment was so spot-on that it made me register and tell that to you. This is exactly the case. If you hate conflicts, like I do, you eventually give up and the false information that serves someone's hidden agendas stays there (in my case it's been there for one year). Wikipedia is worse than tabloid. Uncontrollable stream of #*$!.
| 1:24 pm on May 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to WebmasterWorld infp
| 3:13 pm on May 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Erm, I had a look at some of the sites mentioned in their filter list (which I picked randomly), and I can't help the feeling that these are probably some of the worst sites I have ever seen.
It could be that I was just unlucky (that's my style) but those sites I had seen certainly deserved to be mentioned there. I wouldn't want to see a link to those sites in any Wikipedia article.
| 5:57 pm on May 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It is not really a question of whether or not a site deserves to be blacklisted. It the idea that another company can blacklist your business, and you have no resolve.
There is one person at the top of Wikipedia, that has the sole obligation, as with any site, to ensure their website is not violating the laws that govern it, including both criminal and civil laws. That is where the buck stops. That one person.
For us, you and I, if we cross the line within those two arenas, it is OUR responsibilty to motify the content on our sites to make it compliant. Neither you nor I tell our visitors, if we are posting incorrect information about you, log in to our website and change it. That is NOT how it works in the real web.
If you post anything in this forum, that crosses the line legally, you can be assured it will be pulled, almost immediately. This is no different that Wikipedia. You have users posting whatever they want, and a board owner who has the ultimate responsibility to ensure laws are not broken within his/her domain.
When a business, or not-for-profit organization breaks the laws of the land, and refuse to comply, there is only ONE answer. Legal action. Those who say differently, will think differently when they join the growing the list of websites that have suddenly lost their gravy train, because their websites urls are now engulfed in negative language related to their nitch.
Let's bring this home. What IF, just IF your website suddenly comes up as an exmaple on this page, as a result of nitch competitor sabotage, and you are making a full time living from Adsense on your website? Are you going to play the chase your tail edit game? Are you going to complain to Adsense that you have both been slandered and hope that Adsense lawyers can make Wikipedia pull the offending content, and make sure it does not reappear? Does their website model allow for that type of moderating, and if not should it?
Is it a big deal, when a visitor to your web site, submits a crime case to you, that involved their family, and that case was NEVER on the web, nor carried by any other business in any other form of media, but subsequently the story is spread around the web like a wild fire as a result of your website story, AND then Wikipedia quotes your story, word for word, and credits one of the web sites that copied your content, and refuses to edit it, to make the story reference correct? I thought it was. I got nowhere with my complaint.
Had I made this complaint to Adsense, about a site with Adsense on it, that infringed on my intellectual property rights, they would have asked me to prove it, and once done, would have told the offending site to remove my content, with the threat that they would lose their Adsense account. That is the way it is suppose to work on the web, in all cases.
While the flow of creative ideas is the core of the web, and to stop them, stops the majority of good that comes from the web, every website MUST have a way to control their content, when it runs seriously a muck. Every website owner must be held accountable for their content. The buck has to stop somewhere, and it should not be at the feet of the offended party.
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |