Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I did a web search for the name of one of my websites. This is a site that I make no attempt to monetize, although some day I probably will do so. The search found my site was mentioned in a post at wikimedia.org.
The wikimedia post listed not just this site, but all my sites, some of which include AdSense. My AdSense publisher ID was listed. The page was called Spam blacklist. It was creepy. I feel like someone is stalking me. They took the time and effort to uncover all domains registered to me and my AdSense publisher ID. Apparently I was somehow identified as a bad person and they were cleaning up Wikipedia.
The site that I had searched for was not linked from Wikimedia so far as I know.
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.
But this person or persons had gone beyond that. They had researched me and found all my sites and listed them. About half have AdSense on them; the rest are unmonetized. One of my unmonetized sites had three links from Wikipedia, none of which I placed. I didn't check but I bet these links have been removed.
I don't spam Wikipedia. I did place that one link about three years ago, but that was it. The external links now have "nofollow" so there is no reason for anyone to spam Wikipedia anymore.
Anyhow, I feel creeped out and upset by the whole thing. Remove the links, but don't put me on a "blacklist". Is there some kind of anti-AdSense vendetta within the Wikipedia community?
I just did a search and I am on the spam list also. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t make myself get mad at Wikipedia. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t consider myself a spammer and if you look at my link profile you will understand why. I just don’t 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 “man” with the whole people’s knowledge base thing. Now you are the “man” and you are rapidly closing your doors to a lot of people. It’s 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. It’s 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.
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?
Noop, but one can write a spider easily to find out such information. I
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 ?
They took the time and effort to uncover all domains registered to me and my AdSense publisher ID.
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.
FarmBoy
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?
FarmBoy
I just did a search and I am on the spam list also.
Could you explain how you search for this?
[meta.wikimedia.org...]
For example:
Example.com 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.
"Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam."
Arguably, someone didn't follow that....
- To disable an entry, *remove* it, don't comment it out.
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.
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.
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.
Are WikiTravel links being removed?
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.
And of course you are willing to have this truth crusade of lawyers edit all your websites and personal pages?
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 #*$!.
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.
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?
[en.wikipedia.org...]
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.
