This just came up on WikiEN-L:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ber/055945.html

Just one other thingy too, Mr. Chapman - talk pages... talk pages... talk pages...

Then again, it's much easier to find things on Wikipedia using Google search than Wikipedia search, so if large chunks weren't crawled, that would cause problems.

That would be the day when wikipedia is off google.

Nobody is suggesting that WP stop allowing the indexing of main article space, though (except for a hardy few like myself who'd prefer that they disallow indexing of everything).

If they disallowed everything other than main article space, that would be wonderful. But user space and project (i.e., Wikipedia:YadaYada) space would certainly be a start, along with their associated talk pages, and if they'd disallow talk pages for articles too, then at least anything libelous or obscene posted there wouldn't make its way onto Google - and from there, spammed out to the rest of the world by scrapers.

And of course, I shouldn't have to point out that it isn't "censorship" if all you're doing is preventing a search engine bot from indexing a particular piece of content. I've seen comments where this was claimed, and I really found that particularly galling.

I've often used Google to search non-mainspace, for example to find what people were saying about me after I was banned.

Not to put too fine a point on it, PL, but that does mean that everyone else on the planet who uses Google could also find out what they were saying about you after you were banned...

My concern actually has less to do with the possible damage to people's reputations and livelihoods of libelous attacks on talk pages - and more to do with what I'm starting to call "informational monoculture." I realize Google is deliberately pumping up Wikipedia PageRanks artificially for financial reasons, but that doesn't mean they should support it. If anyone there really cared about preserving the diversity of global culture and opinion online, or off, they'd work to make their search-engine footprint smaller, not larger.

But if legal troubles are what's required to get them to stop indexing ancillary content, then fine - whatever gets the job done!

(And if they ban you again, PL, my legions of personal spies in their midst will transmit every word about it to you ASAP!)

No, that is censorship. You are hiding the pages from view.

How so, exactly?

If someone sends me a link to one of the pages in question, do I get a 404 error? Do I get a "login required to view this page" dialog? No.

Causing certain pages to be passed over by search engine indexing robots is no different than taking down a billboard on the side of the highway that advertises a cheap motel. It just costs less. "Censorship" would be the equivalent of forcing the cheap motel to shut down because the people who run the motel are committing crimes there, or something along those lines.

Or, if you prefer, how about the sales analogy? If you're selling someone a used bike, and the bike has a worn-out gear mechanism, do you always point out the gears to prospective buyers? Maybe you would if you don't particularly want to sell the bike, but otherwise, why not let the buyer decide if it's worth fixing it themselves?

I understand that people often want to see dirty laundry, but people don't need to see dirty laundry, and they certainly don't need it stuck in their faces, when they're probably wanting something that's a little more germane to what they're actually doing a search on.

"Censorship" would be the equivalent of forcing the cheap motel to shut down full stop. If they are banned from advertising, and therefore suffer a drop in clientele hence have to close, isn't that censorship? I don't know if banning Google from parts of the web constitutes censorship of those parts, but it is clearly an impediment to the free flow of information, so it's in the same league.

Who said anything about them being banned from advertising? All I said was that one billboard was taken down. It might be their most prominent advertisement, but that's hardly the same thing as a general ban. They'd just find other ways to advertise, is all. And yes, it might affect their business, at least at first... Until they and everyone else came up with a better alternative. If they didn't, then sure, that would have a negative impact.

Now imagine if the billboard was constantly being sprayed with graffiti saying the motel was "full of bedbugs" and "a shithole." And you start to think there really are better ways to advertise. Remember, Google doesn't care what the article's about or why it's there. If I enter the phrase "transsexual porn stars" into Google, the Wikipedia list shows up right at the top, every time. That's just how it works.

But you're right, it is an impediment to the free flow of information. But impediments are not always bad... All I'm saying is that too many people have developed what I regard as knee-jerk reactions to anything of that sort when it involves the internet, and it isn't always beneficial to society in general.

Besides, if WP doesn't care about this sort of thing, why don't they just bring back the "User Pedophile" template?

I would like to search through the talk pages. You want to prevent and/or hinder me from doing so, right?

"Dirty laundry" doesn't enter into it. If you don't like what the talk pages say, fine, but your likes and dislikes are irrelevant to what constitutes censorship.

If you don't like what is on the talk pages, and it's yours, erase it.



I think it is more like removing the hotel's address and phone number from the Yellow Pages.

There's nothing like an old-fashioned debate on censorship to liven things up, eh!


Well now, let's be clear on a couple of points. First, if I were generally pro-censorship, this is probably the last website I'd want to be associated with, anonymously or otherwise. Second, and more importantly, my motivations in saying all this stuff have nothing to do with my wanting to deprive anyone of a useful tool, for searching or anything else. That may be the effect, from the perspective of many people, possibly even the majority - I won't dispute that. My real motivations are quite different, but sure, there's no question that I'm advocating the discontinuation of a convenient tool in favor what I see as a reduction in harm potential.

On the other hand, this might be a situation where a compromise would be perfectly acceptable - in other words, "sandbox" the talk and project pages, so that you can still search on them by including "+site:wikipedia.org" in the search phrase. Or something of that nature...


I agree that my likes and dislikes are irrelevant to what constitutes censorship, but I've never claimed otherwise. All I'm saying is that getting Google to stop indexing those pages doesn't qualify as censorship, no more than that. If anything, calling that censorship cheapens the very idea of censorship, so that when real censorship occurs, the legitimate voices of protest against it are more easily dismissed by the people responsible.

Besides, even if I do edit out libelous or grossly inaccurate material from a talk page, that material can remain on Google for up to two weeks before the crawlers come back and reindex the page.


Okay, I can accept that. But I should also point out that there probably is no accurate analogy for what's going on here, and that to properly discuss the issue, it has to be understood entirely on its own terms. I mean, I could make various sophistic arguments here like "most towns have more than one phone book provider, so this analogy holds only if you're removing the motel's listing from one of several available phone books." Or maybe I could insist that the phone book analogy only works if we posit the existence of a nude mudwrestling bar next door to the motel, owned by the same proprietor and having the same phone number, and maybe the proprietor thinks that having the listings lumped together in the phone book might hurt both businesses. But ultimately this is pointless!

All I'm asking is that you trust me when I say that I'm neither pro- nor anti-censorship. I just think you have to judge each case on its merits - that's what libel laws and such are for, after all. I am, however, anti-Wikipedia and anti-Google, so anything I write here has to be considered in that light, for good or ill.

Fair enough?

Somey: [[WR:AGF]], we're sure that your motives are entirely honourable. However, if you concede that in the opinion of the majority your proposal has certain adverse effects, then claiming that you had other motives in making the proposal is neither here nor there. These adverse effects are genuine.