SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider
Search Engine Land, CT - 41 minutes ago
I am a Wikipedia administrator, and I specialize in complex investigations. When Jonathan Hochman suggested I write an article for Search Engine Land he ...

I am a Wikipedia administrator, and I specialize in complex investigations. When Jonathan Hochman suggested I write an article for Search Engine Land he mentioned that this publication and its readers regard Wikipedia as a search engine. It probably comes as no surprise that my spine stiffens at that concept, but media professionals and Wikipedia volunteers seldom understand each other. ...

Article: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/searc...0717-113550.php

How to Ethically Update Wikipedia
SEO Blog, Canada - 51 minutes ago
An article was published today on Search Engine Land called "SEO Tips & Tactics From a Wikipedia Insider" and it has to be one of the most interesting and ...

It seems to me that the subtext of the article is that our congresscreatures and PR firms need to know how to buy VPN service so that allknowing WP admins can't out them at whim.

The whole system based on tracking edits based on IP #s is already broke for anyone who cares enough about avoiding scrutinty to pay money to avoid it.

What on Earth is a "complex investigation?" And why on Earth can't this woman get a life? Durova is a obsessive busybody on a witch hunt. She uses a pen name to protect her privacy, but makes no effort to respect that of others.

Also, why is it so bad that someone can't edit their own BLP page? If someone does something stupid, it can be easily reverted. I see nothing wrong with politician editors -- and I don't care if Marty Meehan, Henry Kissinger or Bob Terwilliger want to edit Wikipedia, nor should anyone else. This sort of self-righteous meddling must stop.




cmd
ipconfig /release
ipconfig /renew

Works for me.

First of all, the starting words, "I am a Wikipedia administrator". Please. You are a moron who works for free. Get over yourself, hon.


An investigation by a woman with a complex? Or by a complicated woman?

Here here. Now why doesn't anyone say that to her face?

Reading her soporific blather about how to behave on Wikipedia feels like being lectured about safe-sex by a prissy schoolmarm that you know is screwing the also-married history teacher.

That'll get you a lecture on AGF and CIVIL , along with a 48-hour block. If she's really mad, she'll whine to ANI, so that other admins can call you a troll.

Wow. I note that her HenchmanHochman quickly accused the Encyclopedia Dramatica poster, Durovawatch, of being me. All on a site where I've always posted as myself. Henchman called for the site to "block this troll".

They really think the rest of the world operates like their multi-player game, don't they?

Funny how Durova warned how the public editing of Wikipedia can blow up in the editor's face, then her article about it kind of blew up in her face. Now, thanks to comments fields, SearchEngineLand is an ATTACKKKKKK site, complete with outing "complex investigators".

This is too funny. I'm going to sleep.

Greg

Well, I've always felt harassed and stalked by SearchEngineLand, myself... They've been making the editing environment very uncomfortable for me ever since the day I blocked them indefinitely for daring to suggest that I "had an axe to grind" that day I went to the hardware store to have my chainsaw sharpened. Not an axe! Jeez Louise...

Wow, do you think they'll remove that comment? Even SlimVirgin doesn't have an ED article that extensive... And that user page, too! Ouch! Of course, Durova has a knack for upsetting people, but still, she must've pissed someone off real bad indeed.

Good grief, that site (ED) is one of the most unfunny and miserable things I've seen on the internet. All I've read are the scrawlings of little boys flailing around at women, homosexuals, the transgendered and all the other things that make little boys nervous with fear. Little boys making jokes over holocaust pictures. Little boys making the nigger jokes they can't make at school. Little-brat culture eating itself in an unfunny, turgid, sour, stale, shitheap.

I endorse that view of ED wholeheartedly. I would give some credit to Blu Aardvark however. When he put the temporary NewPhaze board up while WR was down early this month I criticized EDs racism, and Blu himself, rather aggressively on that forum. He never lifted a finger to cut off the criticism, although it was well within his power. I think he has a sincere commitment to free speech. I just wish he would find a more mature vehicle.

The Comments feature has been frozen, but the pre-existing comments still stand.

I guess Durova's anonymity is gone now. I suspect that she could have remained anonymous if she had just provided me with the details of how I "gave misleading information to journalists", or apologized for having said that. This is, of course, NOT to say that I had anything to do with outing her. In fact, I received an anonymous e-mail about 4 months ago with oodles of personally-identifying information about her (including pictures). I deleted it and asked the sender not to contact me again.

Honestly, I had and have no interest in her as a person. My interest is in the culture and policy that allows any anonymous administrator to libel a real-life person by name, yet nothing is done to expunge or elaborate on that accusation. I don't have time for lawsuits. I just wish Jimbo, or Erik, or Flo, or Godwin, or SOMEONE would have the decency to redact Durova's libel, or call her out to provide some evidence to support the defamatory claim.

(By the by, I think I know what "misleading information" she's talking about, finally. I believe she thinks that because I didn't tell AP's Brian Bergstein that I continued to debate WP:COI policy using sockpuppet accounts after being blocked, that somehow he didn't get the "fair and balanced" story about my enterprise. Bergstein himself has told me that, even in light of that, he wasn't misled in any way about my experience with Wikipedia Review, which is what the story was about.)

(Either that, or she thinks that my edit histories don't show that our corporate-sponsored articles were even getting into Wikipedia; but that just shows she doesn't even fully understand the Jimbo Concordat that asked me to post articles on our website, then ask trusted Wikipedians to enter them into the encyclopedia on their own judgment. Therefore, my edit history would appropriately be absent of our clients' articles. Just for sanity's sake, I just now checked five of the corporate articles that trusted Wikipedians entered into Wikipedia from Wikipedia Review's GFDL page, and all five are still humming along in Wikipedia, improved by subsequent editors but largely unmolested. That should tell you something about how the Jimbo Concordat actually obscured authorship, and how Durova and JzG and Calton will never, ever really comprehend the full story.)

Greg

(Link redacted)

(Link was to deletion log in which User:Durova had deleted both user and user_talk pages created by someone using her full name as an account name)

Indeed, that's not your style at all, and to use ED as a vehicle for it would be too risky for someone in your position in any case.

The problem is that Durova has made so many enemies at this point, it's hard to tell who it might be, and since you're the highest-profile of the bunch, and probably the only one who isn't anonymous, guess who gets blamed for everything?


Yeah, why don't they do that? I can't see what possible purpose it could serve to keep that there... It's an unsubstantiated allegation, clearly libelous, and if she can't back it up with publicly-available evidence, it should be redacted. They're clearly just being dense, in my opinion. It just makes them look petty and vindictive (which is somewhat appropriate, since they are petty and vindicitive). But even if you weren't such a nice guy, the rationale would still completely escape me.

FWIW, it is much funnier than Howard Stern.

Everyone seems perplexed in viewing WP as a search engine. I think maybe I see how. To see WP as a search engine you need to see that WP articles are not just as good as its sources. An article is its sources. The point of the article is merely to point to the cites, which are invariably links to information. The rest of the article is annoying noise. GFDL in conjunction with WP:V;RS;etc is merely a tool for using free, abundant and untalented labor to collect the links. The quid pro quo is that "editors" get to pretend they wrote something of value.

Aren't the articles' sources usually SlimVirgin?

In the good old days of 2005, there were nice collections in the External Links sections. Then the stupid admins started whining about "link farms" and mass-deleted them. Those idiots would rather have a crappy site they can control than a useful site that serves the public.

Agreed!

But to be somewhat fair here, the admins in question were simply overreacting to what they saw as an attack, weren't they? It's easy for us to say "it's all Google's fault," but that really is true, isn't it... There's a distinct chain of causality starting with their PageRank algorithm, then search-engine optimization, then link-spamming on WP, adverse reactions to link-spamming, and Wikipedia becoming institutionally arrogant with respect to external links, which at one point were the most useful things on the website.

Everyone involved is culpable to some extent... some more than others. But if Wikipedia is an "attractive nuisance," Google is the fashion designer, hairdresser and make-up artist all rolled up into one.

I was told that Wikipedia doesn't want users clicking away from the site, so only the most important links can stay. The workaround is that you can slip them back in as citations, until some admin claims you are dumping non-RS links on the sites.



I have CustomizeGoogle set to remove Wikipedia and 75+ scrapers from search results. Anything useful on Wikipedia can be find someplace more trustworthy. The admins are beating the site into utter banality, so I'd rather not waste time reading it.



You can't buy publicity that good,

And now when I look up a celeb on Wikipedia, I don't know what they look like.

Most "celebrities" are not so easily identifiable. I don't know what David Beckham looks like and he's the biggest sports star on the planet. Nor would I recognize J.K. Rowling, any Miss America since Vanessa Williams, or the mayor of New York City.

Right now, somebody named Rihanna is top of the pops right now. Show of hands: Who here could point her out in a lineup?

If someone is notable enough to merit an article, then they deserve a decent photo. Wikipedia has a priceless collection of fair use publicity shots that is now being censored and shredded in the name of free speech. This is madness.

BTW, my point above was about external links, not pictures. Wikipedia used to be a wonderful directory of links on major subjects. That too was censored and shredded, because the dumba$$ admins didn't want the "downstream" users getting their information from other Web sites.

ED has stuff like this www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Gun_totting_azns_in_my_vtech.jpeg

More side-splitting satire. Who needs the Onion or South Park?

Oh my God, when will this end? How many additional forums does Durova need before we can all see that she almost CRAVES an arbitration hearing to demonstrate how I (supposedly) "gave misleading information to journalists"?

Greg

It's interesting that she can't even bring herself to type the words "Encyclopedia Dramatica" on a completely different website - it's like she's afraid she's going to get blocked by the SEW people for mentioning them by name or something.

So, of course, everyone is compelled to go back to the original thread to see what she's talking about, where they'll be treated to several more views of her real name.

Seth Finkelstein wrote:
"The basic problem is that Wikipedia doesn't operate like businesspeople expect, and very little of the Wikipedia cult-ure is explained to them."

I love it. "cult-ure," get it? I wonder if the hyphen was intentional or a Freudian slip.

haha,
this bullshit has to read like a foreign language to anyone not in the cult or without experience dealing with it.

elsewhere in that thread:

Actually, it just makes Durova and through her Wikipedia pretend to sound like they actually have ANY authority over the Internet, or well, anything. They have jack for authority, being just a website.

Have I responded appropriately, or have I too gone off the deep end?

Greg

I don't think it matters - there's clearly no reasoning with some of these people. She references a thread here about the question of how many actual people are banned from WP, which contains an obviously less-than-serious call to start a club for banned users, but there's nothing seriously objectionable in there, unless of course you're someone like Durova who thinks that anything that isn't 100 percent laudatory of The Glory That Is Wikipedia is objectionable by definition.

What will happen if you start an ArbCom case is that they'll focus almost exclusively on whether or not what you wrote a few months ago could legitimately be construed as a "legal threat" and whether or not it was appropriate for Blanning to block you again. Durova's libelous claims against you will be deemed "out of their jurisdiction" and not even addressed, and the situation will just continue to fester indefinitely. I doubt they'll even unblock you, given that JzG and the Squeaky-Wheel Bicycle Club will be all over it like a cheap pair of spandex shorts.

If you make a compelling case, I guess it's not inconceivable that they might "remind" Durova to be "careful" in making "comments" about identifiable people. But you'll never get an apology from her, or them, in a million years. It just isn't part of their genetic makeup.

Hah! Durova has already re-blocked me, citing: "Shows no interest in opening an arbitration case."

I guess if you can't jump to the ArbCom within 24 hours of learning you've been courtesy/temporary/probationary unblocked, you're subject to reblock with a disingenuous reason.

Thanks for wasting my time, again, Durova!

So, Wikipedia Review friends, if I ultimately do take Durova's advice and notify an ArbCom clerk by e-mail that I would like to open a case, apparently, I have the following users to choose from:

* David.Mestel
* Newyorkbrad
* Penwhale
* Picaroon
* Srikeit
* Thatcher131

I'm not up on any of these users -- but I sense that Newyorkbrad is not a "good guy" in the Wikipedia Review consensus. Any recommendations on which of these clerks would make the most neutral assessment of my needs and be most helpful in navigating my way through ArbCom?

Greg

David.Mestel is an interesting one; he's 16, but head and shoulders brighter than the usual run of teenagers on Wikipedia. His father and grandfather are both eminent professors with their own Wikipedia articles.

actually i kind of like newyorkbrad

Keep in mind they are the mere clerks of a kangaroo court. They are not worth giving much thought too or splitting hairs over their relative merit. Ones probably much the same as another.

Kind of ironic, isn't it, that the broken and dispirited client K. meets in his "advocate's" office is named Block.

This is pretty much beyond the pale, in my opinion. If you can afford it, I'd start thinking seriously about getting lawyers involved. Unfortunately, actually filing suit against her would be "generating drama," and since that's the worst thing that can possibly happen on Wikipedia, you might end up being "strongly reminded" to avoid that sort of thing in the future.

It's just really sad that such a popular website is such a major joke, isn't it?

She's re-posted the libel on 2-3 comment boards now. Adding a bunch of links to wiki-rules that no one gives a shit about IRL. Does she not understand that the world operates without a freaking clue as to wiki-rules? That even if you broke some (which isn't clear) that you don't deserve to be defamed.

She thinks that to call her words defamatory merits a site ban - which is in fact makes the defamation (which was previously in backsite pages) more salient. She has the weird idea that all of her behavior is exempt from real repercussions. This woman is living on another planet.

Can anyone here imagine her being in court, dishing out wiki-rules to the court, and being utterly shocked that they hold no legal weight in the real world? I can. I'm sure she'd try to do it. She is that out of touch with reality.

You think that now her real name is out there that she'd be more careful. But she's just as arrogant and weird and nasty as ever.

Speaking of weird editors - has anyone any updates on the legal case against Silvy and Co, by Fuzzy Zoller? Was he able to enact a case against those editors?

Defamation is a matter of state law, so it might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But generally a defamed person can demand a retraction. A retraction is a statement by the person alleged to make the defamatory statements that is published by the same means and in as prominent a manner as the original defamatory statements. The retraction must be unambiguous in indicating the defamatory statements are not true. Failure to comply with the demand for a retraction subjects the person alleged to have made the defamatory statement to augmented damages.

There is seldom any downside to demanding a retraction. If a demand for a retraction is not made the person alleged to be defamed might be barred from seeking augmented damages.

The publication of an retraction often provides a great moral victory and often concludes the matter although it is still possible to for the defamed person to bring a law suit for more restricted damages even after the retraction.

He definitely filed the lawsuit, but it could be months or even years before anything is resolved. Presumably there's been no out-of-court settlement or we'd have heard about it... Then again, maybe not. There would have been no reason to publicize it, I suppose...

There's been no news posted to Fuzzy's website about it, and in the meantime Fuzzy won the prestigious US Senior Open, so at least the lawsuit hasn't negatively affected his swing and his ball-striking ability.

I'd say the only way to really find out what's going on would be to buy a membership at his prestigious Covered Bridge Golf Club in fabulous Sellersburg, Indiana, where there's apparently a limited block of discounted memberships available - so get 'em while supplies last, folks!

Most of Wikipedia operates without a freaking clue as to wiki-rules.

Somey, I would... but then I'd have to change the little tag-line under my avatar here. Is it worth it?

Lawyers worth their salt would tell me that I'd have to demonstrate how this affront to my reputation has materially damaged me (income earning abilities, etc.). Given that I've just returned from a paid speaking gig (generous per diem, plus travel and lodging at a fabulous resort) about the history and process of wikis, I'd probably have a tough time explaining my hardship to a jury.

You would just think that (given I said I could live with it) Durova would say, "Whatever. Okay, so Greg Kohs didn't give misleading information to journalists. More accurately, I believe he failed to tell one journalist about his sockpuppetry and his acerbic posts to the Wikipedia Review when the journalist interviewed him about Wikipedia Review." But she can't do that, can she? It's so damned important to her that the original defamatory statement remain as is, because if she uttered it, it must be true!

I know she's going to read this eventually, and I know it just irks her that I'm still getting money and reimbursed travel and tropical drinks by the poolside, just to talk to other adults in a professional forum about "her" fixation. (Indeed, I was speaking to EDUCATORS, and that's one of the special volunteer projects that she cooked up.) She'll keep volunteering and volunteering away all of her personal time, while I make a nice deposit to my bank account and spend some time playing tag outside in the fresh air with my daughter.

Who needs a lawsuit?

Greg

I doubt that most lawyers know what to do with Wikipedia. Somebody has to prove that WMF is a publisher, not just an ISP. Do that and the Cult of Jimbo dies in a heartbeat.

As does most of the world.

Wiki-rules only become relevant on Wikipedia as excuses for doing whatever the people present want to do. They get chucked in a minute if they stand in the way, but hey, they look official and professional and to the unexperienced eye, it would appear that there is some valid system of justice being undertaken. (rofl over and over)