9
edits
Wiki spam: Difference between revisions
m
Reverted edit of 217.70.108.106, changed back to last version by 66.250.68.54
(moving Meatball reference down in the list - MeatballWiki has its own wiki ideology which is not credible, and we should grant that no status here; C2 and CommunityWiki are a bit better) |
m (Reverted edit of 217.70.108.106, changed back to last version by 66.250.68.54) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
All [[large public wiki]]s get [[spam]] - unsolicited commercial content which, in [[wiki]]s, is typically inserted randomly in articles by [[anonymous edit]]s. | |||
[[Consumerium Services]] must be especially watchful of commercial activity since the [[Consumerium buying signal]] directly influences buying decisions! Any removal of accurate negative data, or insertion of inaccurate positive data, or any [[systemic bias]] in demoting or promoting some commercial service or product over another, would seriously degrade trust in that buying signal and the whole [[healthy buying infrastructure]]. So it is important to really understand '''wiki spam''' and all the ways [[funded troll]]s might provide some advantage by manipulating or altering the overall [[Publish Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]] mechanisms that, end to end, affect the [[price premium]]s and [[green light]]s. | |||
Here are some references on the generic problem of public wiki spam: | |||
* CommunityWiki http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/WikiSpam | * CommunityWiki http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/WikiSpam | ||
| Line 6: | Line 10: | ||
* Meatball http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiSpam | * Meatball http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiSpam | ||
* s23 http://wiki.s23.org/wiki.pl?WikiSpam | * s23 http://wiki.s23.org/wiki.pl?WikiSpam | ||
* | * GründerWiki http://www.wikiservice.at/gruender/wiki.cgi?WikiSpam (German) | ||
* blog chongqed.org http://chongqed.org/ | * blog chongqed.org http://chongqed.org/ | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]]. Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another. | ::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]]. Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another. | ||
:::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly. But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. | :::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly. But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. Bomis, that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]]. | ||
::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]]. But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor. So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that: | ::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]]. But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor. So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that: | ||
| Line 32: | Line 36: | ||
:::::There are other useful tests like "is the URI linked to, presently for sale?" If so then it's likely someone trying to boost up the [[page view]]s. | :::::There are other useful tests like "is the URI linked to, presently for sale?" If so then it's likely someone trying to boost up the [[page view]]s. | ||
==Solutions...how to fight spam on wikis== | |||
I have a mediawiki site set up that just got spam links (ment to increase page rank in google), how do you fight this? | |||
*The only solution I can think of is having what many sites use to stop automated form submission, which is have an image that contains a word that the user has to retype. This would be a slight burdon to the user, but it would make the user and the spammer on the same level, since one could delete spam just as fast as a spammer could produce it. [[wikibooks:User:RobKohr]] | |||