Given the cost of and content journals however it isn't the same market so no conflict. You can have your scientific journals and Wikipedia. Who do you think should be held responsible if a copyvio appears on these forums?
"We"? Oh, it all makes sense now. :rolleyes All this talk of "anti-copyvio" tools makes me laugh. If that were the case, it would have flagged the content we submitted as already being present on another site - Mine. Whatever. Save your defense of the "bait-and-switch" Wiki for the uninitiated. And you can tell Editor "Nposs" to check his/her messages while you're at it. To quote AGS, "Cobblers".
I don't think that wikipedia should be banned at all, its a very useful resource, but...... Google seems to have turned into a wikipedia search engine, nearly every single word term you search for Wikipedia is in the top one or two. This does not seem right to me. Maybe they should omit them from their results but have an encyclopedia link at the top of the results, this could link off to say Wikipedia and the less spammed Encyclopedia Brittanica. A bit like what ASK does... Animal search on ask
Just a hint: there was a video of some model posted on YouTube over and over again, despite judge's order to remove it. The girl sued and YouTube tried to argue that it is not responsible, since it had no control over users posting the offending material. Yet, the court found YouTube responsible. Good precedent for Wikipedia to think about.
You mean most people don't know how copyright works? If it is true, it is hardly an excuse for such a high-profile site as Wikipedia to display even slightest arrogance about this issue.
I don't think Wikipedia should be banned either. However I do think, Wikipedia should respect and value publishers its editors rely upon, instead of labeling everybody "vanity linkers."
Probably would these days. I said tools were improving. But depending in what search engines have indexed the site and how the entry is submitted it may not be picked up. In this case it would appear the text was not a copyvio. Wikipedia offered nothing. You thought you could see a way to benefit from it but Wikipedia played no part in that. They do.
[[DNA]] has 119 citations and a further reading section. I think that makes Wikipedia values fairly clear.
Like I said, I do respect what Wikipedia has done with popularizing science, history etc, even with all its shortcomings. However my logic is if there is even slight and unintended possibility of abusing copyright of smaller publications, Wikipedia should go extra mile to keep its sources happy. Obviously, adding "no follow" tags does not help that.
This is true, however one can imagine, (even though, I personally have no proof it is actually happening) a marginally profitable web site losing its PR value, as a result of "no follow" from Wikipedia and, in turn losing its advertising revenues, which can make quality reporting and research impossible.
Credit is still being given to the authors. Like I said, having a nofollow tag does not mean Wikipedia claims credit for the articles and the author does not get any credit. Having the nofollow tag is just to ensure that the quality of articles to prevent a portion of submissions (meaning those from webmasters) to be spammy and done only to get a link in return. True, you might be innocent and writing good articles and just want an SEO boost for it. But think of how many people are there like you. To protect themselves from spammy webmasters, they have to implement a site-wide rule. The non webmaster contributors are not complaining, and this leaves only genuine webmasters who would like to see the content on the internet grow richly to continue to submit articles. Spammy webmasters will simply stop contributing their good or not so good articles.
Again, spare me. Our traffic is pretty impressive, and our PR is just fine. We've been supportive of Wiki's nofollow implementation, so please don't lump me in with the "wannabes" who see Wiki as a shortcut to traffic - Our content stands as a testament to that. Interestingly, the Editor in question responded to me today, after nearly 3 weeks. If a "thank you" is in order, Thank you.
What's happening with wikipedia is the same thing that's happened with dmoz. Both started off as a good idea, spammers came in an ruined things, then spammers look back at the mess they've made and are the first to say "this place sucks." Nice job spammers, you've ruined another good idea.
Exactly. It was a good idea and this latest initiative by Wikipedia will hopefully get rid of the spammers. By the way, is DMOZ still screwed up?
I don't think "no follow" solves spam problem; as Geni mentioned above, it wasn't even a goal. My guess is, Wikipedia needs to hire indepedent human experts in various fields, as Brittanica does it, who would peer-review entries and manually ban spammers, and self-promoters. I undrestand, they do it already at some level.
No they didnt.. Its Us, The Webmaster who tried to take advantage of Wiki's open environment to abuse it and stuff it with spam. I have links to my sites in Wikipedia, and the amount of traffic it sends to my sites, is great. I couldnt be more happy...
There are differences. DMOZ only has links. Wikipedia has far more. In theory Wikipedia could kill all external links and make reference links text only and continue to function although obviously this would not be an ideal solution.
If that's the case, it's being applied inconsistently and prejudicially: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ment_of_External_Links_.28in_this_instance.29 See topic #23. Nathan nailed it: Labeling everybody "vanity linkers" is a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction. I stated it OVER and OVER: Keep your damn links. Keep your damn nofollow tags. Just allow the authors to cite their source.