Cirt's not dead yet, and he's already working on his next project Options

For those of you who haven't noticed, our dear Scientology-obsessed Cirt is back after a two-month absence.

He's already gotten back to work on Santorum (sexual neologism) (T-H-L-K-D), and I wonder who's paying him for this one.

"The word became a successful Google bomb when Savage created a website for it, which unseated the Senator's official website as the top search result for his surname on the Google web search engine." That's almost an analogy for Wikipedia itself.

Cirt and Friends have doubled the size of the article and increased the references from 33 to 95 in just three days.


I detest Rick Santorum, but this is using Wikipedia as a flame-thrower.

This post has been edited by Zoloft: Fri 13th May 2011, 3:59am

...this is using Wikipedia as a flame-thrower.

That is Wikipedia's guiding purpose, so I don't know what's eating you.

...this is using Wikipedia as a flame-thrower.

That is Wikipedia's guiding purpose, so I don't know what's eating you.

Possibly nematodes.

For those of you who haven't noticed, our dear Scientology-obsessed Cirt is back after a two-month absence.

He's already gotten back to work on Santorum (sexual neologism) (T-H-L-K-D), and I wonder who's paying him for this one.

He hasn't had a two-month absence. He's been hanging out at other wiki places. The sister sites and all. He's never GONE. He's addicted to wp. Apparently no other life.

My so far vain attempt to bring reason into the discussion is predictably rebuffed.

My so far vain attempt to bring reason into the discussion is predictably rebuffed.

Well, this probably won't work (Cirt is, after all, crazy).........

......but if you need a bit of ammunition in this argument, you could ask them why they are spending all this effort to defame a minor right-wing politician, when the Wikipedia article about a notorious public-relations firm was recently rewritten, openly and with zero negative information, by an employee of said PR firm. With the full connivance of a well-regarded Wikipedia drone.

Said article was previously full of ugly little embarrassing tidbits like the ones in the Santorum article, but now it looks like a sanitized company press release. (I won't tell you what it is, because Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be informed of abuses. The rot and corruption in their database should be allowed to fester.)

My so far vain attempt to bring reason into the discussion is predictably rebuffed.

My turn to try.

I took one more step to discuss stubbing the article and was met by a perfectly formed phalanx of tacklers. I give up.

I took one more step to discuss stubbing the article and was met by a perfectly formed phalanx of tacklers. I give up.

How many links does it takes to create a googlebomb? To hear them talk they make it sound as if you need lots and lots of people. In reality you need very few, a single popular blogger can google bomb pretty much anyone, especially if that person has a somewhat unusual name. Some cunts will even brag about it.

In any case back in 2003 anyone with a history of internet postings in forums could google bomb anyone simply by changing their forum posting sig. Voila 1000s of pages all linking the same phrase to a single site. Around 2008 google changed the algorithm so it doesn't take much notice of links in sigs, but back in 2003 it was a piece of cake.

Interestingly in their haste to tag up all the mucky words, probably to hide the Santorum thing in amongst a host of similar edits, they managed to leave this article with major problems. Jayen seems to have followed behind.

Interestingly in their haste to tag up all the mucky words, probably to hide the Santorum thing in amongst a host of similar edits, they managed to leave this article with major problems. Jayen seems to have followed behind.

There is some discussion of the Santorum article at the Wiki-EN list, starting with this post.

Google's search results are entirely their business.
--
geni

I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet.

Obviously, this argument is being drawn out on the lines of personal politics.
Bauder thinks the article might be over the top. A few others agree.
And known "pseudoliberal" free-speechy Wikipedia trolls like Geni, Cunctator,
McWhiney and GWH see no problem with it, and respond to any call for moderation
with smug jeers.

And these assholes are "running" an "encyclopedia". Ya can't make this stuff up.

Google's search results are entirely their business.
--
geni

I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet.

Obviously, this argument is being drawn out on the lines of personal politics.
Bauder thinks the article might be over the top. A few others agree.
And known "pseudoliberal" free-speechy Wikipedia trolls like Geni, Cunctator,
McWhiney and GWH see no problem with it, and respond to any call for moderation
with smug jeers.

And these assholes are "running" an "encyclopedia". Ya can't make this stuff up.

What what? Guest posts? When did that start?

What what? Guest posts? When did that start?

It just stopped. It was evidently due to a mistake made while setting up this subforum. However, the guest seems knowledgeable about WP, and will hopefully register an account here.

Fred Bauder sez:

Well, too much. I'm on-board for fighting fascism, but not using
Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about
this.

I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and
useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both
Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the
article into the discussion too.

Fred

I'm not holding my breath.

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Tue 24th May 2011, 4:48pm

Fred Bauder sez:

Well, too much. I'm on-board for fighting fascism, but not using
Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about
this.

I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and
useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both
Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the
article into the discussion too.

Fred

I'm not holding my breath.

The santorum neologism article is up again for GA, it seems, too. If it passes, I wonder how much Cirt will be asking for as a bonus.

Also, I've always wondered where he gets his stuff from. I mean, someone who hates the politician isn't just going to ask a random Wikipedia admin if they can write a slanderous article about someone.

As I said above one can Google bomb anyone who has a name that it is not common. If you put my real name into google the second hit is a photoblog of mine. Nowhere on that blog is my real name mentioned, but 6 years ago I gave permission to a University to use a photo as part of a course website and they credited it with my real name. One link in all of the internet is enough to bring that photoblog to the top of Google with my real name.

Similarly, about 8 years ago I created a forum signature with the word "Codswallop" (not the actual word used but near enough) that linked to a site that promotes the idea that the the decline in garden birds is due to the increase in birds of prey. Within 10 days that word brought the site as the first hit on google. Even today, several years after I've stopped linking the page, that word has the site on the first page of google.

Cirt, George William Herbert, Geni, Will Beback, etc are not common names, and are susceptible to Google bombing. Very few links of those names to attack pages will bring the associated pages up to the top of a Google.

Fred Bauder sez:

Well, too much. I'm on-board for fighting fascism, but not using
Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about
this.

I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and
useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both
Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the
article into the discussion too.

Fred

I'm not holding my breath.

To his credit, Fred raised the matter on the article talk page.

Ian Woollard at wikien-l commented on the link farms at the bottom of the article -- three massive templates created by, you guessed it, Cirt, earlier this month, just after the press reported Santorum might run for president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dan_Savage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Political_neologisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sexual_slang

These templates add about 200 incoming links to the article, and thus drive up the article's Google rating, to the point where it is now the number 1 Google result for "Santorum", even ahead of Savage's original Google bomb.

That's using Wikipedia for political campaigning, just like in the earlier cases with Kenneth Dickson and Jose Peralta (T-H-L-K-D)/Hiram Monserrate (T-H-L-K-D) (see previous threads).