Neat: {{NOINDEX}} Options

[Jon Awbrey]

Jon, imagine that you're an average person who might care about the google results for your name due to future employment, or whatever. Which would you rather have:

• Wikipedia's derogatory remarks removed from google.
• Marginally better ability to find Wikipedia's imagined grievances against you (the main one being that derogatory remarks are searchable though google).

Imagining myself in that situation, there's no way I could sanely prefer the latter. I doubt many people would. Yeah, searching for how Wikipedia "wronged" you is neat and all, but I would prefer something to actually dampen the blow.

Based on your comments, you seem to actually like the fame from your Wikipedia exploits. It's much better for the project that we discourage people like you by noindexing. On Wikipedia you cannot write an autobiography, nor can you get your name into Google by prolifically pissing off the admins. That protects users against vindictive admins, and protects the project from people who like to see their own name. That's how it should be, anyhow.

As a student of systems design, I view Wikipedia as just another engineered artifact, ostensibly built to serve an array of ostensible objectives and subject to evaluation on that basis.

Systems come into being and systems pass away.

You may think that Wikipedia is something special in the way it mixes up social and technical devices, but when you look closely at the kinds of systems that human beings have been wrapping around themselves for many millennia you will realize that it's not really all that unique. No one here will have any qualms about criticizing Microsoft Windows™ in the performance of its ostensible functions, and Wikipedia is not a bit different in that regard.

The very idea that anyone should fear for their livelihood on the basis of what issues from Wikipedia horrifies me. I do not think that we should simply accept that condition as a premiss or fait accompli and then try to retrofit a motley of patches on top of it. Like some systems we know.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Mon 18th August 2008, 8:16pm

[Random832]

Now see what you can learn from a simple click of fate?

Yes, that was indeed ½ of it — the other ½ being that μ is the only logical response to someone who is talking complete and utter nonsense, as NYB is doing when he invokes such conceits as "In Violation Of Wikipedia Policy" (IVOWP).

Try to imagine NYB explaining what he imagines that to mean to a Judge. It cracks me up just trying to picture it —

"Sure, I wacked 'im, Judge — he was In Violation Of Mafia Policy …"

Jon

OK, leaving policy out of this

Agree or disagree with this statement: You (Jon Awbrey) have used multiple nicknames in attempts to bypass attempts to prevent you from editing a website, and the edits you have made in doing so have generally been non-constructive (removing content from pages, etc).

You can argue about "in violation of wikipedia policy" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've done since any initial injustice is the sort of thing that would get you banned from editing and/or posting to most websites.

How about this simple question:

What do you want from us? What, short of unbanning you (being banned, by itself, cannot be called an injustice, since posting to and/or editing a website is not a right), would you have us do to redress your grievance?

Your edits since the ban haven't even been (as far as I know) constructive, so you don't even have the grounds Brandt has for objecting to the idea of being banned. There's no discernable benefit to anyone from allowing you to edit.

I'm becoming convinced that you're just trying to make trouble rather than to genuinely seek any remedy for any injustice that might have been done to you.

This post has been edited by Random832: Mon 18th August 2008, 8:32pm

[Somey]

The very idea that anyone should fear for their livelihood on the basis of what issues from Wikipedia horrifies me. I do not think that we should simply accept that condition as a premiss or fait accompli and then try to retrofit a motley of patches on top of it. Like some systems we know.

Personally, I don't see how commending the implementation and use of a feature to hide individual WP pages from search engines implies that anyone is "accepting that condition" - for one thing, you have to give new ideas a chance to work merely in order to give credence to the idea that you're trying to come up with ideas that work in the first place. Something like this could eventually lead to an opt-out policy, at which point WP will finally have grown up.

Besides, you have to be somewhat realistic - it would be super-great if Wikipedia would just disappear, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon, no matter what we say about it. This particular means of mitigating the damage it does in the short term might make it harder to find and point out where the abuses are occurring, and who's perpetrating them, but then again it might not. And in the meantime, the negative effects are lessened, and the stakes are lowered.

Remember, if it's known that a Wikipedia page can be "de-Google-juiced" by any editor with a conscience who happens by, people whose primary intent is to use WP as a revenge platform (sorry, but it's still my favorite phrase) might be inclined to go elsewhere, and "elsewhere" might even be a place where they either won't be taken as seriously, or where they'll be more accountable for their actions.

I just did a blog post on this subject, by the way, which does include one or two possible negative ramifications - though I think they're outweighed by the positive ones, in a big way. (Note that in the photo, Mr. Awbrey is in the fifth row, second from left.)

[Jon Awbrey]

Now see what you can learn from a simple click of fate?

Yes, that was indeed ½ of it — the other ½ being that μ is the only logical response to someone who is talking complete and utter nonsense, as NYB is doing when he invokes such conceits as "In Violation Of Wikipedia Policy" (IVOWP).

Try to imagine NYB explaining what he imagines that to mean to a Judge. It cracks me up just trying to picture it —

"Sure, I wacked 'im, Judge — he was In Violation Of Mafia Policy …"

Jon

OK, leaving policy out of this

Agree or disagree with this statement: You (Jon Awbrey) have used multiple nicknames in attempts to bypass attempts to prevent you from editing a website, and the edits you have made in doing so have generally been non-constructive (removing content from pages, adding nonsense, etc).

You can argue about "in violation of wikipedia policy" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've done since any initial injustice is the sort of thing that would get you banned from editing and/or posting to most websites.

How about this simple question:

What do you want from us? What, short of unbanning you (being banned, by itself, cannot be called an injustice, since posting to and/or editing a website is not a right), would you have us do to redress your grievance?

Your edits since the ban haven't even been (as far as I know) constructive, so you don't even have the grounds Brandt has for objecting to the idea of being banned. There's no discernable benefit to anyone from allowing you to edit.

I'm becoming convinced that you're just trying to make trouble rather than to genuinely seek any remedy for any injustice that might have been done to you.

For the time being — until the history-rewriters, er, history-non-indexers have their way — there remains enough of an audit trail that anyone who really wants to know the sequence of events can still do so.

For my part, I find it pretty much useless to converse with people who prefer their convenient fantasies to the truth.

Your line, Jack …

Jon

[Somey]

Well then, let's try to look at this in practical terms. Basically there are two things you have to do to defame someone or something on Wikipedia - you have to insert the defamation, and you have to maintain the defamation. Simply inserting the defamation is easy, always has been, probably always will be, even with edit-approval/flagged revisions in place.

So the issue is can the defamation be maintained? And for the purposes of this thread, we have to ask if telling search-engine crawlers to ignore any given page will help people in maintaining defamation or hinder them.

To be honest, I'm not sure if Jon here is saying is that the __NOINDEX__ magic word will help people maintain defamatory content, presumably by making it less noticeable to the people being defamed, or that it brings up another issue altogether, in so far as it might make it easier for serial defamers (or "POV-pushers" if you prefer) to operate under the radar.

Again, I think this is just a matter of giving the WP'ers some time to sink or swim based on their own predilections. If they really are as mean-spirited and rotten as some of us say they are, they'll find ways to abuse this feature the same way they abuse so many others. In any event, in a few months we can (hopefully, still) search the database for uses and misuses of __NOINDEX__ to see how it's really being used in practice. If it's obviously making things worse - and I seriously doubt that it will - they can always get rid of it. But if anything, my main fear is that it's going to be difficult to prove that this feature will make things better - how do you measure something like that? A reduced number of OTRS tickets? Higher rates of editor retention? More new articles? Fewer new articles?

Rather hard to say, but I guess that's why we're here, actually!

[GlassBeadGame]

Now see what you can learn from a simple click of fate?

Yes, that was indeed ½ of it — the other ½ being that μ is the only logical response to someone who is talking complete and utter nonsense, as NYB is doing when he invokes such conceits as "In Violation Of Wikipedia Policy" (IVOWP).

Try to imagine NYB explaining what he imagines that to mean to a Judge. It cracks me up just trying to picture it —

"Sure, I wacked 'im, Judge — he was In Violation Of Mafia Policy …"

Jon

OK, leaving policy out of this

Agree or disagree with this statement: You (Jon Awbrey) have used multiple nicknames in attempts to bypass attempts to prevent you from editing a website, and the edits you have made in doing so have generally been non-constructive (removing content from pages, etc).

You can argue about "in violation of wikipedia policy" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've done since any initial injustice is the sort of thing that would get you banned from editing and/or posting to most websites.

How about this simple question:

What do you want from us? What, short of unbanning you (being banned, by itself, cannot be called an injustice, since posting to and/or editing a website is not a right), would you have us do to redress your grievance?

Your edits since the ban haven't even been (as far as I know) constructive, so you don't even have the grounds Brandt has for objecting to the idea of being banned. There's no discernable benefit to anyone from allowing you to edit.

I'm becoming convinced that you're just trying to make trouble rather than to genuinely seek any remedy for any injustice that might have been done to you.

Leading, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence.

[Carruthers]

Of course, some vindictive people HAVE argued that leaving public shamings up is acceptable. Tsk.

Yes, that's why some of them keep making edits and do that repetitive vandal-revert stuff. It's the dramariffic rush you get from catching and banning those who are excommunicated and who shall burn forever in Hell.

You take that away, and many people will no longer find editing on WP fun.

[Rootology]

Leading, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence.

But fair questions.

"What does Jon Awbrey WANT? (preferably in plain basic ASCII formatted english that a grade-schooler can understand without having to do ten hits of quality acid)"

You take that away, and many people will no longer find editing on WP fun.

To paraphrase the old band N.W.A.: "fuck tha RC police".

If people are only doing sites like WP, WR, or whatever else for the mental equivalent of an Internet orgasmic rush of power, they need to

1. Turn off the computer;
2. Go have normal human interaction;
3. Fix their own broken, hollow lives that made them seek out a career of having a firm e-peen.

[Carruthers]

You take that away, and many people will no longer find editing on WP fun.

To paraphrase the old band N.W.A.: "fuck tha RC police".

If people are only doing sites like WP, WR, or whatever else for the mental equivalent of an Internet orgasmic rush of power, they need to

1. Turn off the computer;
2. Go have normal human interaction;
3. Fix their own broken, hollow lives that made them seek out a career of having a firm e-peen.

Can we expand that into a blog post?!! (I'm serious!)

[GlassBeadGame]

Leading, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence.

But fair questions.

"What does Jon Awbrey WANT? (preferably in plain basic ASCII formatted english that a grade-schooler can understand without having to do ten hits of quality acid)"

I suspect that Jon. like myself, is not interested in improving Wikipedia. We don't seek "justice." We simply want to be free to discuss and analyze Wikipedia free from it's own culture, values and terms. Telling us what kind of language to use is not likely to get you very far.

[Rootology]

Leading, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence.

But fair questions.

"What does Jon Awbrey WANT? (preferably in plain basic ASCII formatted english that a grade-schooler can understand without having to do ten hits of quality acid)"

I suspect that Jon. like myself, is not interested in improving Wikipedia. We don't seek "justice." We simply want to be free to discuss and analyze Wikipedia free from it's own culture, values and terms. Telling us what kind of language to use is not likely to get you very far.

No, and use any kind of invective that is desired--I don't care about that. My point when I harp on Jon for his use of irrelevant, distracting, and childlike graphical typesetting toys is that it distracts from whatever he thought he was saying, and makes an otherwise very intellegient man come off as a fruitcake that can only post whatever random µ¶æëكٻאּ☺♫ ﻉ╬ he happens to find in his Windows character map.

You take that away, and many people will no longer find editing on WP fun.

To paraphrase the old band N.W.A.: "fuck tha RC police".

If people are only doing sites like WP, WR, or whatever else for the mental equivalent of an Internet orgasmic rush of power, they need to

1. Turn off the computer;
2. Go have normal human interaction;
3. Fix their own broken, hollow lives that made them seek out a career of having a firm e-peen.

Can we expand that into a blog post?!! (I'm serious!)

Someone else can if they want to. My basic point is the same that I gave to one of my gaming buddies, when he was complaining one day about the lack of any special ladies in his life. This is a whip smart, funny guy, with a tremendous sense of humor, decency, and practically overflowing with drive. To compare him to a fictional character to give an idea of what he looks and sounds like: Rick O'Donnel from The Mummy. 6'2", huge guy, blonde hair, muscles, money. But he spends 1-2 hours per day before work gaming, goes to the gym 1-2 hours after work (sometimes an hour at lunch) and then comes home to play till bed.

"Why can't I ever meet a nice girl around here?"

"Because you're @&*@#%$&# raiding a dragon with me in WARCRAFT."

"How'd you meet your wife?"

"Dude, I used to go out bar crawling ALL THE TIME. You wanna meet life or a girl, you go out and do it. It sure ain't gonna happen in Azeroth (or Wikipedia, or INSERT $ONLINECRAP)".

This post has been edited by Rootology: Mon 18th August 2008, 9:17pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Someone else can if they want to. My basic point is the same that I gave to one of my gaming buddies, when he was complaining one day about the lack of any special ladies in his life. This is a whip smart, funny guy, with a tremendous sense of humor, decency, and practically overflowing with drive. To compare him to a fictional character to give an idea of what he looks and sounds like: Rick O'Donnel from The Mummy. 6'2", huge guy, blonde hair, muscles, money. But he spends 1-2 hours per day before work gaming, goes to the gym 1-2 hours after work (sometimes an hour at lunch) and then comes home to play till bed.

"Why can't I ever meet a nice girl around here?"

"Because you're @&*@#%$&# raiding a dragon with me in WARCRAFT."

"How'd you meet your wife?"

"Dude, I used to go out bar crawling ALL THE TIME. You wanna meet life or a girl, you go out and do it. It sure ain't gonna happen in Azeroth (or Wikipedia, or INSERT $ONLINECRAP)".

My understanding is that Jon has a very nice wife. He is not asking you for anything. He does complain about others being thick sometimes, myself included. Judging from the transitional greetings and partings in his posts (the easiest parts to understand) he is not wanting for healthy human interaction.

[Rootology]

My understanding is that Jon has a very nice wife. He is not asking you for anything. He does complain about others being thick sometimes, myself included. Judging from the transitional greetings and partings in his posts (the easiest parts to understand) he is not wanting for healthy human interaction.

You're responding to two different posts. My grumbling about Jon was the heavy-handed use of nonsense typeface scratching rather than clear thought. The fact that some people conflate e-life with real life to their detriment and social failings wasn't directed at Jon and was/is a separate conversation. I know Jon has a normal home, family and social life.

[Yehudi]

[Remember, if it's known that a Wikipedia page can be "de-Google-juiced" by any editor with a conscience who happens by, people whose primary intent is to use WP as a revenge platform (sorry, but it's still my favorite phrase) might be inclined to go elsewhere, and "elsewhere" might even be a place where they either won't be taken as seriously, or where they'll be more accountable for their actions.

So how do I, as an editor with a conscience, "de-Google-juice" things here? As we all know, WR can be just as much of a revenge platform as WP.

[thekohser]

...but that doesn't change the fact that what you've done since any initial injustice is the sort of thing that would get you banned from editing and/or posting to most websites.

That's odd. I own and operate a topical- and directory-based wiki, and of our over 500 registered contributors thus far, Jon Awbrey is one of our most prolific, most welcome editors. His pages snare about 5% to 10% of all of our site's inbound traffic. In fact, Jon won a content/style contest in 2007, taking home a $200 prize check from the management. How is it that Awbrey is so able to succeed in the wiki environment I have established, if he is so disposed to the "sort of thing" that would get him banned from most websites?

Greg

[Random832]

...but that doesn't change the fact that what you've done since any initial injustice is the sort of thing that would get you banned from editing and/or posting to most websites.

That's odd. I own and operate a topical- and directory-based wiki, and of our over 500 registered contributors thus far, Jon Awbrey is one of our most prolific, most welcome editors. His pages snare about 5% to 10% of all of our site's inbound traffic. In fact, Jon won a content/style contest in 2007, taking home a $200 prize check from the management. How is it that Awbrey is so able to succeed in the wiki environment I have established, if he is so disposed to the "sort of thing" that would get him banned from most websites?

Greg

And if he decided that you had offended him so he would keep coming back to your site and keep blanking the GFDL content he had submitted and others had built on and collaborated to expand, what do you suppose you would do?

Speaking of most websites, it's rather like what got Poetlister desysopped here.

(I'm not familiar with most of his work, so I'm only commenting on the "writers strike" "blank-in campaign")

[Milton Roe]

...but that doesn't change the fact that what you've done since any initial injustice is the sort of thing that would get you banned from editing and/or posting to most websites.

That's odd. I own and operate a topical- and directory-based wiki, and of our over 500 registered contributors thus far, Jon Awbrey is one of our most prolific, most welcome editors. His pages snare about 5% to 10% of all of our site's inbound traffic. In fact, Jon won a content/style contest in 2007, taking home a $200 prize check from the management. How is it that Awbrey is so able to succeed in the wiki environment I have established, if he is so disposed to the "sort of thing" that would get him banned from most websites?

Greg

He doesn't play well with udders?

Is this a trickle question?

[Jon Awbrey]

He doesn't play well with udders?

Is this a trickle question?

In spite of the inherent fascination of seeing my name more or less correctly spelled several times in a row, this thread appears to have gone totally tsas;dr at some point shortly after I left for dinner — but Mr. MR's crypto-logical remarks naturally caught my attention, and I have at long last with some earnest sweat of my brow finally decoded them, to wit, or not, by means of this clue:

COW = Controllers Of Wikipedia

To Have And Have Not …

Jon

[thekohser]

And if he decided that you had offended him so he would keep coming back to your site and keep blanking the GFDL content he had submitted and others had built on and collaborated to expand, what do you suppose you would do?

Speaking of most websites, it's rather like what got Poetlister desysopped here.

(I'm not familiar with most of his work, so I'm only commenting on the "writers strike" "blank-in campaign")

My reaction would be to pick up the phone, call Jon Awbrey, and discuss with him what it was that I might have done in the management of my site that would cause him such distress as to want to blank content that he had submitted and (rather doubtful on this part) others had built on.

Why is it, Random832, that this simple reaction was not pursued by anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its administrative agents, when Jon blanked GFDL content on their site?

Why did it take shame and public disgrace to finally motivate Jimmy Wales to restore blanked content about [[Arch Coal]] that Guy Chapman had plagiarized, erased, and taken credit for personally?

You're asking very simple questions, with very easy and ethical answers. Why are you having such a tough time delivering sound answers to my questions?

[One]

Query: would Brandt have accepted NOINDEX on PIR and all of it's redirects?

Would Don Murphy now accept NOINDEX? Would the inclusionists accept it?