|
|
|
Cirt's not dead yet, and he's already working on his next project |
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 12th May 2011, 10:46pm) 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. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 13th May 2011, 11:42am) 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.)
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 20th May 2011, 6:50pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
Guest |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE Google's search results are entirely their business. -- geni QUOTE 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.
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(Guest @ Tue 24th May 2011, 4:14am) QUOTE Google's search results are entirely their business. -- geni QUOTE 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?
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
Fred Bauder sez: QUOTE 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:
|
|
|
|
melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 24th May 2011, 4:48pm) Fred Bauder sez: QUOTE 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.
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
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.
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 24th May 2011, 5:48pm) Fred Bauder sez: QUOTE 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_Savagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Political_neologismshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sexual_slangThese 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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |