Love the title and the coverage of the libraries conversations: "Yet, the above initiatives evidence Wikipedia receiving more credit as an established institution, and thus becoming the target of more projects from the traditional institutions that curate knowledge. Perhaps Wikipedia got to where it is without as much formal support (and indeed in the face of many detractors), but the old guard eventually incorporating the nouveau riche is human nature." That wit gave User:Ocaasi and I a good laugh! Keep up the great reporting! Sadads (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have the link to the Search Engine Optimization story, please? I would have really wanted to read what they have to say, and omitting it is just plain silly. Surely there are worse things people could read (intentionally not linked). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, Pete, but I was really hoping for an explanation for the omission as well. Does Signpost think its readers will resort to spamming links? Or are you SEO-minded enough to deny thousands of clicks to that despicable story? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for them, just a note that Wikipedia uses nofollow for external links so their search engine rank wouldn't really be influenced much. However there are still other reasons not to link to them such as driving traffic to sites opposite the goals of Wikipedia, and because you don't want to give sites like that ad revenue. Opencooper (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sent, Finnusertop. The story constitutes advice on how to circumvent Wikipedia's intended purpose, and its policies. The Signpost editorial board prefers not to play a role in broadly propagating that kind of information. -Pete (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. My response to such activity is typically (1) block the account as {{uw-spamblock}} without warning, since such people clearly aren't here for any other purpose [they're professionals, so we can't persuade them to stop], (2) blacklist the spammed URL, and (3) write a block message that includes a personalised note explaining that they need to tell their clients that the link now cannot be added to any Wikipedia page, because of their actions. At worst, the effect of the personalised message is no different from a normal block message, but there's a chance that it will hurt the spammer's reputation with the clients and reduce the chance that they'll re-hire spammers to do this. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-written piece, offering a glance at the two varying perspectives of librarians and Wikipedians. Although it is true that Wikipedia has gained a significant amount of popularity in the past few years, the growing efforts to link libraries and Wikipedia will benefit both parties in the long run. On another note, would have loved to have a peek at the Search Engine Optimization article if it is, by any chance, possible. by seo uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.212.0 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the media