Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/To-do

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 14:19, 24 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (4x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The To-do list

Shortcut

Regular sources of spam-removal tasks

[edit]
[edit]
  • I've tried bringing this up on the Template_talk:ICD9 page for the Template:ICD9, but the powers that be seem intent on defending large-scale spamming by the company Alkaline Software, Inc., on the grounds that removing spam should not be done at all unless there is general Wikipedia consensus on the topic... Unfortunately, Alkaline Software has now put in place literally thousands of Wikipedia links pointing to its reflector (http://icd9data.com) for World Health Organization data. You can see how many other reflectors for ICD9 data are out there on the ICD page, which itself notes that it is need of a spam cleanup. ICD9 data are a magnet for spammers all over the world, because the World Health Organization provides the data free of restrictions. However, that does not make some software company's reflector site a useful contribution to thousands of Wikipedia pages. It would be great if someone out there with the clout to overcome the "oh no we have to protect the spam unless there is a consensus against it" stonewalling could change the ICD9 template to point to something authoritative, like the actual author, the World Health Organization (which is where the ICD10 template points).
The "actual author" doesn't have the ICD9 online. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much could be improved as some links there can be used as references, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think all the links on Ukranians are legitamate; most are for references for the "Regions with significant populations" section. (also: I apologize if the next item runs on the side of my signature)

Anon126|talk|contribs

06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sites that need investigating

[edit]
Removed a few more today. -- Satori Son 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a decent site. I would keep these links if they are references or if they link to an article which is significantly better than Wikipedia's. Otherwise, we can delete them. These links shouldn't be deleted simply because they link to a competitor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this site uses Creative Commons, not the GFDL, so we can't simply put their articles on Wikipedia. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this is about several users who were systematically adding links to EoE, using WP as a promotional platform to this site. Bulk additions of links violate WP guidelines and adding links to a site where there is an affiliation is a conflict of interest. All links to EoE were not removed, just those added in the manner described above. The site has not been blacklisted; it is simply being watched to ensure the link spamming does not continue. Calltech 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this aggressively defensive policy really oversteps the mark, and that the use of the term spamming in this context is actually quite offensive. Adding relevant links to well-written external articles is a service to all WP readers. Surely there are far more important concerns than worrying about whether another decent, scholarly, non-commercial site gets some additional traffic from this one. And no, I don't have any connection whatsoever to the Encyclopedia of Earth. Although having now discovered it, I will be consulting it quite frequently from this point onwards. Rubywine 01:12, 16 May 2007
  • Dozens of extlinks to David Pietrusza's site which has linkdirs on various subjects. I've removed some of them but am not sure of the best way to handle this. Also I removed several dozen inappropriate links to dorothyparker.com mostly promoting "walking tours" of Dorothy Parker's old literary hangouts, that were in many articles related to Parker's literary circle. I left in a few which were outside article space or arguably met WP:EL guidelines, but the owner of that site (K72ndst (talk · contribs)) restored a bunch of them and there was a reversion contest (he's backed off for now), so someone might want to keep an eye on it (linksearch). Note that dorothyparker.com is not Parker's personal site (she is dead). The owner claims it's an "official" site but this strikes me as dubious--her entire estate went to the NAACP. I removed the link from Parker's biographical page and (after K72ndst reverted the removal) I removed it again and left K72ndst a talk message asking him to supply documentation before restoring the link. 67.117.130.181 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.emedicine.com seems to be popping up everywhere. The unobtrusive ads are not bad in and of themselves, but it fails WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 in most articles it is linked from. -Selket Talk 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon.com. Yup, you read that right. There are literally thousands of links to amazon.com, almost all of which should not be there. either we should be using the ISBN syntax or they are links to book cover images, which are being used as references for trivial facts (which is original research). The major problem is that these links can be subverted with referral ids. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they shouldn't be here. But often not spam as much as people who have no idea how to write a citation and link to the amazon page for the book instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that amazon.com is spam. Amazon is not worse than imdb. Of course, it is better to use ISBN for many reasons, but amazon is not inherently evil. The very fact that there are thousands of them should speak for itself. Do you really think that amazon guyz sit there and push these links into wikipedia? On the contrary, thousands of wikipedians think these links are a Good Thing, and a couple of spam warriors hardly have rights to outvote the rest of us. And on the contrary, I find that links to amazon author search are quite useful in articles about authors, since I have to regretfully say that amazon beats wikipedia in terms of lists of publications: way more up-to-date and comprehensive. `'Míkka 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.wisegeek.com, 94 links. Possibly being added innocently in a lot of cases, but this appears just to be a keyword-spam site where random editors write unsourced articles about "What is X?" so that they can be plastered with Google ads, so would fail WP:EL and WP:RS in every case. --McGeddon 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users to check out

[edit]
Not only that, he's doing the same thing in eS Cada (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Cada, where it has been shown that his additions are copyright violations! 68.39.174.238 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlists

[edit]

Lists of popular articles:

These are also frequently vandalized.

Technology articles are often prone to spam, as are lists, both stand-alone and embedded.

Informal watchlists:

Archives

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/To-do&oldid=1146378856"