Misplaced Pages

:Wikibombing (SEO): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:39, 22 June 2011 editKhazar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled29,078 edits →Origin: expanded reactions a bit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:57, 9 December 2021 edit undoJmccormac (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,226 edits Rm repeated linkspam from persistent spammer IP./Undid revision 1059419816 by 122.170.31.179 (talk)Tag: Undo 
(116 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫ {{otheruses|WP:BOMB}}
{{redirect|WP:BOMB|the essay on overuse of tags|Misplaced Pages:Tag bombing|overuse of citations|Misplaced Pages:Bombardment}}
{{Guidance essay|WP:SEOBOMB}}


'''Wikibombing''' is a neologism that describes the appearance that an editor may be using ] (SEO) techniques in order to maximize the ] ranking of any topic or topics covered in Misplaced Pages. The term is a reference to the well-established practice of ]ing.
{{essay}}
⚫ {{shortcut|WP:BOMB}}


==Characteristics==
'''Wikibombing''' refers to the unwelcome practice of using article creation and/or various ] (SEO) techniques for purposes of maximizing the ] ranking of topics covered in Misplaced Pages, and thereby elevating their prominence in the service of commercial interests or political or social advocacy.
The following actions may create the appearance of promotion, both within the Misplaced Pages community and elsewhere. Such actions, undertaken unilaterally and without discussion on an appropriate talkpage, may leave the community unsure of your motivations:


⚫ * Providing excessively detailed coverage of a topic, such as a commercial product, politician, or religious leader. This may be done by citing and linking dozens of trivial references, rather than a representative sample of major coverage.
==Origin==
⚫ * Creating multiple navigation templates or portals that link to an article, and adding these to multiple unrelated articles.
] has various definitions of "wikibombing" dating back to 2008 (none corresponding exactly to the sense discussed herein).<ref>, ]</ref>
* Inserting prose into articles which gives undue praise towards a subject.


==What can be done to avoid wikibombing?==
The term was used in the above sense in a report by '']'' in June 2011 on the Misplaced Pages article ].<ref name=reg>Metz, Cade (20 June 2011). , '']'', 20 June 2011</ref> The Misplaced Pages article describes a ] campaign by U.S. columnist ] directed against the Republican politician ].
⚫ Editors are advised to avoid boldly adding material which could be perceived as promotional. Before adding material that could fall under this criterion (see above), editors are encouraged to seek broad input from talk pages, noticeboards and relevant WikiProjects to determine the boundary between legitimate coverage and promotion.


==Dealing with a wikibomb attempt==
Shortly after the press reported in late April and early May 2011 that Santorum might run for president of the United States, the article on Dan Savage's campaign, then titled "santorum (neologism)", was expanded more than three-fold, to a length of over 5,000 words, and added to several navigation templates, most of them newly created. These templates were then added to hundreds of articles, creating several hundred ]. In addition, seven articles related to Dan Savage, whose biography contains a section on the controversy and a link to the article, were nominated for DYK appearances on the main page within the space of about a week. Some editors argued that these actions represented tendentious editing and advocacy, while others argued that they were standard practice for a prolific contributor.
⚫ When encountering the apparent promotion of a topic by another editor or editors, it is important to ]. It's natural to want to link to articles that you've been working hard on, and editors may fall into the trap of promotion without realizing it. None of the actions listed above proves that the editor has a conflict of interest, or is editing for political or commercial reasons; these behaviors are often part of normal editing and in fact are sometimes encouraged. Editors who behave as described above often have no intention of boosting search rankings and may be unaware that they are doing so.


=="Coverage" vs. perpetuation==
As the article about the neologism campaign was one of the top results in Google searches for Santorum's name,<ref name=reg /> some editors, including Jimbo Wales, expressed concern that it had become part of the Google bomb attack, rather than simply reporting it. They argued that this compromised the project's political neutrality and raised concerns related to Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The result was widespread controversy on Misplaced Pages, a discussion on the ], an , a , and a critical report in ''The Register'' on the "wikibombing".<ref name=reg/>
⚫ Creating or expanding articles, linking them with templates, and nominating them for DYK are standard Misplaced Pages practices. In the case of noted SEO attempts, Google bombs, or other political controversies—in which ''coverage'' of the SEO attempt might be confused with its ''perpetuation''—these practices require caution to avoid the appearance of promotion.


Since the goal of Misplaced Pages is to be a widely used encyclopedic resource, high page rankings and page rank boosting edits are not to be avoided per se. Misplaced Pages would hardly be fulfilling its project mandates if its pages couldn't be found easily, that is to say near the top of any relevant list of search results. It is when Misplaced Pages and/or its relevant article becomes a part of the very story being covered that more vigorous pruning may be warranted. Please refer to the applicable policies{{which}} for further details.
==Guidance==
⚫ Creating or expanding multiple articles on a topic, linking them with templates, and promoting them through '''"Did you know ..."''' (]) are standard, encouraged Misplaced Pages practices. However, in the case of noted SEO attempts, Google Bombs, or other political controversies in which ''coverage'' of the SEO attempt/controversy can be confused with ''perpetuation'' of the SEO attempt/controversy, these practices require more caution. While these topics often must be covered by Misplaced Pages, editors should be cautious to avoid an appearance of ''overpromotion''.

The following actions may create an unintentional appearance of advocacy or promotionalism, both within the community and without:

⚫ *Creating excessively detailed coverage on the topic (such as citing and linking dozens of trivial references, rather than a representative sample of major coverage)
⚫ *Creating multiple navigation templates containing the article, or adding a template containing the article to other, unrelated articles (this may raise SEO concerns)
*Submitting multiple articles related to the same SEO attempt or controversy for main page appearances via DYK

⚫ These actions, while potentially undertaken in good faith, may leave the community unsure of your motivations. Before pursuing the above actions, editors are encouraged to seek broad input from talk pages, noticeboards, relevant WikiProjects, or (in the case of DYK nominations) ], to determine the boundary between legitimate coverage and overpromotion.

⚫ When encountering the apparent overpromotion of a topic by another editor or editors, it is important to remember to ], regardless of initial appearances. It's natural to want to link and promote articles that you've been working hard on, and editors may fall into the trap of overpromotion without realizing it. However, in the case of a known SEO attempt or major political controversy, this particularly needs to be corrected. Discuss the apparent overpromotion with the involved editors and, if necessary, seek broad input from talk pages and WikiProjects per the above.


==See also== ==See also==
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*] *]
*] ("Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute <u>should be avoided</u>.") *{{slink|WP:DYK|Selection criteria}} ("Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute <u>should be avoided</u>.")
*]
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*] *]
*] *]


⚫ ]
==References==
{{reflist}}
⚫ ]

Latest revision as of 09:57, 9 December 2021

For other uses, see WP:BOMB. Essay on editing Misplaced Pages
This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.		Shortcut

Wikibombing is a neologism that describes the appearance that an editor may be using search engine optimization (SEO) techniques in order to maximize the search engine results ranking of any topic or topics covered in Misplaced Pages. The term is a reference to the well-established practice of Google bombing.

Characteristics

The following actions may create the appearance of promotion, both within the Misplaced Pages community and elsewhere. Such actions, undertaken unilaterally and without discussion on an appropriate talkpage, may leave the community unsure of your motivations:

  • Providing excessively detailed coverage of a topic, such as a commercial product, politician, or religious leader. This may be done by citing and linking dozens of trivial references, rather than a representative sample of major coverage.
  • Creating multiple navigation templates or portals that link to an article, and adding these to multiple unrelated articles.
  • Inserting prose into articles which gives undue praise towards a subject.

What can be done to avoid wikibombing?

Editors are advised to avoid boldly adding material which could be perceived as promotional. Before adding material that could fall under this criterion (see above), editors are encouraged to seek broad input from talk pages, noticeboards and relevant WikiProjects to determine the boundary between legitimate coverage and promotion.

Dealing with a wikibomb attempt

When encountering the apparent promotion of a topic by another editor or editors, it is important to assume good faith. It's natural to want to link to articles that you've been working hard on, and editors may fall into the trap of promotion without realizing it. None of the actions listed above proves that the editor has a conflict of interest, or is editing for political or commercial reasons; these behaviors are often part of normal editing and in fact are sometimes encouraged. Editors who behave as described above often have no intention of boosting search rankings and may be unaware that they are doing so.

"Coverage" vs. perpetuation

Creating or expanding articles, linking them with templates, and nominating them for DYK are standard Misplaced Pages practices. In the case of noted SEO attempts, Google bombs, or other political controversies—in which coverage of the SEO attempt might be confused with its perpetuation—these practices require caution to avoid the appearance of promotion.

Since the goal of Misplaced Pages is to be a widely used encyclopedic resource, high page rankings and page rank boosting edits are not to be avoided per se. Misplaced Pages would hardly be fulfilling its project mandates if its pages couldn't be found easily, that is to say near the top of any relevant list of search results. It is when Misplaced Pages and/or its relevant article becomes a part of the very story being covered that more vigorous pruning may be warranted. Please refer to the applicable policies for further details.

See also

Category:
Misplaced Pages:Wikibombing (SEO): Difference between revisions Add topic