Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khazar (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 22 June 2011 (→Origin: expanded reactions a bit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

• WP:BOMB

Wikibombing refers to the unwelcome practice of using article creation and/or various search engine optimization (SEO) techniques for purposes of maximizing the search engine results ranking of topics covered in Misplaced Pages, and thereby elevating their prominence in the service of commercial interests or political or social advocacy.

Origin

Urban Dictionary has various definitions of "wikibombing" dating back to 2008 (none corresponding exactly to the sense discussed herein).

The term was used in the above sense in a report by The Register in June 2011 on the Misplaced Pages article campaign for "santorum" neologism. The Misplaced Pages article describes a Google bomb campaign by U.S. columnist Dan Savage directed against the Republican politician Rick Santorum.

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-bound links. 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.

As the article about the neologism campaign was one of the top results in Google searches for Santorum's name, 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 biographies of living persons. The result was widespread controversy on Misplaced Pages, a discussion on the wikien-l mailing list, an RfC on renaming or merging the article, a failed request for arbitration, and a critical report in The Register on the "wikibombing".

Guidance

Creating or expanding multiple articles on a topic, linking them with templates, and promoting them through "Did you know ..." (DYK) 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) the DYK talk page, 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 assume good faith, 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

• WP:Activist
• WP:Advocacy
• WP:Advertising
• WP:Coatrack
• WP:DYK#Selection_criteria ("Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.")
• nofollow
• WP:NPOV
• WP:Search engine optimization
• WP:Soap

References

1. Wikibomb, Urban Dictionary
2. ^ Metz, Cade (20 June 2011). "Misplaced Pages awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics", The Register, 20 June 2011

• Misplaced Pages essays
• Misplaced Pages guidance essays