Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) at 12:56, 25 June 2011 (Revert apparent attempt to comprimise integrity of Misplaced Pages.). 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 use of search engine optimization (SEO) techniques for the purpose of maximizing the search engine results ranking of topics covered in Misplaced Pages, thereby elevating their prominence in the service of commercial interests, non-profit groups, spiritual communities, political advocacy, or other causes.

Background

The only claimed instance of Wikibombing has concerned an article on the "santorum" neologism.

The Campaign for "santorum" neologism article

The term "wikibombing" came to public attention in June 2011 via a story in The Register about the Misplaced Pages article campaign for "santorum" neologism. The Misplaced Pages article describes a Google bomb campaign by American columnist Dan Savage directed against the Republican politician Rick Santorum. The aim of the campaign was to create a vulgar sexual neologism out of Santorum's surname, and spread it via the blogosphere.

In late April and early May 2011 the press reported that Santorum might run for president of the United States. In early May the article on Dan Savage's campaign—then titled "Santorum (sexual neologism)," and giving the impression that the word had entered into use—was expanded more than three-fold to over 5,000 words and added to several navigation templates, most of them newly created. These templates were 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; two appeared on the main page on the same day.

As the article about the neologism campaign became one of the top results in Google searches for Santorum's name, some editors, including Jimbo Wales, expressed concern that the article had become part of the Google bomb attack, rather than simply reporting it. They argued that this compromised the project's political neutrality and violated Misplaced Pages's policy on biographical material about 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, the story in The Register on the "wikibombing" incident, and the decision of more than one editor to retire because of the situation.

Guidance

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 can be confused with its perpetuation—these practices require caution to avoid the appearance of promotion.

The following actions may create the appearance of promotion, both within the Misplaced Pages community and elsewhere:

• creating excessively detailed coverage on a topic (such as 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 (this may raise SEO concerns);
• submitting multiple related articles for main page appearances (e.g., in the "Did you know ...", "Today's featured article", or "Selected anniversaries" areas).

Such actions, undertaken unilaterally, may leave the community unsure of your motivations. Before pursuing the above, 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 promotion.

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. When dealing with a political controversy or suspected SEO attempt, discuss the apparent promotion with the involved editors and, if necessary, seek broad input on talk pages, noticeboards and WikiProjects.

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:Paid editing
• WP:Search engine optimization
• WP:Soap

References

1. ^ Metz, Cade. "Misplaced Pages awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics", The Register, 20 June 2011.
2. Mencimer, Stephanie. "Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem", Mother Jones, September/October 2010.
3. Example; also see note to Jimbo Wales, June 24, 2011.

Further reading

• Taylor, Mike. "Misplaced Pages Breathes New Life Into Seminal Scientology Expose", FishbowlNY, March 15, 2010.

• Misplaced Pages essays
• Misplaced Pages guidance essays