Wikipedia talk:Send in the clones

message: Is there any way each page a clone adopts can have built in a message to the effect that if the punters want the most up to date version they will have to look at Wikipedia? I am tracking some of the stuff I have written in recent weeks and apart from Google itself which can be fairly quick, these clones are often weeks out of date, which for fast-moving stuff is not very good.Apwoolrich 15:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we have not control over what the clones have to put on their pages. Demanding they put such a message would be called demanding an "invariant section" in the terminology of the GNU FDL. Wikipedia has no invariant sections, and can not introduce them now because it would not be backwards compatibile with previous submissions. Thus we are relying on good faith for clones to point back to Wikipedia saying "hey; these are the good guys". Unfortunately this sort of good faith is incompatible with the clones' commercial aspirations. Pcb21| Pete 15:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: Originally at the village pump
I've started a page at Wikipedia:Send in the clones to discuss this. Any comments? -- The Anome 14:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Say what you will, but two wrongs don't make a right. Much of what passes as SEO is really just plain Googlebombing. If you're talking about real SEO, that'd involve things like correct page structure, etc. which I believe we already have. Besides, if we play dirty, there's a chance Google will later demote us in search rankings. Overall, optimise only if its legal, and doesn't involve some dirty trick. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia clones and search engine ratings 

message: I LOVE the idea of a self-linking link in each article - put it in the bit that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia"! Irregardless of the Google issue, it REALLY helps with ensuring mirrors have a link to attribution of authors (necessary for not violating GFDL/p*ssing us all off). Plus, it helps the Google ranking issue (big time I suspect - probably will ensure we are always no. 1). And we do need to be no. 1, for all those non-cautious people who click "I'm feeling lucky". It's a lot preferable for people to go here rather than a static or slowly updated mirror. Any "snapshop" of Wikipedia can conceivably (and probably does) have "trapped" vandalism (that is probably going to be fixed right after) - even possibly on major articles. Such things bring Wikipedia into disrepute. zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better idea would be to help the mirrors by making it easier for them to download the list of authors themselves.  Help us by allowing us to easily determine when an article needs to be updated.  A better mirror provides better exposure for Wikipedia, and this is where we should be focussing, not on sneaky googlebombing techniques designed to subvert search engines. anthony (see warning) 14:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, the problem is that on Wikipedia the vandalism is fixed quickly, but on some of the mirrors there are year-old vandalisms that still haven't been replaced.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but vandalism is *created* equally quickly... so although the mirrors will have *old* vandalism they won't have the new vandalism. If the amount of vandalism on WP stays roughly constant over the time, then all mirrors and this site will have the same amount. Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" could be a link to itself (the current article page) with a css thing for no underline and black text. Therefore it looks like a normal text.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't in the database, though. anthony (see warning) 20:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Seems like it'd be a pain to code, but if done it would be the best solution.  anthony (see warning) 02:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Police the licence

message: On some subjects, the clones are making finding non-wikipedia content harder to find.  The obvious answer is to put -wikipedia in the search box.  But even that does not work for all cases: for example Google "as a pedestrian tunnel and is now occupied by" -wikipedia chooses a phrase which does not occur anywhere else and (today) turns up:
*encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com 
*wikiverse.org 
*namweb.com.na 
*goobig.org (wordiq.com)  
In some cases it seems the link back to wikipedia.org uses javascript to prevent the word appearing in the source code. A real pain.--Henrygb 14:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Search -wikipedia

message: We should not be so competitive with other wikis.--Arceus fan 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment