Wikipedia talk:Wikibombing (SEO)

Further reading about main-page exposure
Hobit asked me to comment on this link in Further reading. I can't see what the objection could be. This essay discusses main-page exposure in Wikipedia as valuable in terms of SEO and promotion. The article Hobit objects to is about the value of main-page exposure in Wikipedia. It's therefore relevant further reading, and it's in the Further reading section. I don't know what else can be said about it. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have any guidelines/essays on what effects our main page might have on smaller sites? I'm thinking off the slashdot effect, or fireballing, where a reference to a smaller site on a widely read site results in what amounts to a denial of service attack when the small site cannot handle the sudden increase in load. If we have no guidance on that, it might be worth including here. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that it is pure coincidence that it happens to concern an article written by Cirt? Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, my objections can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Wikibombing (SEO). Basically this article, IMO (and in the opinion of many others from the MfD) was started as an attack on Cirt.  Finding new "Cirt-related" material did seem troubling and your continued insistence at adding it back makes it seem that you are missing the issues that others have identified.  It seems you are unwilling to drop the "beat Cirt" stick here.  I'd hope that's not your intent, but given how this essay started (and your contributions there to) I'd hope you can see that others might perceive it that way.   Hobit (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't mention Cirt. We can't not add something relevant just because Cirt wrote the article the writer discusses. The topic of the piece—the value of main-page exposure on Wikipedia—is clearly relevant to the topic of this essay. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the section everyone at MfD was to be removed also didn't mention Cirt. Do you see why people are conserned here?  This essay, by general agreement, was being used as an inappropriate attack on Cirt.  That was fixed.  Now you are re-adding material related to Cirt. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the relevance is self-evident. I don't care if the piece refers to an article written by the Man in the Moon, and nor should you. If you're concerned about the focus on one article, by all means look for other pieces about the same issue to add to FR too. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant? This essay says: "Wikibombing is the use of search engine optimization (SEO) techniques for the purpose of maximizing the search engine results ranking of topics covered in Wikipedia." The linked piece says nothing whatsoever about search engine results. Nor is there any indication that any SEO techniques were ever used on Wikipedia in relation to it. All it shows is that a piece linked from Wikipedia had a brief increase in usage when it was the subject of a featured article. That is such a trivial fact that it is hardly worth mentioning. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand the point we're trying to make about articles, especially featured articles, on the main page. If I'm not mistaken, the conceit is that virtually any article for which sufficient are available could be brought to FA status, and that doing so is a good thing. We all know that being on the main page dramatically increases page views, if only for a day or two. Is the idea that we should not feature articles about commercial products, politicians or political campaigns and issues, or anything controversial?   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sort of. Just like DYKs are, according to DYK rules, not supposed to be promoting a side in ongoing controversies, this article is a reminder that we have the same responsibility with TFAs. That's not to say that the Time article wasn't an appropriate candidate for TFA -- it surely was. But there should be no recognisable party line in our main page content, especially as it relates to ongoing controversies. For example, it would probably be inappropriate to run a FA on Obama's birth controversy just before the elections. What this article demonstrates is that content on our main page can have a significant real-world impact. Does that make sense? -- J N  466  00:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the ongoing controversy regarding the Time article? Wouldn't almost any article about Israel, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Eastern Europe, Tory politics, and the speed of light also be about what some could call ongoing controversies? Heck, in some large parts of the US, the American Civil War is still a controversial topic.   Will Beback    talk    00:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to argue that we could never appear to be promoting one side, or that we always do, whatever we put on the main page. Is that your argument? -- J N  466  00:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question: what ongoing controversy does the Time article concern?
 * As for your question, I assume that FA articles are in compliance with NPOV and, as such, do not favor one side over another. If the WP FA'ed article in question is not neutral then that's really a separate issue than SEO.   Will Beback    talk    01:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving all else aside for now, it's just not credible to say that it makes no difference what's featured as long as it's NPOV. If in the week before the election we feature a scroupously neutral article on abortion, that will have one effect. If we feature our extensive, well referenced, and perfectly NPOV article on the history of US economic growth, that will be different. If Transportation Security Administration, different again. Can anyone seriously maintain that any partisan wouldn't love to choose what would be on the main page before the election? Tom Harrison Talk 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know there's a guideline about not adding DYKs related to politics in the period immediately before a relevant election. But that's really an issue for Today's featured article/requests. I think that if someone tried to promoted a clearly political article then there'd be significant opposition. Have any slipped through the system, or is this just a red herring?   Will Beback    talk    02:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen no answer about the "ongoing controversy" concerning the Time article. I think that we'd be underestimating editors, readers, and the project as a whole if we try to say that articles on controversial topics should not be on the main page, either as FA, DYK, or selected anniversaries. 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * SV: do you understand that people are worried that this essay was used to attack one editor? Do you understand that your actions can reasonably be perceived as continuing that attack?  Hobit (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful here to keep this essay as some general comments. What I was trying to get at above, and forgive me for being unclear, is that if we include a page on the main page, with links to a site not capable of handling a lot of traffic, we can inadvertently cause a DOS on that site. Time was obviously able to handle the load, and (since I don't ever go to the main page), I have no idea if we have caused something like this, but I do run into this issue about once a week follow back stories on Ars, Daring Fireball, etc. I'm not concerned about NPOV, as we have policies and guidelines for that, and I see that as outside the scope here. What would like to add is something to the effect that we should keep in mind potential side effects on other sites we may have when we feature articles in prominent locations on WP. I do not think we understand now, or perhaps ever will be able to predict with any real accuracy how we will influence the ecosystem of the internet, but I do think we should recognize that we are an elephant compared to most other sites and should think about possible negative effects our actions may have. In terms of the attack question, I think for this essay, we have lots of time to work out issues here, so we can leave out anything that might be considered a linkage for the time being until the questions around the attack are resolved and those issues fade in the minds of most editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any response at all to the issues I've raised (and others have at least acknowledged here and at the MfD). It's my intent to again remove that link as there seems to be no support it's needed and B) at least some sense it can be reasonably perceived as continuing an attack on Cirt. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The link is certainly useful and informative. It says "The recent bump in traffic to Behar’s article reflects the power of the Wikipedia home page in driving reader interest. Before Wikipedia linked to the article, it was the 22nd most popular article on Time.com. After the link, it was the 2nd most popular." It's not attacking anyone, and should be kept. Tom Harrison Talk 22:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no rush, could we compromise on the notion that we remove it for the time being and seek additional sources for similar information which might inform discussion further? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not compromise by leaving it for now and seeking additional sources? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ask, and ye shall receive. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's great, we can add those too. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've not addressed the issue I've raised yet by the way. Do you A) understand that many folks (see the MfD) believed this page was an inappropriate attack on a single user and B) it's not unreasonable to see this selected link as a further attack? I'm pretty sure this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked... Hobit (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, do you understand that this page was an attack on a single user and that this article happens to be about actions of the same user? Hobit (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hobit, in fact this essay was not an attack, any more than WP:HONESTY or WP:CRED was or is an attack. The linked article is not about the actions of a single user, but even if it were, there is no consensus we should disallow external links to articles that do attack our users. Tom Harrison Talk 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think folks at the MfD (linked above) would disagree with you on that. Don't recall if  you participated there, but I think it's fair to say that the consesnous was that this was an attack and we should generally accept that as we discuss this rather this. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to drop this due to my unwillingness to edit war. But the stonewalling (refusal by SV to address the relevant issue of this being a further use of this essay as an attack on a single user) on this is really disappointing. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bombing editors
"Google bomb" was coined to describe the use of webpages to connect a derogatory comment with an individual. Is there a problem with using Wikipedia pages to attack Wikipedia editors, using much the same technique? For example, Let's say that some editors are trying to disparage an editor. Wouldn't posting many complaints and links to those complaints, about that editor have the effect of "bombing" them?  Will Beback   talk    01:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The wiki is a microcosm of the wider world. It depends whose ox is being gored. Tom Harrison Talk 02:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you feel that Essjay was being "bombed" and "attacked" by the people who wrote WP:HONESTY, WP:CRED, Credentials_matter, Credentials_are_irrelevant and so forth, and that we should therefore delete those pages. -- J N  466  05:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a rather defensive response. I don't know anything about WP:HONESTY, etc., or the motives behind them. If those are relevant could you please explain the connection? I'm not proposing deleting anything. I'm proposing adding something to this essay about internal wikibombing.    Will Beback    talk    06:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This essay, and WP:ACTIVIST, are the among the first times I've ever seen editors actually revert war over the essay's content (as Will has done with this essay, discussed in a separate thread above). An essay is a statement of opinion.  That being said, the expression of ideas in essays apparently makes some editors, who have a different philosophy of how Wikipedia should operate, nervous and feel threatened.  They shouldn't feel this way.  Essays should be used as one mechanism for give and take and debate on ideas for how to manage Wikipedia.  If editors have different opinions on an essay's topic, they really should write their own essay in response.  I think they will find that the editors of this essay will not revert war or attack the them for writing their essay, but welcome the exchange of ideas. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert War? If I've revert warred then please file a post at WP:EW. Otherwise, please don't make the accusation. A single revert does not make a revert war.   Will Beback    talk    02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is generally understood in Wikipedia that you don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring. Reverting another editor shortly after the editor takes the time to add something to a page is unnecesarily rude and confrontational when the talk page is open and available for discussion.  I predict that if you wrote your own essay in rebuttal of WP:ACTIVIST or this essay, that the editors you have reverted in these two essays won't be revert warring you on those.  Cla68 (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've only made one revert to this essay. If you think that reverting your addition of an unsourced quotation is an example of bad editing, then I'd be happy to discuss it at AN.
 * Your activity here is an excellent example of my point about 'wikibombing' editors. If we go around saying things like "Everyone knows Joe33 is a plagiarizer" or "Joe33, this is the tenth time you've plagiarized material in this article", without ever establishing that the user is in fact a plagiarizer, then that spreads an unsupported meme. It seems about the same as saying, over and over, that George W. Bush is incompetent or that Santorum is a frothy mixture. Wikipedia editors are living people, and BLP applies to them the same as anyone else. This page is searched by Google just like an article is, so it's just another form of Googlebombing via Wikipedia. Making unproven claims repeatedly in a variety of forums could be perceived by the community as an intentional effort to promote a negative meme about an editor.    Will Beback    talk    07:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If any editor sets their standard of editing etiquette by how it would stand up at AN, I encourage them to try to set it a little higher than that. If editors, especially established ones, would try to be a little nicer to each other, such as by not reverting each other without discussion first, I think the project would be a nicer place for participation by all. Cla68 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, you have touched upon an issue that I've been wondering about, specifically, why do we not block indexing of talk pages and user pages? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Some actual SEO webmaster has recommended using talk pages to promote links, for example. Aside from our own convenience, there's no reason that article and user talk pages need to be indexed.   Will Beback    talk    11:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there any instances of this actually happening?
I'm unfamiliar with the background behind this essay, but I presume it must have been written for a reason. It seems to be tied up with a particular recent controversy, but there's a dispute over whether that's actually a good example of it. So: are there any undisputed examples of Wikipedia being abused for search engine optimisation? (That is, cases where a user has clearly been intentionally editing Wikipedia to help promote something on search engines, as opposed to cases where that is an unintentional result of their editing.) If there are, can we mention them in the essay? If there aren't, then is this something we really need to warn against, if it hasn't actually happened yet? Robofish (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's too much emphasis on search engines. Speaking as a late-comer to this, and not having written any part of the essay, what seems to be being described are attempts to promote ideas, similar to what advocates for fringe theories do. It's not so much about moving a web site higher in Google as it is about legitimizing a theory or word in public discourse. Just as a series of articles about cod fishing, if it appears in the Washington Post, makes cod fishing important news, an idea prominent on Wikipedia becomes an important idea. The concern seems to be that one or a few editors with an agenda and lots of time can manipulate Wikipedia to artifically raise the prominence of, or legitimize, an idea or word. Certainly every fringe promoter worth his salt knows this intuitively. That's why they come here. And all of us recoginze and condemn such promotion, unless the guy doing is in on our side; then we turn a blind eye. All the more so if the idea being promoted is a good one, and the guy doing the promotion is sticking it to a pompous totalitarian CO2-emitter (maybe someone has made up a word for such people...) Of course there is an elephant in the room, but by definition we aren't supposed to talk about those, so I can't help you there. Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be generally inappropriate for an essay to mention editor names, as an essay shouldn't be used for dispute resolution. There has been one recent incident which a number of editors feel was the deliberate use of Wikipedia to try to give more web exposure to an activist's campaign.  Tom is right that activist editors do often try to use Wikipedia to promote their causes, whether mainstream, fringe, or other.  This case, however, was different in the amount of effort and number of methods used to possibly increase the web exposure.  I can't, off the top of my head, think of another, similar case in Wikipedia history. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be more useful, and more in keeping with the wiki, to write a counter essay. I'd support linking it from this one, and vice versa. Cla, I suppose the most successful campaigns remain unknown. Tom Harrison Talk 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also support linking rebuttal essays to this one. It would probably be a more helpful effort by the editors who disagree with the premise of this essay. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See topic below: "Generalized instances of wikibombing". -Wikid77 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Generalized instances of wikibombing
01-July-2011: Due to concerns of promoting attacks about specific editors or articles, we can just talk about the generalized real cases (rather than name articles), such as a navbox for a barely notable rock band, where each member, or song, is listed in the navbox. While the individual band members or songs are typically NOT notable beyond a famous album, a navbox has been created, with redlinks to member names and song titles, as if preparing that each item will gain "individual notability" (wide news coverage beyond the whole band). Then that navbox is tacked to the bottom of remotely-related articles, such as a large festival in which the band briefly appeared, but using the navbox to name every member and song, even if they were not individually noted in major reports about the festival. The navbox is being used as the "boxified contents" of an article tacked onto another article, to "text-spam" the detailed band member names and songs, where a simple wikilink to the band article would have been within WP:UNDUE limits of extra text. In another example, a person's article is linked in the intro lede text of a remotely related famous person, major city or invention: "rocker [John Q. Publicson] was very popular in this city's 2007 Music Festival" or "researcher [John Q. Publicman] was on the team of 20 which tested this major medical advancement" (similar to real text placed in the top lede paragraphs of a city or invention). There are many similar cases, where the rare article or redlinked names are placed in several other remotely related articles, with prominent top-placement or eye-catching navboxes. Those are some generalized examples of real instances where wikibombing occurred, when there was no essay to deter the pattern of excessive linking or copying of text. I hope that explains the reality, without targetting any specific articles. -Wikid77 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It just seems like a variety of WP:SOAP (§1). I don't see how this warrants an essay on its own. --2.106.255.42 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Topics to avoid in essay
01-July-2011: This essay should not mention many actual-case specifics, to avoid being used as an attack page of specific articles or editors. Some people have noted how there has been a temptation to use the essay to pinpoint specfic cases, in extreme detail, which can make the essay lose NPOV-neutral balance for many general readers of the topic. Instead, examples could be generalized, briefly, as almost hypothetical cases. Otherwise, if a specific political party were used as an example, then an NPOV balance to note numerous other political parties could be expected as related examples. However, the essay could offer some counts as to how many redlinks in a navbox would seem excessive, or how many articles should contain a navbox, compared to the number of wikilinks within that navbox. What are some other topics to avoid within the essay, to keep the topic focused on the general concepts of wikibombing? -Wikid77 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So I heard you like WikiBombs, so we added a WikiBomb to your WikiBomb...
Perhaps it's me, but it feels like the "See Also" section is duplicating several essays to try and get this essay more notice. Therefore, I'd like to recommend that the see also be narrowed to be
 * Wikipedia:Advocacy
 * Wikipedia:Bombardment
 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
 * Wikipedia:Soap

The problem is many of these are very tangentially related (or were present in the occurrence that spawned this essay) but not applicable everywhere. WP:SOAP and WP:ADVERTISING go to the exact same section. Hearing no objections, I intend to make this change in about a week (give everyone plenty of time to discuss). I am proposing the change this way as I prefer Discuss, Change, Revert, Discuss on content that is contentious. And yes, my title for the section is poking fun at the essay at this time Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikibombing does not exist
That is the conclusion of a detailed experiment that I've been running to evaluate whether claims of "Wikibombing" have any validity. For them to have validity, it must be the case that specific editorial activities on Wikipedia have a measurable effect on the ranking of articles by major search engines (focusing on Google as the overwhelming market leader). However, the experiment that I have been carrying out suggests that consciously attempting to influence search rankings through such methods as adding templates, greatly increasing the number of inbound links and even having articles appear on the Main Page makes no measurable impact on search rankings. A number of editors suggested above that a counter-essay should be produced and linked from this one; I intend to write one, based on the findings of this experiment.

A writeup of the experiment can be read at User:Prioryman/Use of SEO techniques on Wikipedia. I would welcome any feedback from editors on my findings. Prioryman (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is currently a related discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I have linked to your findings there. -- J N  466  18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that discussion so thanks for linking my findings there. Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pleasure. -- J N  466  23:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Literally an entire ABC article celebrating and encouraging people to Wikibomb
Just, uh, a heads up. It appears there's a concerted effort to Wikibomb going on. And those involved are too stupid to have kept their actions secret.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-14/women-scientists-work-to-right-wrongs-with-wikibomb/5671332?WT.mc_id=Innovation_News|OnlineActivistsUseWikibombToGiveGreaterRecognitionToWorkOfFemaleScientistsOnWikipedia_FBP|abc

Should we be dealing with the articles in question? Especially since they're doing so with a deliberate agenda (hiding male scientists, flooding us with unsources and deletion worthy feminist articles). 106.69.83.44 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Harlequin
 * This is an entirely different thing, so different, that your comparison suggest that you haven't actually read the article in question. That said, it suggests a change in title is in order for this page, but I'm not sure what to. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)