Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-11/In the news

Yes I have been seeing more an more of this. People from other sites not here to improve Wikipedia content but only to add links to their own sites. Something may need to be done to prevent this... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The worst part of this problem, believe it or not, has already been handled successfully with the "no follow" tag implicitly added to all external links. That deterred the professional spammers. As for the rest -- well, our only tools remain education, reverting undesirable edits, & user sanctions. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The current offline Wikipedia release has 47,000 articles. I wonder how it compares to th Britannica Concise. Rmhermen (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If people have been entering references to their own work on the History & Policy site, they are doing so against our conflict of interest and reliable source policies, as the papers there are not peer-reviewed, though they must be " based on peer-reviewed or published historical research"  (from that site's papers/submit page -- it  is now on our external links blacklist). They ought to, first,  use instead   their relevant work that has actually been published in a peer-reviewed journal,but suggest the reference on the talk page & ask it be exempted from the blacklist, (they might also include the history & Policy link if it closely corresponds to their paper, & is the most accessible source) and see if someone else moves it to the article. Of course, some may be experts to the unusual extent that even their unrefereed work is a reliable source, but then all the more it should be suggested only on the talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)