Content deleted Content added
m moved MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/RfC to User:Gigs/blacklistRfC: moved from the MediaWiki namespace |
restored some of the removed facts, removed bias from others |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* Should we blacklist sites that pay authors for contributions, based on traffic, such as ehow.com, examiner.com, triond.com and associatedcontent.com? |
* Should we blacklist sites that pay authors for contributions, based on traffic, such as ehow.com, examiner.com, triond.com and associatedcontent.com? |
||
* Should the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of a source be a factor in |
* Should the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of a source be a factor in blacklisting or whitelisting decisions? |
||
==Background facts== |
==Background facts== |
||
The blacklist is a page in the [[Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace|MediaWiki namespace]]. Unlike the [[m:Spam blacklist|Meta blacklist]], this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. |
* The blacklist in question is a page in the [[Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace|MediaWiki namespace]]. Unlike the [[m:Spam blacklist|Meta blacklist]], this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. |
||
* Blacklisting is ''preemptive''. It prevents editors from saving a revision that adds a link or a reference to the blacklisted site. |
|||
* Blacklisting prevents editors from ''adding'' a [[hyperlink]] to the blacklisted site. |
* Blacklisting prevents editors from ''adding'' a [[hyperlink]] to the blacklisted site. |
||
* Blacklisting is abuse/evidence-based and should not be used Pre-emptively. |
* Blacklisting is abuse/evidence-based and should not be used Pre-emptively. |
||
* |
* Recent practice has been to refuse de-blacklisting based on the reliability or suitability of the source, as judged by the admin(s) who handle the request. Examples: [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2009#ehow.com|1]],[[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2009#atbriders.com|2]] |
||
* |
* Recent practice has been to consider the reliability of a site as one of the factors in blacklisting decisions. Examples: [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2009#Examiner.com|1]],[[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#triond.com|2]] |
||
* The blacklist extension has been in use since July of 2007 on the English Wikipedia, recently there has been an ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG#Purpose_of_the_spam_blacklist|ruling]]: |
* The blacklist extension has been in use since July of 2007 on the English Wikipedia, recently there has been an ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG#Purpose_of_the_spam_blacklist|ruling]]: |
||
{{Quote|As blacklisting is a method of last resort, methods including blocking, page protection, or the use of bots such as XLinkBot are to be used in preference to blacklisting. Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions. |ArbCom|''Passed 10 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ''}} |
{{Quote|As blacklisting is a method of last resort, methods including blocking, page protection, or the use of bots such as XLinkBot are to be used in preference to blacklisting. Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions. |ArbCom|''Passed 10 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ''}} |
||
* It is general practice to consider the status of the account requesting de-blacklisting or whitelisting (a.o. avoiding [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] issues) |
|||
* It is general practice in declined de-blacklisting requests to ask editors to consider specific whitelisting of specific documents which are needed |
|||
* It is general practice in whitelist requests to ask editors whether the linked documents are deemed necessary, and/or if there is consensus under editors that the specific document is needed |
|||
* Until recently, XLinkBot could not revert [[WP:REFSPAM]] |
|||
* XLinkBot can revert the addition of sites that are listed in it, however it will not re-revert if an editor adds them again or undos the bot's revert. It will also not revert established editors. |
|||
==Typical examples which show the persistence of the problem== |
==Typical examples which show the persistence of the problem== |
||
Line 34: | Line 40: | ||
) |
) |
||
==Should the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of a source be a factor in |
==Should the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of a source be a factor in blacklisting or whitelisting decisions?== |
||
===Arguments for=== |
===Arguments for=== |