Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayen466 (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 22 June 2011 (→See also: +1). 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

This page in a nutshell: Seek broad input to avoid the appearance of advocacy.

Wikibombing refers to the unwelcome practice of using article creation and various search engine optimization (SEO) techniques for purposes of maximizing the search engine results ranking of topics covered in Misplaced Pages, and thereby elevating their prominence in the service of commercial interests or political or social advocacy.

Origin

Urban Dictionary has various definitions of "Wikibombing" dating back to 2008 (none corresponding exactly to the sense discussed herein). The term has been used in connection with SEO techniques as well.

The term was used in a report by The Register on the Misplaced Pages article campaign for "santorum" neologism. The Misplaced Pages article describes a Google bomb campaign by U.S. columnist Dan Savage directed against the Republican politician Rick Santorum.

Shortly after the press reported in late April and early May 2011 that Santorum might be running for president of the United States, the article on Dan Savage's campaign, then titled "santorum (neologism)", was expanded more than three-fold, to a length of over 5,000 words, and added to several navigation templates, most of them newly created. As the article came to occupy the top spot in Google searches for Santorum's surname, many editors became concerned that the article had become a part of the Google bomb attack, rather than reporting on it, thus compromising the project's political neutrality as well as raising concerns related to Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons. The result was widespread controversy on Misplaced Pages, the wikien-l mailing list, and a critical report in The Register on the "wikibombing".

Guidance

When creating or expanding (sub)articles related to high-profile controversies, consider appearances and effects. The following actions may create an appearance of advocacy, both within the community and without:

• Creating exceptionally detailed coverage of a controversial topic already subject to online campaigning
• Creating new navigation templates containing the article, and adding these to multiple unrelated articles (this may raise SEO concerns)
• Submitting related articles for main page appearances (e.g. in the "Did you know ..." or "Today's featured article" areas)

Such actions, undertaken unilaterally, may leave the community unsure of your motivations, and cause bad feeling and disruption. It is best to avoid this, and to seek broad input on talk pages, at noticeboards or from WikiProjects before going ahead.

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.")
• WP:NPOV
• WP:Search engine optimization
• WP:Soap

References

1. Wikibomb, Urban Dictionary
2. Operation Wiki Bomb?, Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Avtomat, May 1, 2009
3. Metz, Cade (20 June 2011). "Misplaced Pages awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics", The Register, 20 June 2011

• Misplaced Pages essays