Wikipedia talk:Spam and Charles Darwin: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Multiple requests for help.
 
Barbara Shack (talk | contribs)
 
Line 1:
{{dablink|For other uses see [[Darwin (disambiguation)]]}}
See also:
[[Image:Charles_Darwin_1881.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In his lifetime Charles Darwin gained international fame as a controversial and influential scientist.]]
* [[talk:wikispam]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Spam/arbcom elections]] - for the "spam threshold" w.r.t. the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004]]
 
'''Charles Robert Darwin''' ([[February 12]], [[1809]] – [[April 19]], [[1882]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[natural history|naturalist]] who achieved lasting fame as the originator of the [[theory]] of [[evolution]] through [[natural selection]] and [[Sexual selection]]. ''[[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] had already developed a different theory of evolution and claimed that acquired characteristics were passed on.''
 
He developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine, then [[theology]], at university. Darwin's [[The Voyage of the Beagle|five-year voyage]] on the [[HMS Beagle|''Beagle'']] brought him eminence as a [[geology|geologist]] and fame as a popular author. His [[biology|biological]] observations led him to study the [[transmutation of species]] and develop his theory of natural selection in 1838. Fully aware of the likely reaction, he confided only in close friends and continued his research to meet anticipated objections, but in 1858 the information that [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] now had a similar theory forced early joint [[publication of Darwin's theory]].
== Retaliatory idea ==
 
His 1859 book ''The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' (usually abbreviated to ''[[The Origin of Species]]'') established evolution by [[common descent]] as the dominant scientific theory of diversification in nature. He was made a [[Fellow of the Royal Society]], continued his research, and wrote a series of books on plants and animals, including humankind, notably ''[[The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' and ''[[The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals]]''. His last book was about [[earthworm]]s.
[[user:142.177.etc]] suggested some stronger measures against corporate shills and the like, such as "no new articles on any commercial enterprises except when scandals occur and the initial article can be entirely or mostly negative in tone - this ensures that any attempts at spamming are likely to be diverted into [[spin control]]". Responses follow:
 
In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in [[Westminster Abbey]], close to [[William Herschel]] and [[Isaac Newton]].
These solutions are not good. While I agree that spam is a problem on Wikipedia because it can lead to biased articles, the solution is to write unbiased articles, not to begin applying different measures to different subjects. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 03:31, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
 
== Life ==
One concern that I have about these policies is that someone could post spam posing as one of their competitors, with the hope of negative retaliation. The same currently happens with email spam. -jackson
=== Early life ===
[[Image:Charles Darwin 1816.jpg|thumb|190px|The seven-year-old Charles Darwin in 1816, a year before the sudden loss of his mother.]]
{{main|Charles Darwin's education}}
 
Charles Darwin was born in [[Shrewsbury, Shropshire]], [[England]], on [[February 12]], [[1809]] at his family home, the [[The Mount, Shrewsbury|Mount House]]. He was the fifth of six children of [[Robert Darwin|Robert]] and [[Susannah Darwin]] (''née'' Wedgwood), and the grandson of [[Erasmus Darwin]] on his father's side, of [[Josiah Wedgwood]] on his mother's side, both from the [[Darwin-Wedgwood family|Darwin–Wedgwood family]], a prominent English family which supported the [[Unitarianism|Unitarian]] church. His mother died when he was only eight. When he went to the nearby [[Shrewsbury School]] the next year, he lived there as a "[[boarding school|boarder]]".
I dislike these measures. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 03:15, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 
In 1825 Darwin went to [[University of Edinburgh|Edinburgh University]] to study medicine, but his revulsion at the brutality of surgery led him to neglect his medical studies. He studied [[taxonomy]] with a freed black slave from South America, and found his tales of the South American rainforest absorbing. In Darwin's second year he became active in student societies for [[natural history|naturalists]]. He became an avid pupil of [[Robert Edmund Grant]], who enthusiastically followed the theories of [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] and Charles's grandfather Erasmus concerning evolution by acquired characteristics. Grant's pioneering investigations of the life cycle of marine animals on the shores of the [[Firth of Forth]] found evidence for ''[[homology (biology)|homology]]'', the radical theory that all animals have similar organs and differ only in complexity. Darwin took part in these investigations, and in March 1827 made a presentation to the Plinian society of his discovery that the black spores often found in oyster shells were the eggs of a skate leech. He also sat in on [[Robert Jameson]]'s natural history course, learning about [[stratigraphy|stratigraphic]] [[geology]] and assisting with work on the collections of the [[Royal Museum|Museum of Edinburgh University]], then one of the largest museums in Europe.
There is now way that the NPOV policy is going to be trumped by an anti-spam policy. At the current time only tin-pot little companies are spamming wikipedia and that is unlikely to change, so its not a big deal. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 10:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 
In 1827, his father, unhappy that his younger son had no interest in becoming a physician, enrolled him in a [[Bachelor of Arts]] course at [[Christ's College, Cambridge|Christ's College]], [[University of Cambridge]], which would qualify him to be a clergyman. This was a sensible career move at a time when [[Anglicanism|Anglican]] [[parson]]s were provided with a comfortable income, and when most naturalists in England were clergymen who saw it as part of their duties to explore the wonders of God's creation. At Cambridge, Darwin preferred riding and shooting to studying. Along with his cousin [[William Darwin Fox]], he became engrossed in the craze at the time for the competitive collecting of beetles, and Fox introduced him to the Reverend [[John Stevens Henslow]], professor of botany, for expert advice on beetles. Darwin subsequently joined Henslow's natural history course, becoming his favourite pupil and coming to be known as "the man who walks with Henslow". When exams began to loom, Darwin focused more on his studies and received private tuition from Henslow, whose subjects were mathematics and theology. Darwin became particularly enthused by the writings of [[William Paley]], including the [[teleological argument|argument of divine design in nature]]. In his finals in January 1831, he performed well in theology and, having scraped through in classics, mathematics and physics, came tenth out of a pass list of 178.
I don't see wikispam as that big of a problem. One must take for granted that the articles in Wikipedia are of uneven quality. Any intelligent person should be able to detect the bias of a wikispam article. Finally, I think articles on products or companies are a useful addition to Wikipedia. [[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 20:41, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
 
Residential requirements now kept Darwin at Cambridge until June. In keeping with Henslow's example and advice, he was in no rush to take holy orders. Inspired by [[Alexander von Humboldt]]'s ''Personal Narrative'', he planned to visit the [[Madeira Islands]] to study natural history in the tropics with some classmates after graduation. To prepare himself, Darwin joined the geology course of the Reverend [[Adam Sedgwick]], then in the summer went with him to assist in mapping strata in [[Wales]]. Darwin was surveying strata on his own when his plans to visit Madeira were dashed by a message that his intended companion had died, but on his return home he received another letter. Henslow had recommended Darwin for the unpaid position of gentleman's companion to [[Robert FitzRoy]], the captain of [[HMS Beagle|HMS ''Beagle'']], on a two-year expedition to chart the coastline of [[South America]] which would give Darwin valuable opportunities to develop his career as a naturalist. His father objected to the voyage, regarding it as a waste of time, but was persuaded by [[Josiah Wedgwood II]] to agree to his son's participation. This voyage became a five-year expedition that would lead to dramatic changes in countless fields of science.
How about adding the message to the top of the page (just like for a [[wikipedia:Stub|stub]]):<br>
''This article is Wikispam. You can help Wikipedia by providing a [[NPOV]].''<br>
[[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 20:56, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
 
=== Journey on the Beagle ===
This proposal sounds something like adding more plastic wrap and duct tape to our houses every time we're attacked with poison; eventually, we will suffocate ourselves. Let's rewrite every advertising article spammers add with a better, NPOV one. If anything, the spam can motivate us to write. [[User:Eurleif|Eurleif]] 21:03, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
{{main|The Voyage of the Beagle}}
 
[[Image:HMS_Beagle_by_Conrad_Martens.jpg|thumb|245px|right|[[HMS Beagle|HMS ''Beagle'']] surveying the coast of [[South America]], where Darwin's research began.]]
I agree with Eurleif. There's no reason to have separate policies for spam as opposed to nations, people, or objects. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 01:49, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
The ''Beagle'' survey took five years. Darwin spent two-thirds of this time exploring on land. He studied a rich variety of geological features, [[fossil]]s and living organisms, and met a wide range of people, both native and colonial. He methodically collected an enormous number of specimens, many of them new to science. These specimens later established his reputation as a naturalist and made him one of the precursors of the field of [[ecology]], particularly the notion of [[biocoenosis]]. His detailed notes formed the basis for his later work and provided social, political and [[Anthropology|anthropological]] insights into the areas he visited. While there, Darwin read [[Charles Lyell]]'s ''Principles of Geology'', which explained geological features as the outcome of gradual processes over huge periods of time, and wrote home that he was seeing landforms "as though he had the eyes of Lyell": stepped plains of shingle and seashells in [[Patagonia]] appeared to be raised beaches; in [[Chile]], he experienced an earthquake that raised the land; and even high in the [[Andes]], he was able to collect seashells. He theorized that [[coral]] [[atoll]]s form on sinking volcanic mountains, and a survey of the [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]] supported his theory.
 
In South America he discovered fossils of gigantic extinct [[megatherium|megatheria]] and [[glyptodon]]s in strata which showed no signs of catastrophe or change in climate. At the time, he thought them similar to African species, but after the voyage [[Richard Owen]] showed that the remains were of animals related to living creatures in the same area. In [[Argentina]] two species of [[Rhea (bird)|rhea]] had separate but overlapping territories. Darwin found different [[mockingbird]]s on the nearby [[Galápagos Islands]], and on returning to Britain he was shown that Galápagos [[tortoise]]s and [[finch]]es were also in distinct species based on the individual islands they inhabited. The Australian [[marsupial]] rat-kangaroo and [[platypus]] were strikingly different animals. This made him remark that "An unbeliever ... might exclaim 'Surely two distinct Creators must have been [at] work'." In the first edition of ''[[The Voyage of the Beagle]]'', he explained species distribution in light of [[Charles Lyell]]'s ideas of "centres of creation"; however, in later editions of this ''Journal'' he foreshadowed his use of Galápagos Islands fauna as evidence for evolution: "one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends."
* I found an interesting idea: If an ad is posted as an "article", rewrite it with the fact that the company spammed this article or something. [[User:KirbyMeister|KirbyMeister]] 18:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
Three natives of [[Tierra del Fuego]] returned with the Beagle as missionaries. They had become civilized over the previous two years, yet their relatives appeared to Darwin savages little above animals. Within a year, the missionaries had -in Darwin's opinion- reverted to savagery.<!--Please specify what "savagery" they returned to, as this term is a highly loaded one.--> Yet they preferred this and did not want to return to civilization. This experience and his detestation of the slavery he saw elsewhere convinced him that the widespread concept of inferior races was incorrect, and that humanity was not as far removed from animals as his clerical friends believed.
**We can't know it's them. Better to just leave it out. Most companies willing to spam won't deserve articles anyway. [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 18:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
While on board the ship, Darwin suffered from seasickness, in October 1833 he caught a fever in Argentina, and in July 1834, while returning from the Andes down to [[Valparaíso]], he fell ill and spent a month in bed. From 1837 onwards Darwin was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, which particularly affected him at times of stress, such as when attending meetings or dealing with controversy over his theory. The cause of [[Charles Darwin's illness|Darwin's illness]] was unknown during his lifetime, and attempts at treatment had little success. Recent speculation has suggested that in South America he caught [[Chagas disease]] from insect bites, leading to the later problems. Other possible causes include psychobiological problems.
== from pump ==
 
=== Career in science, inception of theory ===
I just thought the word '''wikispam''' might be a good catch-phrase to describe those dubious and sinister articles that are thinly-veiled commercial solicitations. See [[Eyeplaygames.com]], an article that should be deleted precisely because it is "wikispam". Anyway, I'd be interested to know what wikians think of '''wikispam''', how to make it std. jargon if enough like it (ie add it to some admin page somewhere), or if there's already a word for these types of articles. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 06:47, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Charles_Darwin_by_G._Richmond.jpg|thumb|left|While still a young man, Charles Darwin joined the scientific élite.]]
{{main|Inception of Darwin's theory}}
 
While Darwin was still on the voyage, [[John Stevens Henslow|Henslow]] carefully fostered his former pupil's reputation by giving selected naturalists access to the fossil specimens and printed copies of Darwin's geological writings. When the Beagle returned on [[October 2]], [[1836]], Darwin was a celebrity in scientific circles. He visited his home in Shrewsbury and his father organised investments so that Darwin could become a self-funded gentleman scientist. After visiting [[Cambridge]] and getting Henslow to agree to work on botanical descriptions of modern plants he had collected, Darwin went round the [[London]] institutions to find the best naturalists available to describe his other collections for timely publication. An eager [[Charles Lyell]] met Darwin on [[29 October]] and introduced him to the up-and-coming anatomist [[Richard Owen]]. After working on Darwin's collection of fossil bones at his [[Royal College of Surgeons]], Owen caused great surprise by revealing that some were from gigantic extinct rodents and sloths. This enhanced Darwin's reputation. With Lyell's enthusiastic backing Darwin read his first paper to the [[Geological Society of London]] on [[January 4]], [[1837]], arguing that the South American landmass was slowly rising. On the same day Darwin presented his mammal and bird specimens to the [[Zoological Society of London|Zoological Society]]. The Mammalia were taken on by [[George Robert Waterhouse|George R. Waterhouse]]. Though the birds seemed almost an afterthought, the ornithologist [[John Gould]] revealed that what Darwin had taken to be wrens, blackbirds and slightly differing finches from the Galápagos were all finches, but each was a separate species. Others on the ''Beagle'' including FitzRoy had also collected these birds and had been more careful with their notes, enabling Darwin to find which island each species had come from.
:I like that word, I just added one article at [[WP:VfD]] of that kind and used the term for it. There are two kinds of wikispamming I came across so far - one is to create an advertisement article, the other is trying to sneak in external links to the spammer's website. The second one may also just be trying to get a better google ranking by having more incoming links. [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 07:52, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 
In London Charles stayed with his brother [[Erasmus Alvey Darwin|Erasmus]] and met inspiring [[savant]]s at dinner parties. His brother's lady friend Miss [[Harriet Martineau]] was a writer whose stories promoted [[Thomas Malthus|Malthusian]] [[Whig]] [[Poor Law]] reforms. Scientific circles were buzzing with ideas of [[Transmutation of species]] controversially associated with [[Radicalism (historical)|radicalism]]. Darwin preferred the respectability of his friends the Cambridge Dons, even though his ideas were pushing beyond their belief that natural history must justify religion and social order.
:::Glad you liked it! Hopefully it will gain further acceptance and be inshrined in wikipedia jargon with its own description. (BTW, this is an example of what's best about wikipedia, and it reminds me why I still come here.) [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 08:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 
On [[February]] 17, [[1837]], Lyell used his presidential address at the Geographical Society to present Owen's findings to date on Darwin's fossils, pointing out the inference that extinct species were related to current species in the same locality. At the same meeting Darwin was elected to the Council of the Society. He had already been invited by FitzRoy to contribute a ''Journal'' based on his field notes as the natural history section of the captain's account of the Beagle's voyage. He now plunged into writing a book on South American Geology. At the same time he speculated on transmutation in his ''Red Notebook'' which he had begun on the Beagle. Another project he started was getting the expert reports on his collection published as a multivolume ''Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle'', and Henslow used his contacts to arrange a Treasury grant of £1,000 to sponsor this. Darwin finished writing his ''Journal'' around [[20 June]] when King [[William IV of the United Kingdom|William IV]] died and the [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Victorian]] era began. In mid-July he began his secret ''"B" notebook'' on transmutation, and developed the [[hypothesis]] that where every island in the Galápagos Archipelago had its own kind of tortoise, these had originated from a single tortoise species and had adapted to life on the different islands in different ways.
:::Anyway, I took the lead and created a page describing Wikispam ''(since merged into [[wikipedia:spam]])''. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 08:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 
Under pressure with organising ''Zoology'' and correcting proofs of his ''Journal'', Darwin's health suffered. On [[September 20]], [[1837]] he suffered "palpitations of the heart" and left for a month of recuperation in the country. He visited [[Maer Hall]] where his invalid aunt was being cared for by her spinster daughter [[Emma Darwin|Emma Wedgwood]], and entertained his relatives with tales of his travels. His uncle [[Josiah Wedgwood II|Jos]] pointed out an area of ground where cinders had disappeared under [[loam]] and suggested that this might have been the work of earthworms. This gave Darwin the inspiration for a talk which he gave to the Geological Society on [[1 November]], on the unusually mundane subject of worm casts. He had avoided taking on official posts which would take valuable time, but by March Whewell had recruited him as Secretary of the Geological Society. Illness prompted Darwin to take a break from the pressure of work and he went "geologising" in Scotland. In glorious weather he visited [[Glen Roy]] to see the phenomenon known as "roads" which he identified as raised beaches.
:::Note that the word [[Wiki:WikiSpam|WikiSpam]] has been used fairly widely for a few years now, I don't think Alcarillo can claim credit for coining it. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 01:50, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 
[[Image:Emma Darwin.jpg|thumb|left|Charles chose to marry his cousin, [[Emma Darwin|Emma Wedgwood]].]]
::::Well, apparently not. C'est la guerre. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 14:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Fully recuperated, he returned home to Shrewsbury. Pondering his career and prospects he drew up a list with columns headed ''"Marry"'' and ''"Not Marry"''. Having come down in favour, he discussed it with his father then went to visit his cousin Emma on [[July 29]], [[1838]]. He did not get around to proposing, but against his father's advice he told her of his ideas on transmutation. While his thoughts and work continued in London over the autumn he suffered repeated bouts of illness. On [[11 November]] he returned and proposed to Emma, once more telling her his ideas. She accepted, but later wrote beseeching him to read from the Gospel of St. John a section on love and following ''the Way'' which also states that ''"If a man abide not in me...they are burned"''. He sent a warm reply which eased her concern, but she would continue to worry that his lapses of faith could endanger her hope that they would meet in an afterlife.
 
Darwin considered [[Thomas Malthus|Malthus]]'s argument that human populations breed beyond their means and compete to survive. He related this to the findings about species relating to localities, his enquiries into animal breeding, and ideas of Natural "laws of harmony". Towards the end of November 1838 he compared breeders selecting traits to a Malthusian Nature selecting from variants thrown up by "chance" so that "every part of newly acquired structure is fully practised and perfected", and thought this "the most beautiful part of my theory" of how species originated. He went house-hunting and eventually found "Macaw Cottage" in Gower Street, London, then moved his "museum" in over Christmas. He was showing the stress, and Emma wrote urging him to get some rest, almost prophetically remarking "So don't be ill any more my dear Charley till I can be with you to nurse you". On [[January 24]], [[1839]] he was honoured by being elected as Fellow of the [[Royal Society]] and presented his paper on the Roads of Glen Roy.
== What's in a name ==
We call it Wikispam in our discussions; wouldn't it be more accurate to rename the article Wikipedia:Wikispam? We are talking about a different, specific beast altogether: commercial solicitations disguised as wikipedia articles. Just calling this "Spam" isn't entirely correct. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 18:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 
=== Marriage and children ===
: [[wikipedia:advertising]] would be less jargony. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 22:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Charles and William Darwin.jpg|thumb|185px|Darwin in 1842 with his eldest son, [[Darwin-Wedgwood family|William Erasmus Darwin]].]]
 
On [[January 29]], [[1839]], Darwin married his cousin [[Emma Darwin|Emma Wedgwood]] at Maer in an [[Anglican]] ceremony arranged to also suit the [[Unitarian]]s.
:: I disagree. [[wikipedia:advertising]] isn't as comprehensive. Remember, this category also includes those puff-pieces obviously written by PR hacks, typically used to promote some unknown entertainer. And spam is already understood as unwanted content. [[User:Alcarillo|Alcarillo]] 14:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
After first living in Gower Street, [[London]], the couple moved on [[September 17]], [[1842]] to [[Down House]] in [[Downe]] (which is now open to public visits, south of [[Orpington]]). The Darwins had ten children, three of whom died early. Many of these and their grandchildren would later achieve notability themselves (see [[Darwin -- Wedgwood family|Darwin&ndash;Wedgwood family]])
 
* William Erasmus Darwin ([[December 27]], [[1839]]&ndash;[[1914]])
: Maybe the page name 'Wikipedia:Spam' is OK, but I was confused by it, because I followed a link here (from an external website), and didn't realise at first that this was a 'project page'. How about a disambigation sentence?
* [[Anne Darwin|Anne Elizabeth Darwin]] ([[March 2]], [[1841]]&ndash;[[April 22]], [[1851]])
: e.g. ''This is a 'project page' about spam on wikipedia. See also articles on [[Spamming]] and [[Link spam]]''
* Mary Eleanor Darwin ([[September 23]], [[1842]]&ndash;[[October 16]], [[1842]])
: -- [[User:Halz|Halz]] 14:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
* Henrietta Emma "Etty" Darwin ([[September 25]], [[1843]]&ndash;[[1929]])
* [[George Darwin|George Howard Darwin]] ([[July 9]], [[1845]]&ndash;[[December 7]], [[1912]])
* [[Elizabeth Darwin|Elizabeth "Bessy" Darwin]] ([[July 8]], [[1847]]&ndash;[[1926]])
* [[Francis Darwin]] ([[August 16]], [[1848]]&ndash;[[September 19]], [[1925]])
* [[Leonard Darwin]] ([[January 15]], [[1850]]&ndash;[[March 26]], [[1943]])
* [[Horace Darwin]] ([[May 13]], [[1851]]&ndash;[[September 29]], [[1928]])
* [[Charles Waring Darwin]] ([[December 6]], [[1856]]&ndash;[[June 28]], [[1858]])
 
Several of their children suffered illness or weaknesses, and Charles Darwin's fear that this might be due to the closeness of his and Emma’s lineage was expressed in his writings on the ill effects of inbreeding and advantages of crossing.
== 'guideline' message at the top ==
 
===Development of theory ===
I was also confused about the 'guideline' message at the top. Anyone know why that is there? The page doesn't really seem like a particulary great guideline (no better than any other page particularly) Maybe it was placed there to settle some edit war. I suggest we remove it, unless anyone knows a reason. -- [[User:Halz|Halz]] 14:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
{{main|Development of Darwin's theory}}
[[Image:Charles Darwin.jpg|frame|left|Fearing both scientific and religious criticism, Darwin spent decades developing his theory of evolution largely in secret.]]
 
Darwin was now an eminent geologist in the scientific élite of clerical naturalists, settled with a private income. He had a vast amount of work to do, writing up his findings and theories, and supervising the preparation of the multivolume ''Zoology'', which would describe his collections. He was convinced by his [[theory of evolution]], but for a long time had been aware that [[transmutation of species]] was associated with the crime of [[blasphemy]] as well as with [[Radicalism (historical)|Radical]] democratic agitators in Britain who were seeking to overthrow society; thus, publication risked ruining his reputation. He embarked on extensive experiments with plants and consultations with [[Animal husbandry|animal husbanders]], including pigeon and pig breeders, trying to find soundly based answers to all the arguments he anticipated when he presented his theory in public.
==Retaliation for SEO spam==
When FitzRoy's account was published in May 1839, Darwin's ''Journal and Remarks'' was a great success. Later that year it was published on its own, becoming the bestseller nowadays known as ''[[The Voyage of the Beagle]]''. In December 1839, as Emma's first pregnancy progressed, Darwin suffered more illness and accomplished little during the following year.
 
Darwin made attempts to explain his theory to close friends, but they were slow to show interest and thought that selection must need a divine selector. In 1842 the family moved to [[Down House]] to escape the pressures of London. Darwin formulated a short "Pencil Sketch" of his theory, and by 1844 had written a 240-page "Essay" that expanded his early ideas on natural selection. Darwin completed his third ''Geological'' book in 1846; assisted by his friend, the young botanist [[Joseph Dalton Hooker]], he embarked on a huge study of [[barnacles]]. In 1847, Hooker read the "Essay" and sent notes that provided Darwin with the calm critical feedback that he needed.
Currently our anti-spam system works by ignoring edits containing certain text items. For example, if you try to save a page linking to hukuki dot net, your edit will be ignored. The problem comes when before starting large-scale spamming, the spammer added a few vaguely relevant links to external links sections in various articles. These articles then can't be edited, unless the offending external link is removed. Currently it's necessary to manually search for these links, but I'd like to know the community's opinion on doing this automatically. Presumably some sort of server-side script would search for the links and remove them. I'd also like to add the following statement to this page:
 
To try to deal with his illness, Darwin went to a spa in [[Malvern]] in 1849, and to his surprise found that the two months of water treatment helped. In his work on barnacles he found "[[Homology (biology)|homologies]]" that supported his theory by showing that slightly changed body parts could serve different functions to meet new conditions. Then his treasured daughter Annie fell ill, reawakening his fears that his illness might be hereditary. After a long series of crises, she died and Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God. He met the young naturalist [[Thomas Huxley]] who was to become a close friend and ally, then completed his work on barnacles (''Cirripedia'') in 1854 and turned his attention to his theory of species.
:''Note to spammers: spamming Wikimedia wikis, including sandboxes, may lead to the automated removal of all links to your site, even those which were in articles before the attack began.''
 
===Announcement and publication of theory===
Hopefully this policy will have a deterrent effect. Any thoughts? -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 04:04, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Charles Darwin aged 51.jpg|right|thumb|Charles Darwin, now an established geologist, was forced into early publication of his theory of [[natural selection]].]]
{{main|Publication of Darwin's theory}}
 
In the spring of 1856, Lyell read a paper on the ''Introduction'' of species by [[Alfred Russel Wallace]], a naturalist working in [[Borneo]], and urged Darwin to publish his theory to establish precedence. Darwin pressed ahead despite illness, getting specimens and information from naturalists including Wallace and [[Asa Gray]]. In December 1857 as Darwin worked on his ''Natural Selection'' manuscript he received a letter from Wallace asking if it would delve into human origins. Sensitive to Lyell's fears, Darwin responded that "I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fully admit that it is the highest & most interesting problem for the naturalist". He encouraged Wallace's theorising, saying "without speculation there is no good & original observation", adding that "I go much further than you". Then on [[June 18]], [[1858]], he received a paper from Wallace describing the evolutionary mechanism, with a request to send it on to Lyell. Darwin did so, shocked that he had been "forestalled" and though Wallace had not asked for publication, offering to send it to any journal that Wallace chose. He put matters in the hands of Lyell and Hooker, who agreed on a joint presentation at the [[Linnean Society of London|Linnean Society]] on [[1 July]] of ''[[On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection]]''.
:The danger is that sites may spam their competitors sites instead in order to have them removed from Wikipedia. If it's done, I don't think it should be done automatically, or people may start using it purposefully as a way of removing links from the site. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 04:21, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
The initial announcement of the theory gained little immediate attention. It was mentioned briefly in a few small reviews, but to most people it seemed much the same as other varieties of [[evolutionism|evolutionary thought]]. For the next thirteen months Darwin struggled with ill health to produce an abstract of his "big book on species". Receiving constant encouragement from his scientific friends, Darwin finally finished his abstract and Lyell arranged to have it published by [[John Murray (publisher)|John Murray]]. The title was agreed as ''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]]'', and when the book went on sale to the trade on [[November 22]], [[1859]], the stock of 1,250 copies was oversubscribed. At the time "Evolutionism" implied creation without divine intervention, and Darwin avoided using the words "evolution" or "evolve", though the book ends by stating that "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved". The book only briefly alluded to the idea that man, too, would evolve in the same way as other organisms. Darwin wrote in deliberate understatement that "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".
Links should be in an article if they are relevent to the article. They should not be there if they are not. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 20:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 
===Reaction===
== paperlessarchives dot com wikispam ==
[[image:Darwin_ape.jpg|thumb|left|Satirical attacks on Darwin were typified by the later caricature of him as an ape in ''Hornet'' magazine.]]
{{main|Reaction to Darwin's theory}}
 
Darwin's book set off a public controversy which he monitored closely, keeping press cuttings of thousands of reviews, articles, satires, parodies and caricatures. Reviewers were quick to pick out the unstated implications of "men from monkeys", though a [[Unitarian]] review was favourable and ''[[The Times]]'' published a glowing review by Huxley which included swipes at [[Richard Owen]], leader of the scientific establishment Huxley was trying to overthrow. Owen initially appeared neutral, but then wrote a review condemning the book. The [[Church of England]] scientific establishment reacted against the book, and Darwin's old Cambridge tutors [[Adam Sedgwick|Sedgwick]] and [[John Stevens Henslow|Henslow]] expressed their disappointment in him. Then ''[[Essays and Reviews]]'' by seven liberal [[Anglican]] theologians declared that miracles were irrational (and supported the ''Origin''), distracting attention away from Darwin.
I am currently tracking down many links in the external links sections (and others) to paperlessarchives dot com. In many cases the regulars of the articles block these out, but many have not been caught. I'm unfamiliar with the mediawiki upgrades for handling wikispam, but I think this site's URL needs to be added into the regex for blocking wikispam. Additionally, a robot-assisted removal would be nice. I could write one, I suppose, but probably lack the time and can better help by removing what I can find.
 
The most famous confrontation took place at a meeting of the [[British Association for the Advancement of Science]] in [[Oxford]]. Professor [[John William Draper]] made a boring speech on Darwin and social progress, then [[Samuel Wilberforce|'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce]], the [[Bishop]] of Oxford, argued against Darwin. In the ensuing debate [[Thomas_Henry_Huxley|Thomas Huxley]] established himself as "Darwin's bulldog" &ndash; the fiercest defender of evolutionary theory on the Victorian stage. On being asked by Wilberforce whether he was descended from monkeys on his grandfather's side or his grandmother's side, Huxley apparently muttered to himself: "The Lord has delivered him into my hands" and replied that he "would rather be descended from an ape than from a cultivated man who used his gifts of culture and eloquence in the service of prejudice and falsehood" (there are several alternative versions of this story, see [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter]). The story spread around the country: Huxley had said he would rather be an ape than a Bishop.
Can someone please direct me to the appropriate place to submit this URL for wikispam blocking?
 
Many people felt that Darwin's view of nature destroyed the important distinction between man and beast. Darwin himself did not personally defend his theories in public, though he read eagerly about the continuing debates. He was frequently very ill, and mustered support through [[Correspondence of Charles Darwin|letters and correspondence]]. A core circle of scientific friends &ndash; Huxley, [[Charles Lyell]], [[Joseph Dalton Hooker]], and [[Asa Gray]] &ndash; actively pushed his work to the fore of the scientific and public stage, defending him against his many critics in this key scientific controversy of the era. Darwin's theory also resonated with various movements at the time and became a key fixture of popular culture. The book was translated into many languages and went through numerous reprints. It became a staple scientific text accessible both to a newly curious middle class and to "working men", hailed as the most controversial and discussed scientific book ever written.
If anyone disagrees that this commercial site does not constitute a legitimate external link, by all means please discuss with me here or on my user talk page or wherever is appropriate. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 20:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 
=== Later life and death ===
:I've added this request to the new [[m:non-development tasks for developers|non-development tasks for developers]] page at Meta. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 19:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{{main2|Darwin from Orchids to Variation|Darwin from Descent of Man to Emotions|Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms}}
 
[[image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg|frame|A classic image of Darwin in 1880, still researching and producing numerous books.]]
==Hukuki==
Despite repeated bouts of illness during the last twenty-two years of his life Darwin pressed on with his work. He had published an abstract of his theory, but more controversial aspects of his "big book" were still incomplete; mankind's descent from earlier animals, and the mechanism of [[sexual selection]] which could explain features with no obvious utility other than decorative beauty as well as suggesting possible causes underlying the development of society and of human mental abilities. His experiments, research and writing continued.
 
When Darwin's daughter fell ill he set aside his experiments with seedlings and domestic animals to go with her to a seaside resort where he became interested in wild [[orchid]]s. This developed into an innovative study of how their beautiful flowers served to control insect pollination and ensure cross fertilisation. As with the barnacles, homologous parts served different functions in different species. Back at home he lay on his sickbed in a room filled with experiments on climbing plants. He was visited by a reverent [[Ernst Haeckel]] who had spread the gospel of ''Darwinismus'' in [[Germany]]. Even at Cambridge, students now supported his ideas. Huxley gave "working-men's lectures" to widen the audience, and Wallace remained a supporter but increasingly turned to [[spiritualism]]. ''Variation'' grew to two huge volumes, forcing him to leave out man and sexual selection, but when printed was in huge demand.
<b>An answer : (altinmas@yahoo.com) - 23.9.2004</b>I'm the owner of -www.hukuki.net- (Turkish Law site) . You think we are spammers. Unfortunately we are not spammers. We add some of articles or rules about wiki to many international pages in their languages. Because they are empty pages. And then we add our link to contact us. It is a mistake for you and for me... Best regards.
AND THERE IS NO ATTENTION LIKE THIS:
DO NOT ADD YOUR EXTERNAL LINKS TO THIS PAGE ...
 
New fossil evidence proved the antiquity of man, but other writers failed to fully tackle human evolution. Opponents claimed that the beauty of birds demonstrated divine guidance. These two subjects were tackled in ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' which he followed up with ''[[The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals]]''. Darwin produced practical explanations for the differences between males and females, and between different races and cultures. He also developed his ideas that the human mind and cultures were developed by natural and sexual selection, an approach which still persists in [[evolutionary psychology]]. His evolution-related experiments and investigations culminated in five books on plants, and then his last book returned to the effect worms have on soil levels.
:You are joking? You added this link to at least 43 Wikipedias and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=hukuki+wiki&btnG=Search hundreds of other wikis] on pages that have nothing to with Hukuki, often pasting in pages in English to other language Wikipedias with your link [http://zu.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:General_disclaimer&diff=43&oldid=33 sneakily hidden] in the middle of the text. Hukuki is on [http://www.google.com/search?q=hukuki+blacklist&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1 dozens of blacklists]. I fail to see how you do not regard this as spam. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 19:57, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 
Darwin died in Downe, [[Kent]], England, on [[April 19]], [[1882]]. He had expected to be buried in St. Mary's churchyard at Downe, but at the request of Darwin's colleagues [[William Spottiswoode]], [[President]] of the [[Royal Society]], arranged for Darwin to be given a state funeral and buried in [[Westminster Abbey]].
:He also complained at chongqed.org about being listed as a spammer and asked to be removed. After we pointed out some evidence in Google and told him he would not be removed from the list he started spamming our link as well as several other wikis that list him as a spammer on many non-english wikipedias. The front page of our site gives more details. [[User:JoeChongq|JoeChongq]] 06:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 
== Religious views ==
== Wikipedia as a [[link farm]] ? ==
{{main|Charles Darwin's views on religion}}
 
[[Image:Annie Darwin.jpg|frame|left|The 1851 death of Darwin's daughter, [[Anne Darwin|Annie]], was the final step in pushing an already doubting Darwin away from the idea of a beneficent God.]]
Before writing this message, I have browsed through a few Wikipedia: series page to see what was already written on this topic ; I found nothing. More surprisingly, I found very little on the general theme of Wikipedia pollution by unfair use of its articles for Google ranking promotion. This does not seem a "hot" issue, but I fear it could become in a near future as long as Wikipedia gets better known and gets higher (together with its clones) on Google.
 
Charles Darwin came from a [[Nonconformist]] background. Though several members of his family were [[Freethought|Freethinkers]], openly lacking conventional religious beliefs, he did not initially doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He attended a [[Church of England]] school, then at Cambridge studied [[Anglican]] theology to become a clergyman and was fully convinced by [[William Paley]]'s [[teleological argument]] that design in nature proved the existence of God. However, his beliefs began to shift during his time on board [[HMS Beagle|HMS ''Beagle'']]. He questioned what he saw&mdash;wondering, for example, at beautiful deep-ocean creatures created where no one could see them, and shuddering at the sight of a wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs; he saw the latter as contradicting Paley's vision of beneficent design. While on the ''Beagle'' Darwin was quite [[orthodoxy|orthodox]] and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but had come to see the history in the [[Old Testament]] as being false and untrustworthy.
Indeed I became aware of the problem when googling http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+asinah&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
to see what was already written about a (non GFDL compliant) Singapurese clone of WP. Look : they have linked about twenty of their pages from WP articles ; in each case, the page is not blatantly irrelevant, simply it is a poor page and indeed in reality a link farm.
 
Upon his return, he investigated [[transmutation of species]], aware that his clerical naturalist friends thought this a bestial heresy undermining miraculous justifications for the social order, and aware that such revolutionary ideas were especially unwelcome at a time when the Church of England's established position was under attack from [[radicalism|radical]] [[Dissenter]]s and [[atheism|atheists]]. While secretly developing his theory of [[natural selection]], Darwin even wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter [[Anne Darwin|Annie]] in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. In later life, when asked about his religious views, he denied being an atheist, but wrote:
Then I have kept looking for similar abuse. Watch out this interesting one (I link to a diff page, since I removed it) : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tourism&diff=5861245&oldid=5802398
:my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
An anonymous user adds two links ; the first one is irrelevant but not shocking ; the second one is blatant self-promotion. Probably naive from a good-faith editor (he also wrote a "real" sentence on a talk page), and not too dangerous (though the links remained more than one week with nobody noticing the problem).
In concluding his biography of his grandfather, [[Erasmus Darwin]], Darwin recounted how after his death in [[1802]], false stories were circulated that he had called for Jesus on his deathbed, writing "Such was the state of Christian feeling in this country at the [time].... We may at least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails." Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "[[Elizabeth Hope|Lady Hope Story]]", published in [[1915]], claiming his sickbed conversion. Such stories have been heavily propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming [[urban legend]]s, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.
 
== Legacy ==
Now, browse through the various links in the "Commercial travel sites" of [[Tourism]]. Some are indeed relevant, like http://www.letsgo.com/ . A few others are self-promotion of sites which are in no way nasty, but not remarkable enough to justify a link from a very general encyclopedy page, e.g. http://www.luggage-life.com/. Lastly and more annoyingly, some are simply there to help link farms sucking Google ranking, see <nowiki>http://www.asinah.net/</nowiki> (the WP clone which made me conscious of the problem) or <nowiki>http://www.insidetraveltips.com/</nowiki>, still more blatant.
[[Image:Darwin-Charles-LOC.jpg|thumb|Charles Darwin's theories had an enormous effect on many fields of science.]]
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution based upon [[natural selection]] changed the thinking of countless fields of study from [[biology]] to [[anthropology]]. His work established that "evolution" had occurred: not necessarily that it was by natural or sexual selection (this particular recognition would not become fully standard until the rediscovery of [[Gregor Mendel]]'s work in the early 20th century and the creation of the [[modern synthesis]]).
 
His work was extremely controversial at the time he published it and many during his time did not take it seriously. Darwin's theory of evolution was a significant blow to notions of [[creationism|divine creation]] and [[intelligent design]] prevalent in [[19th-century]] science, specifically overturning the [[Creation biology]] doctrine of "[[Created kind]]s". The idea that there was no line to draw between man and beast would forever make Darwin a symbol of iconoclasm who removed humanity's privileged role in the centre of the universe. To some of his detractors, Darwin would be "the monkey man", often depicted as part ape.
What should be done ? Nothing, hoping that I overestimate the danger and that this kind of parasiting can be contained by the editors as teenager vandalism is effectively contained ? Listing offender domaine names and forbidding external links towards them ? Adding a "nofollow" tag in WK pages, finding another way to have our articles archived ? Something else ? --[[User:French Tourist|French Tourist]] 12:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 
===Commemoration ===
:We already, controversially, ban links to a number of locations where active link-farmers were hitting us. It's controversial because it causes problems when editing some real pages and because it's easy to work around it. Wikipedia is an effective device for artifically raising page rank, but is also an important source for Google of authoritative links. At this point, we pretty much hope that the usual wiki process will take care of such links (often, once such a user is noticed once, their other contributions will be checked and all their changes are then easy to revert.) [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 23:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
During Darwin's lifetime many species and geographical features were given his name, including the [[Darwin Sound]] named by [[Robert FitzRoy]] after Darwin's prompt action saved them from being marooned, and the nearby [[Mount Darwin (Andes)|Mount Darwin]] in the [[Andes]] celebrating Darwin's 25th birthday. In [[Australia]]'s [[Northern Territory]], the capital city (originally Palmerston) was renamed [[Darwin, Northern Territory|Darwin]] to commemorate the Beagle's [[1839]] visit there, and the territory now also boasts [[Charles Darwin University]] and [[Charles Darwin National Park]].
 
The 14 species of [[Finch]]es he researched in the [[Galápagos Islands]] are affectionately named "Darwin's Finches" in honour of his legacy. In [[1964]], [[Darwin College, Cambridge]] was founded, named in honour of the Darwin family, partially because they owned some of the land it was on. In [[1992]], Darwin was ranked #16 on [[Michael H. Hart]]'s [[The 100|list of the most influential figures in history]]. Darwin was given particular recognition in [[2000]] when his image appeared on the [[Bank of England]] [[British banknotes|ten pound note]], replacing [[Charles Dickens]]. His impressive and supposedly hard-to-forge beard was reportedly a contributing factor in this choice. Darwin came fourth in the ''[[100 Greatest Britons]]'' poll sponsored by the [[BBC]] and voted for by the public.
This is an issue that I have an interest in. I've been building a website, [http://schema-root.org schema-root.org] that is an encyclopedia of current events. It currently has over 3,000 page topics, each with its own current news feed, links to main stream news sources that relate to the topic, and pre-defined google searches against topic-relevant resource sites. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is a "root" level resource for my site; so links to specific Wikipedia pages appear on any of my pages where my page-defined google search argument finds Wikipedia content. My site has very good Google pagerank generally, and it receives several hundred hits a day coming from Google searches, as well as several hundred more that come from Yahoo, MSN and approximately 100 other search engines. I'm mentioning this because I believe it indicates that my site is generally taken seriously. Anyway, on about a dozen Wikipedia pages I had put "external links" to related pages on my site. This seemed completely above-board to me, since my pages are resource rich pages with current news, and each was specifically relevant to the Wikipedia page in question. However I received a notice accusing me of spamming, and self promotion, and a recommendation to "quit while you are ahead." However, only two of my links were actually removed. From the remaining pages, I get 30 to 40 hits each day. So apparently at least some Wikipedia users are finding them useful. My question is this: Is Wikipedia interested in preventing any one site, like mine, from getting too much exposure on Wikipedia, even if the external links add considerable value to the encyclopedia? [[User:Johntinker|John Tinker]] 03:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:self promotion is often considered spam even if it add something usefull to the article. even if you legitametely belive that your resource on something is of a sufficiantly high quality and/or relavence to be listed in the article then you should get at least a second opinion before going forward. [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 16:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 
As a humorous celebration of the theory of evolution, the annual [[Darwin Awards|Darwin Award]] is bestowed on individuals who ''"aid the process of evolution by demonstrating their unfitness"'' through fatally stupid actions.
== Internal spamming ==
 
===Eugenics ===
I think DV wanted to discuss this - it's come up w.r.t. the arbcom elections, and possibly other cases. Certainly something I think we should think about. That's not to say we necessarilly need to make any actual policies about it. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 23:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Following Darwin's publication of the ''Origin'' his cousin [[Francis Galton]] applied the concepts to human society, producing ideas to promote "hereditary improvement" starting in [[1865]] and elaborated at length in [[1869]]. In ''[[The Descent of Man]]'' Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated that "talent" and "genius" in humans were probably inherited, but thought that the social changes Galton proposed were too "utopian". Neither Galton nor Darwin supported government intervention and instead believed that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential mates. In [[1883]], after Darwin's death, Galton began calling his social philosophy ''[[Eugenics]]''. In the [[twentieth century]], eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as [[compulsory sterilization|compulsory sterilisation]] laws, then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of [[Nazi Germany]] in its goals of genetic "purity".
 
===Social Darwinism ===
On second thoughts, since DV has (ironically) been cross-posting his views about excessive cross-posting, I've taken the liberty of consolidating all this onto [[Wikipedia talk:Spam/arbcom elections]].
In [[1944]] the American historian [[Richard Hofstadter]] applied the term "[[Social Darwinism]]" to describe 19th- and 20th-century thinking developed from the ideas of [[Thomas Malthus]] and [[Herbert Spencer]], which applied ideas of evolution and "[[survival of the fittest]]" to societies or nations competing for survival in a hostile world. These ideas became discredited by association with [[racism]] and [[New Imperialism|imperialism]]. Though the term is anachronistic, in Darwin's day the difference between what was later called "Social Darwinism" and simple "Darwinism" was less clear. However, Darwin did not believe that his scientific theory mandated any particular theory of governance or social order.
 
The use of the phrase "Social Darwinism" to describe Malthus's ideas is particularly disingenuous, since Malthus died in [[1834]] before the [[inception of Darwin's theory]] was spurred by his reading the 6th edition of Malthus' famous ''Essay on a Principle of Population'' in [[1838]]. Spencer's evolutionary "progressivism" and his social and political ideas were largely Malthusian, and his books on economics of [[1851]] and on evolution of [[1855]] predated Darwin's publication of the ''Origin'' in [[1859]].
:Other situations that have involved "internal spam": adminship/bureaucratship candidates inviting support for their nominations, critics trying to mobilize opposition, and editors in a dispute recruiting new participants, especially when a survey/poll is involved. With respect to this last case in particular, some people have complained about "selective spamming" to those likely to be sympathetic to the spammer's perspective, even though this practice is fairly common and it should not be surprising that few people feel inclined to "get out the other side's vote". So these are some of the situations that can be considered in formulating any kind of internal spam policy. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 02:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 
== Works ==
== [[Culture of brazil]] article ==
* Bibliography: [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/darwin_biblio.htm#primary Darwin Bibliography] (including alternative editions, contributions to books & periodicals, correspondence & life)
*{{gutenberg author | id=Charles_Darwin | name=Charles Darwin}}
* [http://www.darwin-literature.com Darwin Literature], Chapter-indexed, searchable versions of Darwin's works.
* [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/ Charles Darwin's Books] in an easy to read format.
 
=== Published works ===
(http://www.ju li and i bbell.com/brazil/brazil.html Julian Dibbel) is a englishman who lived in brazil many years and wrote fantastic, profound and light hearted essays on brazilian culture, specially the (http://www.juli andi bbel l.com/texts/brasilia.html) mysticisms of brasilia, (http://www.juli an di bbell.com/tex ts/ gil_tropicalismo.html)tropicalismo, and even http://www.wired.com/wired/arc hive/12.11/linux.html open-source soft
* 1836: ''A LETTER, Containing Remarks on the Moral State of TAHITI, NEW ZEALAND, &c. &ndash; BY CAPT. R. FITZROY AND C. DARWIN, ESQ. OF H.M.S. 'Beagle.''' [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin4/tahiti.html]
* 1839: ''Journal and Remarks'' ([[The Voyage of the Beagle]])
* ''Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle'': published between [[1839]] and [[1843]] in five volumes by various authors, Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin: information on two of the volumes &ndash;
: 1840: ''Part I. Fossil Mammalia'', by [[Richard Owen]] [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/zoology.html (Darwin's introduction)]
: 1839: ''Part II. Mammalia'', by [[George Robert Waterhouse|George R. Waterhouse]] [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/zoology.html (Darwin on habits and ranges)]
* 1842: ''The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs'' [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2690]
* 1844: ''Geological Observations of Volcanic Islands'' [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=3054], [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/observations-geologiques-sur-les-iles-volcaniques/ (French version)]
* 1846: ''Geological Observations on South America'' [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=3620]
* 1849: ''Geology'' from ''A Manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy: and adapted for travellers in general.'', John F.W. Herschel ed. [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/geology.html]
* 1851: ''A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes.'' [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin4/liv_lepadidae/lepadidae01.html]
* 1851: ''A Monograph on the Fossil Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain'' [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin4/fos_lepadidae/fos.lep.html]
* 1854: ''A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc.'' [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin4/liv_balanidae/balanidae_fm.html]
* 1854: ''A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain'' [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin4/fos_balanidae/fos.balanidae.html]
* 1858: ''[[On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection|On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection]]''
* 1859: ''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life]]''
* 1862: ''On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects'' [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/orchids/orchids_fm.htm]
* 1868: ''Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication'' [http://www.esp.org/books/darwin/variation/facsimile/title3.html (PDF format)], [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/variation-of-animals-and-plants-under-domestication-v1/ Vol. 1], [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/variation-of-animals-and-plants-under-domestication-v2/ Vol. 2]
* 1871: ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]''
* 1872: ''The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals'' [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-expression-of-emotion-in-man-and-animals/]
* 1875: ''Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants'' [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2485]
* 1875: ''Insectivorous Plants'' [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/insectivorous-plants/]
* 1876: ''The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom'' [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-effects-of-cross-and-self-fertilisation/]
* 1877: ''The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species'' [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-different-forms-of-flowers-on-plants/]
* 1879: "Preface and 'a preliminary notice'" in Ernst Krause's ''Erasmus Darwin'' [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/erasmus.html]
* 1880: ''The Power of Movement in Plants'' [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-power-of-movement-in-plants/]
* 1881: ''Formation of vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms'' [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2355]
* 1887: ''Autobiography of Charles Darwin'' (Edited by his Son Francis Darwin) [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2010]
* 1958: ''Autobiography of Charles Darwin'' (Barlow, unexpurgated)
 
=== Letters ===
I can't add those links on the article. our spam filter thinks nice guy dibbel is a spammer. How do I fix it?--Alexandre Van de Sande 22:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
*[[Correspondence of Charles Darwin]]
* 1887: ''Life and Letters of Charles Darwin'', ed. [[Francis Darwin]] [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ Volume I], [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/ Volume II]
* 1903: ''More Letters of Charles Darwin'', ed. [[Francis Darwin]] and A.C. Seward [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/more-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ Volume I], [http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/more-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/ Volume II]
 
== References ==
== Automated posting to user talk pages ==
{{Wikisource author}}
{{wikibooks}}
{{wikiquote}}
{{Commons|Charles Darwin}}
*Charles Darwin, ''Voyage of the Beagle'', (including Robert FitzRoy's ''Remarks with reference to the Deluge''), (Penguin Books, London [[1989]]) ISBN 0-14-043268-X
*[[E. Janet Browne]], ''Charles Darwin: Voyaging'' and ''The Power of Place'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995-2002).
*Adrian Desmond and James Moore, ''Darwin'' (London: Michael Joseph, the Penguin Group, [[1991]]). ISBN 0-7181-3430-3
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html The Darwin Deathbed Conversion Question]
*Richard Keynes, ''Fossils, Finches and Fuegians: Charles Darwin's Adventures and Discoveries on the Beagle, 1832-1836''. ( London: HarperCollins, 2002).
* James Moore and Adrian Desmond, "Introduction", in ''The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex'' (London: Penguin Classics, 2004). (Detailed history of Darwin's views on race, sex, and class)
*Diane B. Paul, "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics," in Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick, eds., ''The Cambridge Companion to Darwin'' (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 214-239.
*The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin], Ch. VIII, p. 274. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905 [http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html]: quotation in which he describes himself as "agnostic"
 
==External links==
I wonder if I could start a discussion here that would hopefully lead to a specific policy on whether we want to allow the use of bots to mass-post on user talk pages. This has come up as the result of the recent mass-posting run by Rambot (information [[Wikipedia talk:Bots#rambot|here]], [[User talk:Ram-Man#Spambot|here]] and [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-December/thread.html#17745 here]), which seems the first use of a bot to mass-post on user-pages. (On the other hand, it's also been suggested that this is already covered by existing bot policy.) [[User:PRiis|PRiis]] 01:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
*[http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/ Writings of Charles Darwin on the Web]
*[http://darwin-online.org.uk/ Complete Works of Darwin Online]
*[http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/biographies/charles-darwin/charles-darwin.html Charles Darwin biography at the Natural History Museum, London]
* [http://www.aboutdarwin.com AboutDarwin.com]
* [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/ Darwin] - at the [[American Museum of Natural History]]
* [http://www.gruts.com/darwin/index.php The Friends of Charles Darwin]
* [http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/current/darwin.htm Darwin's portrait on the £10 note]
* [http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/person.asp?search=ss&sText=Charles+Darwin&LinkID=mp01196 Twelve different portraits of Charles Darwin at the National Portrait Gallery, U.K.]
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4607037.stm BBC News: "Darwin family repeat flower count"]
* [http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/onlinedb/darwin/darimage/dardraw.htm Examine Darwin's crustacean collection online]
* A short [http://atheisme.free.fr/Biographies/Darwin_e.htm biography of Darwin]
 
==See also==
:I've just posted this to [[User_talk:Anthony_DiPierro#Wording_of_bots_clause_on_spamming]], but I'll also copy and paste it here because it's absolutely relevant to this topic:
* [[Harriet]] - a Galápagos tortoise, the world's oldest living animal
* [[Patrick Matthew]]
 
{{Darwin}}
:Hi Anthony, With the proposal on [[Wikipedia:Spam]] about bots, would you consider rewording it to be something like "Don't use a bot to post to talk pages, unless the message left by the bot clearly relates to the content in that specific article"? The reason for this qualification is [[User:LinkBot|LinkBot]], which I'm revising now so that it'll leave a 2 line message on talk pages, pointing to a specific LinkBot user page, and that page in turn will contain specific link suggestions just relevant to that article. In other words, I'm trying to walk a line between not annoying people by filling up the talk page with suggestions, but on the other hand I also want to let them know that there are suggestions, that are specific just to that particular article. I don't think that should be considered spam, because it's completely consistent with the whole purpose of a [[talk page]] (defined as: 'a special Wikipedia page containing discussion about the contents of its associated "subject" page'). Suggesting links specific to that page is completely in keeping with the whole reason for having talk pages (this then becomes a discussion about whether the Wikipedia should even have talk pages, not about whether link suggestions should be placed on those pages). Note that I'm more than happy for there to be a spam policy, as long as the language of the policy is specific enough that bots leaving messages that are consistent with the purpose of talk pages could not be accused of being spammers. Sorry for waffling on, and I hope that I've made sense! :-) All the best, -- [[User:Nickj|Nickj]] 01:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
{{evolution}}
<!-- Categorization and Interwiki links -->
 
[[Category:1809 births|Darwin, Charles]]
::Doh! PRiis's message was about '''user''' talk pages, not general talk pages, so it's not as on-topic as I first thought ... Sorry! All the best, -- [[User:Nickj|Nickj]] 01:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:1882 deaths|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Agnostics|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Anglicans|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Alumni of Christ's College, Cambridge|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:British scientists|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Carcinologists|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Charles Darwin|*]]
[[Category:Darwin -- Wedgwood family|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:English travel writers|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Evolutionary biologists|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Fellows of the Royal Society|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:British geologists|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Natives of Shropshire|Darwin, Charles]]
[[Category:Unitarian Universalists|Darwin, Charles]]
 
{{Link FA|sl}}
:::It's unclear to me just how this would work. If you're posting the exact same link to all these talk pages, I don't think it's a very good idea. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|&#35686;&#21578;]] 02:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
[[ar:تشارلز داروين]]
:::: No problem, please let me explain. It'll be a different link for each talk page. Probably the best way to illustrate is with a mock-up example, rather than discussing it in the abstract. Please see [[Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#Link_suggestions]] for such an example of what's being proposed. So what you get is a brief note on the talk page, pointing to a customized page with link suggestions that are just specific to that particular article. I hope I'm explaining this OK! :-) All the best, -- [[User:Nickj|Nickj]] 02:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[bg:Чарлз Дарвин]]
 
[[bn:চার্ল্‌স্‌ ডারউইন]]
:::::That's pretty neat. As an [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObLink obNitPick], dancing is not a verb :). ([[User:Nickj/Link Suggester]] calls it one) [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|&#35686;&#21578;]] 03:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[bs:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[ca:Charles Robert Darwin]]
::::::Because dancing is both a noun and a verb? (e.g. in "I was dancing" dancing is part of the verb, whereas in "I hate dancing", hate is the verb and dancing is the noun) ... Good point. OK, I've changed it to "suggesting", a transitive verb (i.e. it's incomplete without a direct object), so it shouldn't have this problem. All the best, -- [[User:Nickj|Nickj]] 03:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[cs:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[cy:Charles Darwin]]
:::::Bleh, I'm a moron. OK... Dancing is (at least, can be) a verb. I was thinking of the noun. Incidently, it's probably used more often as a noun, but I'm still a moron for not thinking of the verb. :) [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|&#35686;&#21578;]] 03:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[da:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[de:Charles Darwin]]
::::::Hey, as you said to me, no need for personal attacks :) All the best, -- [[User:Nickj|Nickj]] 04:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[et:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[es:Charles Darwin]]
Ah, internal spambots. Frankly, if you can't take the time to write me a message yourself, and if I didn't specifically ask you to do something to my user talk page, '''keep your''' <s>insert expletive here, where I removed it</s> '''bot off of my user talk page.''' -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 03:22, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
[[eo:Charles DARWIN]]
 
[[eu:Charles Darwin]]
==Malfunctioning spam filter==
[[fr:Charles Darwin]]
Has anyone else had problems with the wiki spam filter? Every once in awhile, it seems to go on the blink and start blocking a bunch of legitimate links. [[User:69.243.41.28|69.243.41.28]] 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[[fy:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[ga:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[gd:Charles Darwin]]
== From [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] ==
[[gl:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[ko:찰스 다윈]]
 
[[hi:चार्ल्स डार्विन]]
Recently someone posted a substantially identical message on over 50 user talk pages. Immediate issues aside (it was an attempt to pack a vote) it concerns me that there is no policy explicitly saying you can't round up a targetted list of talk pages (user talk, article space talk, whatever) and spamming substantially identical text on them.
[[hr:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[io:Charles Darwin]]
This may be something that will be more important in future than it is now--such spamming is rare and sometimes done by hand (although sometimes it has been done using a bot).
[[id:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[is:Charles Darwin]]
I'd like to canvas for ideas on whether this kind of thing merits new policy, or whether existing policy is sufficient to treat any abuses that might arise. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[it:Charles Darwin]]
:I don't think we have any existing policy that consensus agrees covers this issue. I also don't think that a hard-limit would work on its own as I can see people attmepting to get around this by posting the messages to a batch of (limit-1) pages, substantially rephrasing it and then doing another batch of (limit-1) pages. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 13:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[he:צ'ארלס דרווין]]
 
[[ku:Charles Darwin]]
::Problem is that some people are interested in things that are put on a large number talk pages (colabiration of the week is the first example to come to mind). I'd like to see template nospam become inforced by policy with admins being left to decide if something is spam[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[la:Carolus Darwin]]
 
[[lv:Čārlzs Darvins]]
Maybe we could implement some system were users themselves decide what they want to stay informed about? Spam is by definition unwanted, but with this kind of messages it's kinda hard to find out. On the other hands, mailings from the COTW are useful and shouldn't be restricted by such rules. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
[[lt:Čarlzas Darvinas]]
:That's what [[WP:Watch]] is aiming to achieve, at least partly. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 18:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[hu:Charles Darwin]]
::But I don't want to know about every COTW I just want to know if the one I voted on won so I know I should do some work on it[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[mk:Чарлс Дарвин]]
 
[[ms:Charles Darwin]]
I don't want to see a "template nospam" system because it gives the yellow light to spammers. Why should I *have* to put something on my talk page, which a spammer would ignore anyhow, just to say I don't want spam? Of course I don't want spam, few sane people do! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[nl:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[ja:チャールズ・ダーウィン]]
The problem is that not all mass messageing (and mass messageing is really what we are dealing with) is spam.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[no:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[pl:Charles Darwin]]
If a problem editor is sending unsolicited bulk messages (either very large numbers, or repeated mailings) shouldn't it be possible to use the regular dispute resolution mechanisms? Certainly it seems like a breach of [[Wikiquette]] and maybe [[WP:POINT]] and so forth. ArbCom can impose anything up to a hard ban on users who do this sort of thing, I would imagine, depending on how disruptive the acts were. Less egregious offenders might be allowed only a certain number of user talk page edits per day, or a ban on sending substantially similar messages to more than one or two users.
[[pt:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[ro:Charles Darwin]]
If someone is sending the same message to lots of people&mdash;but ''none of them are complaining''&mdash;then we don't seem to have a problem. Do we? If the objection is because the mass messaging is encouraging a cohort of editors to act in concert for some bad-faith objective, ''that'' is a fit subject for RfC or arbitration. Again, a ban on mass-messaging might be appropriate under such circumstances within the framework of a larger solution. But again no new rules need be created. Policy creep is to be avoided! As Thruyduulf notes, such a policy would likely have loopholes anyway, and we'd be back where we started. --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:TenOfAllTrades|Talk]] 04:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[ru:Дарвин, Чарлз]]
:Indeed. I was one of the spammed people - my annoyance was because the poster had not bothered to check that I had already done what he was asking me to do. -- [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]] 16:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[sco:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[scn:Charles Darwin]]
: I strongly agree that policy creep is a major consideration--which is why I'm not at the stage of saying "all talk page spamming is utterly evil." My problems with using this method to coordinate campaigns are pretty much solved by Violetriga's excellent (and timely!) [[WP:W]]. If I see people spamming I'll simply recommend that they use that more benign and equitable method instead. Factionalization and politicking are much bigger issues than spamming which is why I'm deliberately separating them out from this proposal--there are many good, noncontentious reasons to want to contact a group of people, so the question is just whether we could or should reach agreement on the when and the where. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[simple:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[sk:Charles Robert Darwin]]
== How not to be a spammer ==
[[sl:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[sr:Чарлс Дарвин]]
There was a case recently on our article [[Spyware]] where a new user posted a large number of links to pages on his own commercial Web site. This was interpreted by other editors (including myself) as an act of spamming.
[[fi:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[sv:Charles Darwin]]
The user professed to have good intentions, as his Web site is indeed somewhat useful. I suspect that he simply did not know the standards of content expected here, and expected that adding links to what he regarded as useful material would be eagerly received. He didn't, in other words, realize that his action (adding a large number of links to the same site) would be interpreted as spam.
[[tl:Charles Darwin]]
 
[[ta:சார்லஸ் டார்வின்]]
I'd like to suggest a few guidelines on '''how not to be a spammer.''' -- or, in other words, how to mention a Web site or other resource without appearing to the Wikipedia community that you are trying to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion.
[[th:ชาลส์ ดาร์วิน]]
 
[[tr:Charles Darwin]]
# '''Review your intentions.''' Wikipedia is not a space for the ''promotion'' of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites ''you'' as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging [[PageRank]]) you'll probably be disappointed.
[[uk:Дарвін Чарльз Роберт]]
# '''Contribute cited text, not bare links.''' Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off of Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)
[[zh:查尔斯·罗伯特·达尔文]]
# '''The ''References'' section is for references.''' A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) ''referred to'' whilst writing the article. It isn't just a list of ''related'' works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to ''References'' sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it.
#'''Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site.''' Most often, when a person creates a new article describing their own work, it's because the work is not yet notable enough to have attracted anyone else's attention. Articles of this sort are known as ''[[Wikipedia:vanity page|vanity page]]s'' and are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to ''popularize'' them.
# '''Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar.''' There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching:
#* '''Adding a link to the ''top'' of an unordered list.''' This is an A-number-1, red-flag, hot-button spam sign. It suggests that you want people to look at your link ''FIRST FIRST FIRST!'' You wouldn't butt in at the head of a queue; don't put your link first.
#* '''Adding a link that's snazzier than any of the others.''' If there's a list of products that gives just their names, and you add a product with a short blurb about how great it is, we'll all know why you did it.
#* '''Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product.''' Going through an article and adding the name of your product to every paragraph where it seems relevant is just going to attract the revert button.
#* '''Adding the same link to many articles.''' The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not very much fun.
 
Thoughts? --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 21:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Proposal updated in light of the below discussion on vanity. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 03:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
: It is very hard to deal with spammers, they have no reason to follow any guidelines except promoting their site. The guidelines are right but target audience won't read it. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::The target audience is not ''concerted spammers'', but rather users who do not understand Wikipedia etiquette. There have been at least a few cases of well-intentioned users whose actions were interpreted as spam, but who did not intend to spam and who changed their ways when corrected. The recent case on [[Spyware]] should be illustrative.
 
:: Calling a spammer a spammer will not change his behavior, nor will asking him not to spam. In that, you are correct. However, a user who doesn't realize that his contemplated actions constitute "spamming" by ''our'' standards, can be educated. I do not propose to teach malicious spammers the error of their ways. I propose rather to use the opprobrium of the term "spammer" to teach well-intentioned new users to do better. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 23:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 
=== On vanity ===
 
*You say ''Don't make an article for your own product or Web site. These are called vanity articles, and they're automatically eligible for deletion. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to popularize them.'' This is not strictly accurate. If Bill Gates choses to add an article about a Microsoft product (or about himself) it is not automitaccly delatable for that reason. If a subject is suitible for an article, it doesn't matter who adds it. The problem is that most articles added by people about themselves or their own projects, products, or buisnesses are not notable, and would and should be deleted no matter who adds them. The fact that the creator adds the article makes it look more suspicious, yes. but this needs to be reworded. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 00:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*:I agree that it is not a problem for a person to contribute to a page on themselves or their own work, as in the Gates/Microsoft example you describe. Nor does such a contribution transform an otherwise notable article into a vanity page.
*:However, ''vanity page'' is listed on the [[Wikipedia:deletion policy|deletion policy]] as a grounds for deletion. In regards to deletion, [[Wikipedia:Vanity page]] states as follows:
*::''Vanity pages are usually sent to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Deletion of the page normally ensues, although sometimes it may be moved to the user's user-page. Even famous Wikipedians have had pages about them judged to be vanity pages and deleted.''
*:I believe this supports the above contention that vanity articles are ''eligible'' for deletion. I don't mean that they must be deleted or that they are candidates for speedy deletion; rather, I mean that may be reasonably nominated for deletion; a person listing a vanity page on VfD is doing something both acceptable and expected. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 01:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*:I wonder if the following phrasing might work better:
*::'''Don't make an article for your own product or Web site.''' Most often, when a person creates a new article describing their own work, it's because the work is not yet notable enough to have attracted anyone else's attention. Articles of this sort are known as ''[[Wikipedia:vanity page|vanity page]]s'' and are usually deleted. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about popular products and Web sites, but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia to ''popularize'' them.
*:::Now ''that'' text I would endorse. It was just the previous wording which implied -- or seemed to me to imply -- that any text by a person about that person or his or her own work was automatically vanity. Most such are, but not all.[[User:DESiegel|DES]] 01:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*:Otherwise, this item could just be dropped from the guideline. Vanity pages are usually a separate phenomenon from Wiki-spam -- while sometimes an editor creates a vanity page and spams links to it across many pages, it seems more common to simply spam links to an external site. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 01:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
FWIW, my own policy is that if I think something I wrote elsewhere is worth being linked from an article, I mention it on the relevant talk page, I'm clear that it's my work, and invite people to link if they think it is useful. Sometimes someone does, sometimes not, which is fine. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 
:This is a great suggestion. What do you think of this phrasing?
 
::'''If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page.''' We usually recommend that editors [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant.
 
:--[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 05:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Now that is a suggestion that I like. --[[User:Zhen-Xjell|Paul Laudanski]] 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:The text looks great to me. ''Be bold, ''and add it to wikipedia namespace at a page like [[Wikipedia:How not to be a spammer]]... [[User:JesseW|JesseW]]
 
::Done. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Potemkin villages==
This may be interesting to those watching this page: [[Talk:Department of Motor Vehicles]] [[User:Rl|Rl]] 08:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
=== Re-merged ===
 
After development and approval at [[Wikipedia:How not to be a spammer]], this guideline has been merged into [[Wikipedia:Spam]]. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 22:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Third kind of wikispam ==
 
The article says there are two types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming.
 
I think there is a third kind: Adding a link to your companys website on the Wkipedia page about the field of your business. For example, I just reverted these two: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Credit_card_fraud&diff=21787600&oldid=21632658], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Credit_card&diff=21818813&oldid=21718174] --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:I suspect this was omitted because of the frequent perception that "spam" involves a message repeated many times. I happen to agree with you, though: Wikipedia is a popular enough resource that adding an irrelevant link for the purpose of driving traffic to a site should be considered, if not "spam", then something very similar. "Vanity linking", we could call it, but we might as well just say "spam". --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
== my changes==
Today I made some changes but they were removed because they were considerd too major to happen without discussion. (I don't know how to link these edits, can someone link them for me?) The current linking policy doesn't describe when you should link to blogs. It recommends incoportating information rather than adding externals, but the value of a blog is it's dynamic nature... So such a practice is not possible. [[User:12.111.139.2|12.111.139.2]] 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:[[Wikipedia:Spam]] is a policy page. That means it is intended to reflect a consensus or established understanding of accepted practice among Wikipedia editors. A major change made without any discussion is not going to reflect a consensus or established understanding. Take a look at how the [[Wikipedia:How not to be a spammer]] guidelines were integrated into this policy -- with advice and consensus from other contributors, organized via the talk pages.
 
:It is hardly ever appropriate for a person who has violated a policy to come around and change the policy page so it seems like they didn't violate it. Remember, the ''real policy'' is the consensus understanding among other editors -- ''not'' what the page says. Policy pages are not law that can be amended by editing the page; they are ''descriptions'' of what policy is. So changing the page doesn't change the fact that you broke (or perhaps merely bent) the rules. Trying to do so is taken as a sign of bad faith, which is why you got repeated warnings on your talk page.
 
:There is rarely any reason for a non-logged-in user to try to contribute to Wikipedia policy discussons. Go get yourself an account. It's free, and it means we can think of you by a username rather than thinking of you as "yet another random IP address with no name, probably a vandal."
 
:Repeatedly adding a link that other editors have removed, without discussing it and waiting for others to respond in support, is considered bad behavior here. Whether it's useful to call that "spam" or simply "revert warring" is another matter. In either event, it is unacceptable behavior, and it is not going to get you anywhere here. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 03:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 
 
 
== External links criteria and lyrics sites ==
 
Many external links are links to sites such as lyrics or guitar tab pages. I'm trying to decide whether these could be considered spam.
 
Argument that such links are spam:
 
*The same site can appear in many different articles.
*Often such sites are low-quality or commercial or ad-based sites.
 
Arguments that such links are not spam:
 
*Such links are useful to each individual article.
 
What do other users think? [[User:DDerby|DDerby]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 19:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:In my opinion, any site that has something to do with the individual, whether they contain something that is in the article or not (unless it's virtually identical) should be considered valid to the artist and fans. I.e., this is especially in the case of tabs and lyric sites that may have Google ads on them, but otherwise contain relevant content. But it is also relative to the case whereby a site may not add much to the article, but may be used as a reference so that someone may conveniently access information that won't change as much as articles that are commonly changed one way or another by maybe vandalism and edit wars. It's difficult to trust some of the information any more by articles on celebrities where of course these types of external links would be placed. That said, low quality, high commercial sites should be removed promptly. [[User:Drdr1989|Drdr1989]] 20:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 
Two facts I'd like to toss in about this issue:
 
# '''Many lyrics sites are copyright violators.''' Songwriters hold the copyright on published song lyrics, and reprinting them without permission is a copyright violation. Reprinting them for commercial gain (by carrying advertisements on a lyrics site) can be a criminal offense. Compare the issue of Wikipedia mirror sites: we expect that sites which mirror Wikipedia content will do so in a way that is compliant with our copyright license. Wikipedia is harmed by mirror sites which use our content, plastered with ads, in violation of our license. We should not use sites which are engaging in similar offenses as a resource.
## '''Corollary: Lyrics sites will not last long.''' Any given lyrics site is likely to eventually be taken down as a copyright infringer. Therefore, they do not form good ''references'' for Wikipedia's purposes -- they are not long-lasting.
# '''Lyrics sites are frequently commercial (ad-sponsored) sites''' which are likely to wish to use Wikipedia to drive up their Google PageRank or otherwise to drive traffic to their sites. Any systematic pushing of a given lyrics site is likely to represent a commercial spamming activity against Wikipedia.
 
In short, I think links to lyrics sites should be regarded with a heaping helping of suspicion. First off, commercial (ad-sponsored) lyrics sites are likely operating in violation of criminal law. Second, Wikipedia contributors are copyright holders and expect the protection of copyright, and so should not help copyright violators as a matter of equity. Third, links to lyrics sites are likely to be added for the purpose of driving revenue to those sites, which is equivalent to spamming Wikipedia. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 
==Need more specific criteria as to what constitutes spam==
The criteria are not defined clearly enough to provide unambiguous guidance as to what constitutes spam. Is it the intent of the writer that determines it, or is it some objective aspect of the article? Theoretically, you could write about any small or medium-sized company, or non-ubiquitous commercial product, and people could regard it as spam. It is rather frustrating for those whose articles get put up for AFD when they had no intent to spam. [[User:24.54.208.177|24.54.208.177]] 04:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:That's why we added the ''How not to be a spammer'' section -- to provide some guidelines about what things frequently get identified as spam. The purpose is both to deter spammers (by letting them know we're onto them) and to help non-spammers keep their articles from being mistaken for spam.
 
:Nonetheless, ''any'' article can get listed on AfD. If it's really not spam, it shouldn't be too hard to convince people there of it. In the case of the DoYouDo article, it looks like there was some malfeasance in the AfD including (what's claimed to be) deletion of other people's comments, so I don't think that's likely to be a very good basis to argue for policy changes. Generally as soon as there's sneakiness going on, people are a ''lot'' less likely to believe assertions about intent.
 
:If you're looking for a set of clear-cut content rules that you can follow and thereby guarantee that nobody's allowed to call the result spam or try to get it deleted, you aren't gonna find one. We don't have too many of that kind of rules here. We have a lot of recommendations and guidelines (like this one) and procedures (like AfD).
 
:To answer your question, ''"Is it the intent of the writer that determines it, or is it some objective aspect of the article?"'' -- it's neither, in a way. Wikipedia is run by rough consensus. Wikipedia guidelines (such as this one) ''describe'' what consensus seems to have settled upon. If people object to an article because it comes across as promoting a product rather than describing something notable neutrally, then they're likely to try to get it deleted as spam. This is a feature, not a bug; it's part of how Wikipedia maintains its neutrality; by public review. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 05:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 
::Judging from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DoYouDo&oldid=23686745 this version] of that article, I'd consider it notable, if only because someone apparently paid almost two million dollars for it. My advice is to restart that article with a [[Wikipedia:Lead section|lead section]] that documents the most notable aspects of the company -- the focus in the version I linked to appears to be the technology behind a website that apparently doesn't exist anymore, and who wants to read about that? Start off talking about what makes it notable, and I'd vote to keep. Of course, I can't guarantee there won't be consensus to delete it anyway, so if you don't want to waste your time on something that may go away soon, then don't. I agree with Fubar though that spam ought not be specifically described; we should discuss borderline cases, like this one, and come to a consensus. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 07:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Is it really desirable to include something as subjective as "spam" as a legitimate reason for article deletion? In my opinion, in a case of suspected spam it would be better to either delete as "non-notable" or add an NPOV notice to the article. NPOV can be fixed by adding more content to balance out the article; non-notability can't. [[User:205.217.105.2|205.217.105.2]] 12:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 
One rule of thumb I use is that anonymous users whose edit histories consist of 95-100% edits to add articles about or links to sites deemed spamming have no standing in the discussion. People need to show that they are committed to Wikipedia by making a number of unambiguously non-spamming beneficial edits if they want that kind of respect. People who clearly have only one purpose, adding in references to their favorite site or company, don't hold opinions about what is and is not spam that hold any weight. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 13:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:I changed the text of the article to read:
::''Since there can be a fine line between articles that are promotional and those that are simply informational, it is better to avoid listing "spam" or "advertisement" as the sole basis for article deletion. Articles posted on Wikipedia about products, companies, bands, etc. that do not meet established [[Wikipedia:Importance|notability]] criteria can be dealt with by listing them on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] as "non-notable."''
:[[User:205.217.105.2|205.217.105.2]] 16:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 
*If the subject of an article is a notable company, product, or service, then yes, the correct way to address an article that reads like an advertisement is [[Wikipedia:Cleanup resources|cleanup]] (e.g. &#123;&#123;advert&#125;&#125;, &#123;&#123;NPOV&#125;&#125;, or &#123;&#123;cleanup-tone&#125;&#125;) not deletion, with the exception that one always applies [[User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage|Copyright Judo]] to delete/rollback copyrighted advertisements. When the subject is notable, dealing with advertising becomes a matter of adhering to the [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] policy and using an appropriate tone for an encyclopaedia article, both of which are cleanup matters, not deletion matters. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 
=="Delete. Spam" and "Delete. Advertisement"==
I don't think we should encourage people to put articles up for deletion, or vote Delete, just because they start out as an advertisement. To take an extreme example, suppose a Microsoft marketer writes a glowing Wikipedia article about the company, detailing its great products and service and all the great things people are saying about it. In my opinion, that should not merit deletion; it should be revised to make it NPOV. What matters is notability, and the guideline should clarify that it is better in the case of an advertisement to: (1) If it is a non-notable subject, AFD it for non-notability; or, (2) If it is notable, rewrite it to be NPOV. The text that Aaron Brenneman reinstated[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASpam&diff=24128333&oldid=23762713], says "Advertisements posted on Wikipedia should be dealt with by listing them on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]." Even though below, it says, "It is also possible, and appropriate in some cases, to rewrite the article from a [[wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]," it doesn't really specify what those cases are. I like Plugwash's clarification better, which says, "If an article is about a notable company or product but is written like an advertisement, it is more appropriate, to rewrite the article from a [[wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]." [[User:24.54.208.177|24.54.208.177]] 13:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:And I don't think anonymous editors who show up and generate said advertisement articles should have much of a say in the matter.
:If an article can be NPOV'ed, and there's someone around who wants to and has time to NPOV it, great. I have personally seen some AFD requests turn into NPOV'ing of the article, and everyone benefits. But just because some vandal shows up to advertise his company does not obligate us to put "clean up this guy's mess" on our todo list. If nobody can or wants to NPOV it, we're going to delete it. Wikipedia is not a blank wall for people to put their billboards up on. We are justly and rightly angry when people try to use it for advertising. People who come by for a day and plant their advertising have no say on the subject; the people who remain have every right to clean up the mess. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 14:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 
::Thoroughly agreed. We need to recognize that spamming Wikipedia is ''not'' a good-faith attempt to contribute an encyclopedia article. It is an abuse of the medium, just as spamming email, blog comments, or instant messages are abuses of those media.
 
::What the anonymous contributor (who has been accused of spamming) suggests is that spam should be treated like ''NPOV problems''. I suggest that spam should instead be treated like ''vandalism''. Both spam and vandalism are disruptive abuses of the Wiki system. They occur when someone posts to Wikipedia for purposes contrary to the goal of producing an encyclopedia: in the vandalism case, they have the goal of disrupting or simply of seeing their name or words "in print"; in the spam case, of making money by diverting people to their Web site or product.
 
::We don't respond to vandalism by "attempting to NPOV it." We just revert or delete it; and administrators block people who continually vandalize. Spamming should be treated the same way -- revert or delete the content, and block people who persistently spam. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
::::What is with the [[ad hominem]] attacks? No one has any evidence at all that I have spammed. Moreover, the articles that I created that were supposedly spam appear about to survive their respective AFDs (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECRUSH]]. I think incorrect assumptions were made as to my motives. That's the problem with AFD'ing articles based on who created them or what their motives might have been; sometimes, you're bound to be wrong. By the way, I am the primary author of [[pet skunk]], [[cannabis rescheduling in the United States]], [[Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs]], [[Convention on Psychotropic Substances]], as well as [[wildlife crossing]] and numerous other articles that are not featured &ndash; they just weren't created under this IP address. So, I have made plenty of contributions. In short, just judge articles on their merits, and not based on the author. When we delete articles, it should be based on non-notability, copyvio, and other criteria that can be established reasonably objectively. "Spam" is too subjective. Just my opinion. I just don't like to see people try to undo my work because for no good reason, they think I'm a spammer. [[User:24.54.208.177|24.54.208.177]] 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::It's not an ad hominem attack. It's an assertion of a lack of credibility. The fact that articles you created are currently embroiled in AFD proceedings means we're less likely to feel you're making a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia in this policy discussion, rather than an attempt to ensure the success of your (possibly spam) articles. If your articles survive AFD, that certainly improves your credibility. In addition, it proves that things are already the way you want them to be: your non-spam articles survive AFD, and all is good. The fact that they underwent AFD is not a problem; it just means that several editors looked at the article to decide if it really belongs here. That is exactly what we want! Not all AFD requests result in deletion; that is as it should be. It doesn't mean the person who put the article up for AFD is "wrong." It just means we needed to take a collectively look at that article.
:::::Your credibility could certainly be enhanced if you would create an account and log in, and allow your edit history to accrue your accomplishments. Somebody coming from a random IP address and concerned about our standards for what is and not spam certainly looks suspicious. Somebody with an account who has been here awhile and created several visibly good articles is much more worth listening to. It's not our fault you've chosen to allow your edit history to be dispersed among several anonymous IP addresses. That's your choice.
:::::We do judge articles based on their merits. An article that is deleted for being spam is generally also non-notable (and/or a copyvio or whatever). [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 17:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Except that things often labelled "spam" here are a mix of two different things. 1) Attempts to promote non-notable companies, products or organizations; 2) Attempts to promote notable companies, products or organizations. The first should be delted, but the second should (ideally) be converted into NPOV articles. Simple linkspamming (i.e. addign links that do not enhance articels, and are often of dubious relevance) is vandalism and is normally reverted as asuch. Simuilarly an article that is little or nothing but a promotional link is already subject to speedy deletion under A3. But an articel with significant content, but a highly promotional tone, is another matter. Perhaps it should be deleted, but perhaps it should be rewitten -- and IMO only a consensus procvess such as AfD can make that decision. Thus a general speedy deletion criterion for "spam" would IMO be a mistake. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 
::DES makes a good point -- there are certainly going to be cases where we want an article about some company or product (since it is notable) but where the article is created as a spam article first. In these cases, I agree that we do not want to refuse to cover the company or product just because it was spammed about. We want there to be a non-spam article, even though the article was created as spam.
 
::However, I think deletion or speedy deletion of the spam article can be a step in the process. Just because a spam article entitled ''Foocorp'' is speedy-deleted, doesn't prevent someone from creating a non-spam article under the same title. Deletion of spam articles about notable companies or products could be accompanied by listing the title at [[WP:RA]], for instance.
 
::My reading of DES's suggestion is that spam articles about notable subjects should not be deleted; they should be left up until someone gets around to "NPOVing" them. (If that's a mistaken reading, please correct me.) I don't see why the spam should be left up at all. NPOVing a lengthy spam article is more time-consuming than speedy-and-[[WP:RA]], and so DES's suggestion is more likely to yield ill-gotten gains for the spammer in the meantime.
 
::I'll freely admit I have a hardcore attitude towards spam. I think it's necessary to deter spammers by making it clear that spamming Wikipedia is a waste of time -- that they will be denied the ability to extract any benefit by doing so, and will just get themselves in trouble. Deleting the spam article (and allowing or encouraging others to create a non-spam article) seems to me to be the best way to do this. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 18:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:::I didn't intend to say that "spam articles about notable subjects" should be "left up until someone gets around to "NPOVing" them". My feeling is that spam articles should be taken to AfD, not speedied, assuming they don't qualify under an existing CSD such as A3. In the course of an AfD, if the subject is notable, it may well get cleaned up promptly. If the subject is notable but a prompt cleanup does not happen a consensus may form to leave it up (perhaps with a suitable clean up tag, and active links removed, to avoid rewarding the spammer) or to delete it, depending on the exact circumstances involved. If the subject is deeemd not-notable, i would expect it to be delted no matter how it gets cleaned up. In short I think AfD offers the needed flexability and time to develop a proper way of dealing with such thinngs case-by-case. Things that don't need this should already be speedy deleteable under G1 or A3. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 
::::OK! This sounds pretty reasonable to me. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 20:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:I understood DES' point was to use AFD instead of speedy for spam, but that's what I usually do anyway unless something is just complete junk. The [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] don't mention spam, though they do permit speedy-deleting an article that consists of nothing but an external link. IMO, DES is warning of a mistake that is not made that often. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 19:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
::I was interpreting this as part of an argument to add a speedy delete criterion for spam -- or for (IMO) mis-using the existing speedy criteria (mostly Patent nonsense or vandalism) to speedy delete articles. There are surely a number of editors who have advocated using speedy delete for most or all spam. I was not really responding to the question of whether '''on AfD''' a person ought to vote for deletion purely or largely on the basis of whether an article started as, or is currently percived as, spam. IMO that involves enough case-by-case judgement that I don't find a general rule useful. I hope that calrifies my comments a bit. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 
I think we should be able to speedy delete an article on a company with little meaningful content and no assertion of notability in precisely the same circumstances under which it would be allowed for an article on a person. Is there a reason the two are different in this context? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 18:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 
== Unacceptable conduct by [[User:24.54.208.177]] ==
 
Several people have attempted to communicate to this user that they are not to make controversial alterations to a Wikipedia policy or guideline page without establishing consensus first. Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to ''reflect consensus among editors''. Therefore, altering a guideline to bring it in line with one's own preferences ''without consulting other editors'' is simply a form of deceit: it is creating the false appearance that the alteration has been agreed upon, by placing it under the heading of a Wikipedia guideline.
 
So far, the clue has not sunk in. This user persists in reverting the guideline page to a version which ''does not'' represent the consensus of editors in discussion. It doesn't seem to reflect ''anyone's'' position other than that of an anonymous user ... a person who created some articles that a number of people considered spammy, and therefore seems to have a vested interest in altering the rules against spam.
 
I consider [[User:24.54.208.177]]'s reverting to be unacceptable conduct for a Wikipedia editor. I invite him/her to demonstrate some good faith: quit reverting. Either ''convince'' us that your changes to this guideline are worthwhile, or quit trying to change the rules. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 20:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:All right, I'll leave it alone. [[User:205.217.105.2|205.217.105.2]] 20:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 
=="Advert" tag==
I encourage users to make use of the advert tag as a substitute for AFD of suspected advertisements. [[User:24.54.208.177|24.54.208.177]] 02:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== noindex, nofollow ==
 
Why don't they just added noindex, nofollow to the tags of all external links? That way, if any spam, borderline spam or otherwise bad links were put on Wikipedia, they wouldn't be promoted by Wikipedia's PageRank. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 03:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
:As I understand, "they" already do. --[[User:DDerby|DDerby-]][[User talk:DDerby|<small>(talk)</small>]] 06:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Proposed Wikiproject:External links ==
 
One major annoyance I have with Wikipedia is linkspam, as well as long lists of mediocre-quality external links at the end of articles. I believe the length of external link lists should be limited and include only a small number of the highest-quality, reputable, and informative websites. Preferably the linked websites would also be ad-free or minimize use of ads. I have come across articles with 50+ external links (e.g. [[Hybrid vehicle]]), sorted through them (a tedious process) to only find 6 links that were truly informative and worthy. How do we expect readers to discern those 6 informative references out of such a lengthy list?
 
I propose a WikiProject where we nominate and work on such articles that need their external links weeded through to get rid of linkspam and be quality-checked. I have also put forth guidelines and philosophy regarding external links &mdash; primarily drawn upon "official" Wikipedia policies set forth here and on [[Wikipedia:External links]]. I expanded on "What should not be included in external links" and welcome discussion on these ideas. Maybe we could use these to improve the "official" Wikipedia external link policy.
 
{{See2|User:Kmf164/External_links|Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects}}
 
If interested in helping out, please indicate your interest on the [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects|List of proposed projects]]. --[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] 23:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:There are plenty of perfectly good and useful Web sites that also carry ads. We depend on some of them regularly for citations -- newspaper or magazine sites, for instance; or even search engines. We can't expect ''all'' the resources in the world to be offered by volunteers, just because Wikipedia is. The problem with for-profit link spam isn't the ads; it's that the editor who adds it is ''acting in bad faith'' -- they aren't adding the link in order to improve the article, but rather to get money.
 
:I would suggest that something like the last "how not to be a spammer" guideline might apply. If a person runs or profits from a Web site, then they should consider not creating a link to it themselves. They can always propose the link on the talk page and see if others agree that their site is useful and relevant. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 06:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::I agree that many good and useful websites contain ads. There should be no hard-and-fast rule regarding ads, as its more of a case-by-case judgment. The consideration should be the ratio of ads vs. useful content. If a site has more ads than content and information, then I'd favor deleting it. Or it the topic is ''less'' notable, maybe an ad-supported site is the only (or one of few) references and then would be okay. --[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] 14:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Multiple requests for help. ==
 
What about requesting help from lots of users simultaniously? Like the translations of Encyclopædia Britannica articles [[User:Armour]] were asking for. Doesn't it count as spam in some way? How should it be dealt with? --[[User:Boivie|Boivie]] 22:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)