Categories
Web

Wikipedia and nofollow

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

That bastard Google warp-around nofollow rears its ugly little head again, this time with Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales, chief Pedian has issued a proclamation that Wikipedia outgoing links will now be labeled with ‘nofollow’, as a measure to prevent link spam.

seomoz.org seems to think this is a good thing:

What will be interesting to watch is how it really affects Wikipedia’s spam problem. From my perspective, there may be slightly less of an incentive for spammers to hit Wikipedia pages in the short term, but no less value to serious marketers seeking to boost traffic and authority by creating relevant Wikipedia links.

Philipp Jenson is far less sanguine, writing:

What happens as a consequence, in my opinion, is that Wikipedia gets valuable backlinks from all over the web, in huge quantity, and of huge importance – normal links, not “nofollow” links; this is what makes Wikipedia rank so well – but as of now, they’re not giving any of this back. The problem of Wikipedia link spam is real, but the solution to this spam problem may introduce an even bigger problem: Wikipedia has become a website that takes from the communities but doesn’t give back, skewing web etiquette as well as tools that work on this etiquette (like search engines, which analyze the web’s link structure). That’s why I find Wikipedia’s move very disappointing.

Nick Carr agrees writing:

Although the no-follow move is certainly understandable from a spam-fighting perspective, it turns Wikipedia into something of a black hole on the Net. It sucks up vast quantities of link energy but never releases any.

Seth Finkelstein notices something else: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ANARCHY! THERE IS SOMEBODY IN CHARGE!

The rel=”nofollow” is a web extension I despise, and nothing in the time it was first released–primarily because of weblog comment spam–has caused me to change my mind. As soon as we saw it, we knew the potential existed for misuse and people have lived down to my expectations since: using it to ‘punish’ web sites or people by withholding search engine ranking.

Even when we feel justified in its use, so as to withhold link juice to a ‘bad’ site (such as the one recently Google bombed that had misleading facts about Martin Luther King) we’re breaking the web, as we know it. There should be no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to an item showing up on a search list: if one site is talked about and linked more than another, regardless of the crap it contains, it’s a more topically relevant site. Not authoritative, not ‘good’, not ‘bad’, not definitive: topically relevant.

(Of course, if it is higher ranked because of Google bombing of its own, that’s a different story, but that’s not always the case.)

To return to the issue of Wikipedia and search engine ranking, personally I think one solution to this conundrum would be to remove Wikipedia from the search results. Two reasons for this:

First, Wikipedia is ubiquitous. If you’ve been on the web for even a few months, you know about it and chances are when you searching on a topic, you know to go directly to Wikipedia to see what it has. If you’ve been on the web long enough, you also know that you have to be skeptical of the data found, because you can’t trust the veracity of the material found on Wikipedia. I imagine that schools also provide their own, “Thou shalt not quote Wikipedia”, for budding young essayists.

Reason one leads to reason number two: for those folks new to this search thing, ending up on Wikipedia could give them the impression that they’ve ended up with a top-down authority driven site, and they may put more trust into the data than they should. After all, if they’re not that familiar with search engines, they certainly aren’t familiar with a wiki.

Instead of in-page search result entries, Google, Yahoo, MSN, any search engine should just provide a sidebar link to the relevant Wikipedia entry, with a note and a disclaimer about Wikipedia being a user-driven data source, and how one should not accept that this site has the definitive answer on any topic. Perhaps a link to a “What is Wikipedia?” FAQ would be a good idea.

Once sidebarred, don’t include Wikipedia in any search mechanism, period. Don’t ‘read’ its pages for links; and discard any links to its pages.

Wikipedia is now one of those rare sources on the web that has a golden door. In other words, it doesn’t need an entry point through a search engine for people to ‘discover’ it. If anything, its appearance in search engine results is a distraction. It would be like Google linking to Yahoo’s search result of a term, or Yahoo linking to Google’s: yeah, we all know they’re there but show me something new or different.

More importantly, Wikipedia needs to have “Search Engine General’s” warning sticker attached to it before a person clicks that link. If it continues to dominate search results, we may eventually get to the point where all knowledge flows from one source, and everyone, including the Wikipedia folks, know that this is bad.

This also solves the problem about Wikipedia being a Black hole, as well as the giving and taking of page rank: just remove it completely from the equation, and the issue is moot.

I think Wikipedia is the first non-search engine internet source to truly not need search engines to be discovered. As such, a little sidebar entry for the newbies, properly annotated with a quiet little “there be dragons here” warning, would eliminate the spam problem, while not adding to a heightened sense of distrust of Wikipedia actions.

One other thing worth noting is is seomoz.org’s note about a link in Wikipedia enhancing one’s authority: again, putting a relevant link to Wikipedia into the search engine sidebars, with a link to a “What is Wikipedia?” FAQ page, as well as the dragon warning will help to ‘lighten’ some of the authority attached to having a link in the Wikipedia. Regardless, I defer to Philipp’s assertion that Wikipedia is self-healing: if a link really isn’t all that authoritative, it will be expunged.

Categories
Web

Article pulled from Google’s database?

Post wasn’t pulled, just not propagated across all the data centers. Did I happen to mention I haven’t had a good night’s sleep for the last few days? Disregard the paranoia.

However, there is a silver lining. Thanks to Seth for pointing out this Google data center tool. Put in the search term, and then switch among the data centers.

Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs

National Arbitration Forum: Above the law

I had hoped to be finished with the book by now, and also have resolved the issue I’ve had with the National Arbitration Forum, which euphemistically calls itself “The FORUM”.

Unfortunately the book isn’t finished, but should be next week. I wish I could say the same with NAF, but they have, despite the fact that I’ve shown that no arbitration agreement exists between me and the claimant and the claimant actually committed perjury–as demonstrated in the papers the claimant filed–the arbitrator, Robert Angstead a lawyer in Jefferson City, ruled in favor of the claimant for an amount beyond what the claimant asked: over 40,000 dollars. I’m assuming the many thousands more was the costs that NAF tacked on for their ‘affordable’ arbitration process. It doesn’t represent what the claimant actually paid for this process: yet another way to make a buck.

How arbitration works, as established by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and supported by decisions in the Supreme Court, as well as state law and local court decisions, is that an arbitration agreement is like a written contract. Though the arbitrator rules on the overall contract, the arbitration agreement itself is severable from the contract and its validity is decided in a court of law. In other words, the courts decide on the substantive elements of the arbitration agreement, while the arbitrator can rule on the procedural elements (the arbitration procedure).

In this case, there wasn’t even a contract, much less an arbitration agreement between me and the claimant. The company who filed the claim provided an arbitration clause, copied, word for word, from the suggested wording provided by the National Arbitration Forum. In addition, the company wasn’t even an original party to the so-called agreement. When I asked them to show a full arbitration agreement between me and the original company, as well as some proof that they had a right to claim it for themselves, they provided a copy of an agreement that was a) for a different company and b) had grossly different wording from the original clause, and c) didn’t even name NAF as the arbitration company.

When I asked it to provide proof that it had inherited this agreement, they provided a document that not only did not provide this proof, it contradicted their original claim, signed under threat of perjury. Oh, and I believe that the signature on the original claim was a copy made from a signature of a person who is no longer even with the company. So much for the wording about ‘personally reviewing’ the claim under threat of perjury.

I pointed out to NAF that the company had not only committed perjury, it also hadn’t filed the proper papers in violation of NAF’s own procedure–deliberating excluding all of the wording about my rights to discovery during the process–and that the point was moot anyway, because I disputed the existence of the arbitration agreement and it was then up to the courts to decide if one existed.

NAF, though, which operates under a pseudo legal immunity, doesn’t feel that it needs to support a) the law, or b) it’s own procedures. If it did follow the law, or its own procedures, or even gave more than a cursory glance to the evidence, it risked antagonizing a company that files hundreds, thousands of these claims and is worth a whole lot more money than I am. Yes, wasn’t arbitration supposed to be between parties on equal footing? You don’t seriously believe that, do you?

NAF continued with the arbitration procedure, and not only did the arbitrator rule against me, he and the company actually wrote a falsehood in the ruling: making statements that were not true, and which I have proof were not true. They definitely did not, according to the award, follow the “substantive law” in this decision.

What does this have to do with any of you?

Do you have a credit card? You have an arbitration agreement with the company who issued it. Signed a mortgage? Ditto the bank or mortgage company. Had a home built? Bought a car. Yup, car company agreement. Got treated at the doctor’s? Notice that fine print about the arbitration clause? Bought a computer online? You should hear the Dell computer buyers who got screwed because of the arbitration agreement Dell uses. So does Gateway. Most companies that provide online purchases of larger equipment now have arbitration clauses hidden somewhere in their sites. You buy, you arbitrate.

Have a phone? Guess what. How about cable?

Had your identity stolen and charges rang up in your name? Think you’re protected by law? Think again: companies have used arbitration to attempt to collect debts incurred through the use of a stolen identity. That’s one for the OpenID folks, eh?

If you take a new job now, check the employee agreement: there’s a very good chance you’ll find an arbitration clause. If you end up being discriminated against because of disability or sex, you won’t be able to have your day in court. No, you’ll be at NAF’s or AAA’s or JAMs tender mercies. Tell me: how much are you worth? I bet not as much as your employer.

Did you know that arbitration even trumps civil rights and the work of the Equal Opportunity Commission? From the article just linked:

“Thanks to mandatory arbitration, the securities industry is still a field dominated by white men,” Ireland said. “Women and people of color are forced to work in offices where managers have little fear of, or respect for, civil rights laws because they are essentially immune.”

Many of these arbitration agreements are to prevent or circumvent class action lawsuits. What this means is if a car company puts out a defective car and people get hurt and killed because of it, they, or their relatives, can’t file a class action lawsuit against the car company. They have to take it to arbitration. Companies like NAF who do not follow the law, and don’t even make a pretense of doing so.

How many times in a consumer arbitration case does the consumer win, rather than the corporation? I’d have to look up my figures again, but I believe it is less than 2% of the time.

I will, of course, file a motion to vacate this award. Even in this state which favors arbitration, I should be able to get this award vacated–there absolutely no support for this decision, or the fact that they continued with arbitration in violation of the law. I also plan on suing the company that initiated this process because they’ve committed fraud in their arbitration filing. But I really want to take on NAF. Why? Because no one, and no company, no organization, is above the law in this land. Since NAF attends conferences specifically to recruit companies such as the one that filed the complaint against me, and these companies invariably win with NAF operating in complete impunity with its quasi-judicial legal immunity, I believe this demonstrates that NAF is complicit in this fraudulent effort to bypass my legal protections. They certainly didn’t follow the law as they market on their site.

Luckily I can file suit against NAF and the other company in Missouri rather than NAF’s own home state of Minnesota, as NAF just hired the wife of the governor of Minnesota, Mary Pawlenty as the company’s chief counsel. Talk about getting the politicians on your side.

Arbitration: The way for equal parties to resolve their differences in a civilized manner. And it’s affordable, too. Yeah, right, and if you believe that, have I got a credit card company for you.

Categories
Political

Just the headlines

Only getting titles in an RSS feed can lead to moments of confusion and disappointment. I read the following headline in today’s St. Louis Today feed:

Former President Bush gets hip replacement.

My immediate thought was: you mean he quit? Then I remembered, oh, his Dad.

I tell you, it was a crushing disappointment.

Categories
Diversity Political

Great Day

I would be remiss to not point out that today was the day our country finally wised up and put a woman in as Speaker of the House. That is two steps away from the Presidency. Now if only we could get Cheney to take Bush hunting.

I liked much of the 100 hour plan, for its energy if nothing else. I would have liked to see more on Iraq, and more pushback against the Patriot Act and Homeland security, as well as more on the environment. Still, it’s the most optimistic I’ve felt about the Congress in a long time.

I guess Ed will need the night time Tylenol tonight.