3 Comments
- cumbrowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good Post. The comments, which are x times more in content than the original post, are also very interesting. It's like at Wikipedia with it's Article and Article/Talk Pages ;)
- petertdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks for the comment. Yea, I kinda suck at writing headlines. One of these days I'll nail one though and get to Digg's front page, lol. I can dream anyway. But, yes, I'm writing about problems in the Wikipedia. The nature of such an open system is also a weakness. Anyone can contribute, but that doesn't mean that everyone that contributes is going to be honest.
- MrCoolBeans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Although some might construe this article as a 'how-to' spam wikipedia, as it's titled, it does a good job of pointing out problems. Problems Wikipedia has with link spammers, and how they are not able to filter 100% of the spammer links.
Not beating up WikiPedia, just confirming that some people are glad to rid on the coat tails of those who work hard and try to make a quality site, and spam for links. I think like anyone else here who has a quality site, you know everyday you get requests from PR 0, scrapper sites. Wikipedia is a good site, and I enjoy it too.


What is Digg?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the