A request for comment on the indexing of userspace. Gigs (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What's the question?[edit]

Should User and User_talk namespaces be allowed to be indexed by search engines like Google?

Desired outcome

A consensus on whether the User and User_talk namespaces should be indexed by search engines.

Related discussions

This RFC merges several discussions:

Feel free to add any relevant discussions you may be aware of, signing your addition


Statements[edit]

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Summary

Statement by Xeno

Google's purpose is to index the internet and provide a useful search tool. If we have content we don't want The Internet finding, we should remove it entirely, not hide it from Google - that's more like sweeping the problem under the rug.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. xenotalk 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is nothing wrong with being able to find Wikipedia editors in Google, the userpage is to inform people who they are. If the information there is promotional, then it gets deleted, just as when information in mainspace gets deleted when it is promotional. Should we hence also NOINDEX mainspace? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Skomorokh  19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To much useful stuff in the userspace that needs to be easy to find to make no indexing viable.©Geni 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreed that if we don't want people to find it, it shouldn't exist on the site at all. As for things like BLP article drafts, it would make more sense to just have a requirement that they be noindexed individually. Who are we to decide that no one will ever have a valid reason to search userspace? Mr.Z-man 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Certainly obvious to me. Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It is not our job to second-guess what people are looking for. Noindex-ing individual user pages is fine, but not as a general rule. We are a free content project, including the behind-the-scenes stuff, and we should not put restrictions on reuse. I wouldn't mind marking non-encyclopedia pages more clearly, such as a different background color. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Search tools are for searching. R. Baley (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. MER-C 08:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, and usually it doesn't matter if someone can use google to find something in userspace, as long as it is clear that what they have found is not part of the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Feinoha Talk, My master 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes, but I'm more concerned about attempts by wikipedians to hide "internal business" from search engines a la Wikipedia:Search engine indexing, the adoption of which would be a travesty. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gigs

The current practice at WP:MfD allows far too much leniency in user space to allow indexing: POV versions of articles (previously deleted, or never in mainspace), "pseudoarticles", often promotional, that have little to no chance of ever going into mainspace, and often what amount to personal home pages. Additionally, many people were under the incorrect impression that userspace was already not indexed. Therefore, I propose that user space should not be indexed by default, and should rather opt-in using ((INDEX)) tags. The list of user pages that are indexed could then be monitored.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. لennavecia 18:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unomi (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Powers T 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. iridescent 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blurpeace (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hans Adler 00:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. stmrlbs|talk 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Kevin (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. WP:NOTBLOG. Rd232 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes, Google may be an index of the internet, but just as webmasters can opt out of having their sites or specific pages indexes, so too should Wikipedia opt out of Userpage indexing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This would create much less pressure to remove borderline userspace pages.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Readers of Wikipedia have no need to find results of peoples user page or talk page via Google. If they really want to look up a person (highlu doubt it!), they may do so via Wikipedia (we can't hide the userpage after all!). Hence strong agree with Gigs.Calaka (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Perhaps we should be stricter with bad stuff in userspace, or expect it to be blanked when inactive for a long time, or allow users private space for their work, but until any of that happens, Gigs' idea is readily workable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Endorse, with a caveat that not everyone should have INDEX rights--see my comments below. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes, but preferrably __INDEX__ should not work in user space at all, just as __NOINDEX__ doesn't currently work in main space. Amalthea 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Slight preference to allow ((index))'ing, but the main thing is noindexing all pages in user and user-talk space by default. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jennavecia

You don't have to open all of your closet doors when you have company over. Not every page on Wikipedia needs to be indexed. When readers do searches, they are surely not looking for pages in user space. Considering the purpose of Wikipedia user talk pages, there doesn't seem a valid reason we should want them showing up in Google. Additionally, user pages are for internal use. We have specific guidelines about what user pages should be used for, and they should not be of interest to anyone outside of Wikipedia. Considering the amount of personal information often contained on user pages, it's further reason they should not be indexed by default. Furthermore, user subpages can contain any number of things, including BLP drafts that have been userfied from the main space after failing to meet inclusion criteria, for whatever reason. We don't need such BLPs showing up in searches. Wikipeida is not known as a particularly reliable source based on its articles. Thus, why then would we want readers led to user subpage articles from Google? Default noindex for all user space pages.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. لennavecia 19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 19:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Powers T 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. iridescent 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The "Not Myspace" rule should apply to indexing - we would only distract from being an encyclopedia if we start equating non-encyclopedia content with encyclopedia content. I doubt Wikipedia needs people to use their User page as an easy to find home page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --stmrlbs|talk 03:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)# ~[reply]
  9. Agree with the conclusion, but not the argument. I oppose optout systems on principle, but support free choice to opt in. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. - Kevin (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --JBC3 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Well said -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agree. If users want to bare thier souls, they should be able to opt in with a tag or template, but by default, this should not happen. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Exactly. The userpages are for internal use only.--Aervanath (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Agree. This should be about the encyclopaedia, not the drama, trash, drafts and opinions which surround its creation. Just because some other chatrooms and discussion forums can be and are searched by Google does not mean we should have that as well. More likely to bring WP into disrepute to those who clicked on userspace articles so indexed. Those who really want it know how to search WP already. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes, as long as users may opt-in for indexing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    # Except I actually don't think users should even be allowed to index their user pages. Tempshill (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Changing my vote to Rd232's below now that I see mandatory no-indexing is an option. Tempshill (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes, but preferrably __INDEX__ should not work in user space at all, just as __NOINDEX__ doesn't currently work in main space. Amalthea 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Toon 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes, and I don't agree that users should be able to opt-in. --LilHelpa (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes, without the choice to opt in, on the likelihood the wrong people will use it. DGG (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

A few points to consider:

  1. Extreme views rarely work
    • Some people have called for indexing only the article namespace, which is a great idea until you consider things like files, categories, and portals. And, hey, is it really necessary to block Google from indexing "Assume good faith" or "Ignore all rules" when these ideas have permeated our culture?
    • Even when discussing only the user space, this isn't an all-or-none battle. More creative options might include removing user subpages from indexes, but leaving the root pages. (I've always found it a bit odd to see my sandboxes in search results, personally.)
  2. Local decisions are local
    • Even if it is decided to remove all User: pages from search engine indexes, it does not impact the other wikis and sites that contain similar content. In fact, it will push the "less important" content up in the results. (Meta user pages, Commons user pages, etc.)
  3. There's not an expectation of privacy on a public website
    • Some have tried to claim that users are posting material on their user pages and are (seemingly) surprised when the content reappears in search engine results. The English Wikipedia is one of the most indexed, crawled, and visited sites in the world. No user should ever think they can post information on a public website and expect it to stay private.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Well said. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Quite.  Skomorokh  14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Have never understood the concern that if someone uses their real name we should then protect them from whatever Googlable information is found using the same. –xenotalk 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. True -- though I can imagine cases where a user-chooseable "noindex" would be utile (such as pages used for compiling ArbCom evidence etc. which likely should only be available through WP directly) rather than automatically removing all subpages from indexing. Collect (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Feinoha Talk, My master 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

I propose a middle of the road solution:

1. Userpages remain INDEXed (as now) with the following condition:
Any content on the userpage that is deemed in violation of policy (depending on the policy) should either be totally removed, or moved to a subpage. (which is the current state of affairs)
2. All user talk and subpages be NOINDEXed. (this is a change)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC) for number 2 only. As userspace has a bigger leeway in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't, number 1 seems un-doable.[reply]
  3. Endorse #2 only, as I think userpages should be NOINDEX'ed as well.

Statement by LtPowers

As I brought up on the talk page:

Might we be able to implement some sort of prominent disclaimer box on userspace pages that clearly states "This is NOT part of the encyclopedia; don't believe anything you read here" or something of that sort? This could apply only if we decide to index user pages, or even if we decide not to, since (as Gigs pointed out on the talk page) some sites mirror and index our user pages.

-- Powers T 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) If this becomes policy (indexing vs noindexing), shouldn't the [[Template:Userpage]] be made a default in all of userspace by a modification of the software? I'd think that would be a good thing.[reply]
  2. I support the use of this disclaimer, but do not support the descision to index user pages 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --stmrlbs|talk 18:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I support the use of a disclaimer, regardless of whether the User space is indexed or not (I am for NOINDEX as the default) because of mirroring. I also agree that the only way to do this is with some kind of wikipedia software implementation where it would automatically be done for any user page since there are currently 47,241,261 registered users. That is not counting the IPs that edit. An optional "the editors can do this on their own" implementation isn't going to work with over 9 million editors. --stmrlbs|talk 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good idea no matter what. –xenotalk 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. We already have ((userpage)) and ((usertalk)), both of which I've recently posted on my pages. Any basepages in the User: or User talk: namespaces could then automatically be rendered by the software as including those templates, as appropriate. I would also recommend the creation of a template, ((usersubpage)), which would automatically be added to subpages in those namespaces.--Aervanath (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. And agree with Aervanath. Rd232 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stmrlbs

I will state again what I added to the main statement with some added comments - my proposal is basically the same as Gigs, but with more detail as to the reasons why I think User Pages should not be indexed:

When people google for information, the results from the user pages are intermingled with the results from the Main space, or main articles. To the average user on the internet, all results from Wikipedia will be assumed to be results from the "encyclopedia" - this is especially true of User articles that have similar structure to a regular Wikipedia Main article. These User articles can be anything.. they can be very biased, or selling something - they can be anything because they are not governed by the same rules as the articles on Main Space. But, to a person just googling, they see "wikipedia" and will assume this is an encyclopedic entry put out by Wikipedia. This does not do anything to help Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable resource.

The other problem with indexing User pages is that because these User pages are on Wikipedia, they get "prime" ranking along with wikipedia, based not on their own content, but based on the importance of Wikipedia in general. In essence, this gives User pages a "free ride" on Wikipedia's back to the first page of Google results. This invites abuse - top ranking on Google is a hot hot commodity.

Wikipedia has a real problem with keeping spam out. Allowing Google to index User Pages where users can do their own thing invites pages promoting/selling all kinds of things.. people put their resumes on Wikipedia, promote their favorite companies, issues, whatever - and why not? Why bother with a blog when you can get top ranking with a Wikipedia User page? This is only because Wikipedia allows indexing of User pages. Take a look at Template listing of User pages that have a high probability of spam/personal use. Here is an example of a resume found with one of these searches. Even with the addition of NOFOLLOW to external links, this does not prevent click thru of the existing external links in User pages once people find User pages through Google (and other search engines).

If Wikipedia did not allow indexing of User pages, there would be no incentive for using the User pages for spam or other promotional reasons, because these pages would no longer appear in Google. In addition, there would be no need to police the User space. Who has the # ~~time to do this? The effort to keep spam off Wikipedia should be concentrated on the Main space. It is a waste of time to spend so much time monitoring User space when it would take 5 minutes to change the robots.txt file to not allow indexing of User Space.

The problem with Automatic indexing of User pages and saying that Users can put ((NOINDEX)) on their pages to take them out of Google, is because the Users that are abusing Wikipedia to get high ranking in google are not going to be the users that put ((NOINDEX)). It is like letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Therefore, I propose (as others have) to make NOINDEX the default for User pages. If a User page needs to be in google for whatever reason, then allow a user to use ((INDEX)). This would allow monitoring of those User pages that are in Google. This will also allow Users freedom to do what they want with their user pages without compromising Wikipedia in Google.

--stmrlbs|talk 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Right on the money. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 05:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with the conclusion but not the argument. Peter jackson (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the statement that I meant to write but didn't have time for. In response to Kim Bruning: The reward argument also makes sense, but under the present proposal nobody will complain if a serious contributor adds the INDEX template to their user page. The point of this proposal is to minimise the danger of accidental exposure, e.g. when a real name account gets a nasty block message on their user page, and deny plausible deniability to spammers. If a user space POV fork has the INDEX tag it's much easier to draw a conclusion about the motivation. Hans Adler 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. لennavecia 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) With the caveat that I think that NOINDEXing the userspace does not excuse us from dilligent patrolling of that userspace. We still should not allow spam anywhere.[reply]
  6. Agree totally. Sorry, but I really don't buy that "reward" argument. You can see just how little "recognition" is a motivator here, by looking at just how few people edit under their own names. – iridescent 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse: quite persuavively written.--Aervanath (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC). As per Jclemens, if the INDEX tag is limited to say, editors eligible to vote in arbcom elections, I'd be happy. [User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Preventing abuse and our reputation trump "we have nothing to hide" (which Jennavecia took care of nicely with her closet door analogy). HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sort of if the INDEX tag is limited to a smaller group than autoconfirmed users. I'd be OK with limiting it to a higher threshold but short of administrators, like was proposed with flagged revisions, because we must maintain the cost as "too high" to attract most spammers. Making people do a thousand edits over a month or more would serve that purpose just fine. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Partial endorsement on condition that userpage indexing be limited to experienced users, for example 10,000 edits. We can assume that an editor who has invested that much effort here is relatively safe. The thought of receiving the right to have one's userpage indexed can be a motivator to achieve that high degree of investment in this project. It becomes a reward, and should be noted with a banner or button that is automatically sent to the user when the edit counter reaches the magic number. Wikimedia corp. really should do more to reward editors for their achievements. Right now it happens totally on private initiative in a hit or miss manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, but preferrably __INDEX__ should not work in user space at all, just as __NOINDEX__ doesn't currently work in main space. Amalthea 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. with a preference for not having it work for anyone at all. DGG (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter jackson

Wikipedia is not a reliable source: it says so itself, so it must be true. Readers should be positively discouraged from regarding it as such. The argument that user pages shoould not be indexed because they're not reliable is invalid. I'd claim that the material in my own user space, consisting mostly of quotations from scholarly sources, is actually more reliable than a lot of articles. I don't see why it shouldn't be indexed. However, I'm opposed to optout systems on principle, as a tax on apathy, so I support changing the default but allowing people to opt in.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. (agree with the analysis, disagree with the conclusion) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kim Bruning

People who contribute to wikipedia obtain reputation as their reward. This reputation spills over into things like google results. This proposal will deny this form of reward, and chase away many skilled contributors.

Like many open source and open content projects, Wikipedia doesn't provide a monetary reward to the majority of its contributors. However, the GFDL and CC-BY licenses both reward people by requiring that their names are attached to their work, and thus reward reputation.

A user page is part of the semantics that provide the reward portion of our open content licensing.

While we don't actually earn Whuffies here, and no one quite lives the life of Manfred Macx (except maybe User:Jimbo Wales?), I've found that on-line reputation does actually help a lot in the real world too. In my own case, it has gotten me support or jobs I otherwise would not have had access to, and (since the jobs are all wiki-related) it allows me to gain experience and do things that help wikipedia directly, or at least indirectly.

While I'm sure most folks here don't care one whit about whether their fellow wikipedians or wikimedians starve or not in these financially harrowing times :-P; I'm pretty sure that you'll be less happy if certain folks who are maintaining and creating support infrastructure for wikipedia stop doing so, and instead start a promising career as burger-flip-engineers.

So in summary: By removing indexing from user pages, you are denying reputation to people. Some people who rely on that reputation to support wikipedia will have more trouble doing so in future. Please at least allow people to have their own user pages indexed.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Spot on. Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak agreement. I'm not convinced that people would stop working if they couldn't have their pages be indexed but the basic point is valid. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Totally. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Indeed a weak argument, as it is the same argument for those who are here to promote themselves. But basic point is valid. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Feinoha Talk, My master 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Agreed - Assume good faith is one of our principles. Rules should be for valuable good faith editors (the vast majority) first, for crooks and spammers second. Thank you Kim, for assuming we are the former, not the latter. And the very licenses we use guarantee credit for contributions. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beetstra

MASSIVE WP:BEANS warning!

The search Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:INDEX counts at this moment 11 entries in userspace (soon to be 12, and more to come).

Purely as an example, say that User:XXXXX now has promotional material on their userpage, and User:YYYYY now does not have promotional material on their userpage. Our smart spammer XXXXX has however added ((INDEX)) to his userpage (so he can be found by Google!), and smart user YYYYY has added it, but has not added promotional material .. yet. So in a first scan we remove the ((index)) of the first (but leave it on the second, no inappropriate information, right?). However, in a later go, he could turn it into promotional material.

Now we have only 11 .. what if we have 5000 .. or 99.708 (less than one procent of the current registered users, and then they may have numerous subpages ...). Scan them all on a regular basis? Yes, the ones with a clearly promotional username are easy to be found (but some good accounts have a COI-username), but others have a seemingly normal name but are only here to promote.

In other words, noindexing has absolutely no effect, setting up a proper system to remove and delete promotional material (and not userfying promotional material but ask for a rewrite from scratch) would help much more. Do we really believe that spammers will not be able to circumvent this (and do they have to? Do all search engines follow Google's example of not following noindexed pages; what about creating a non-indexed userpage and saying on other webpages 'find our free webpage on Wikipedia!'; or wait until your page gets mirrored on a site that does not noindex)? I would suggest that the people who do spend some time following our wikiproject on spam, seeing how inventive (((index))ing is easy) and persistent (do something harmless or good now, come back in 2 months or 2 years, or simple readd and readd and readd until someone gets enough of it) spammers (SEO's) can be (it's their job to sell).

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr.Z-man 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Spammers could also use __INDEX__ directly, and it would be even harder to track.[reply]
  3. Yes, we create a new problem. And the people we have to chase have greater exposure all the while, the other chaff being thrown aside to ensure only the spammy stuff gets out there. –xenotalk 07:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True. MER-C 09:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, but solveable. Only allow userspace of users meeting certain contribution thresholds to opt in for ((INDEX)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rd232

A lot of the problems arising from NOINDEXing by default and allowing optional INDEXing can be solved very simply: NOINDEX userspace pages by default, and leave it at that. Tweak the software so that __INDEX__ doesn't apply to userspace. Justification: userspace isn't properly part of Wikipedia, and isn't (and can't be and to a large extent shouldn't be) systematically monitored for inappropriate content, and shouldn't benefit from Wikipedia's pagerank (WP:NOTBLOG etc). It will prevent spam and prevent drafts appearing in searches, etc.

Most examples of useful userspace pages that the community can agree should be indexed can either be accommodated within Wikipedia namespace, or don't really need to be indexed in order to provide their benefit (and to the extent that they do - WP:NOTBLOG!). Sure, a few pages may suffer, but no solution is perfect, and this solution certainly is simple and easy to grasp. Furthermore, it is what very many editors and readers expect already to be the case. It just makes sense. The previous reason for not doing this was basically about the failings of Wikipedia internal search, which I think has now been addressed to most people's satisfaction.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Rd232 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorsed, if opt-in becomes a problem, we have the option to never index anything in userspace. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --stmrlbs|talk 18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ditto what Gigs said.[reply]
  4. لennavecia 22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. iridescent 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. - Kevin (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very sensible --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Exactly.--Aervanath (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse; userspace is not encyclopedic.  Nuβiατεch Talk/contrib 09:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse. My preferred solution. The indexing of user pages, now that everyone has been alerted, will be exploited by SEO companies and Wikipedia will inadvertently become a web hosting service; we editors can't be expected to police a hundred thousand user pages; that's not why we are here. We are here to work on an encyclopedia. Tempshill (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. snigbrook (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Amalthea 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. LilHelpa (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

We need to stop treating Wikipedia as an island. Myself and tons of other users work on multiple wiki sites, both within WikiMedia and outside, working both to import and export content. Hiding user pages and other non-content pages from Google hinders these kinds of cross-project collaborations. User pages also contain notes about editors who are renamed (non-controversial renames, of course, for proper attribution or if someone needs to contact the original author, etc), additional licensing information, areas of editing interest, and more; information that is being sought after outside of Wikipedia. Excluding user pages from Google neglects one of the reasons we have them in the first place: to find other editors for various reasons that pertain to improving Wikipedia.

edit: some clarification as requested. I'm a bit distracted at the moment, so pardon the cut and paste -- Ned Scott 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) :[reply]

Hi, this may be a valid issue, but I think you need to provide more information on how noindexing would cause those problems. Aren't these wiki sites using database dumps? Excluding userpages from those dumps doesn't seem to be an option, and certainly isn't affected by noindexing. And Wikipedia search will still be available for manual searches by users of those sites. Disembrangler (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some use database dumps, some export individual files using special:export, some just copy and paste then attribute via template or by copy/pasting the edit history to the talk page. Using Wikipedia search doesn't help the guy who's hunting down information that might have come from Wikipedia or not, but doesn't know ahead of time.
For example, lets say you are looking for the author of a userscript that you're using that just got broken on your wiki. Searching the name of that script will most likely lead you to their user page of the wiki they're most active on. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This solution gives some (small) losses, and the gains are far from being total (as with the nofollow on external links, spamming still pays, also having your promotional page here will still pay). Thé solution to remove the gain of having spammy external links here is to delete them, as is with promotional pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is far from the most important reason to keep userspace indexed, but significant nonetheless.  Skomorokh  13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. xenotalk 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mr.Z-man 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Could it be consistent with default NOINDEX for relative new users, default INDEX for experienced users? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not. I've come across users with >1500 and >99% of edits to their userpage. MER-C 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There's some big stuff in userspace! [[1]]. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Feinoha Talk, My master 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support the idea, but I have real trouble seeing the worth of userspace. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davidwr

The Wikimedia Foundation should let Google and other search engines know that "quality" in different name-spaces may be different and should be treated as such. Specifically, certain parts of Wikipedia should be treated more like a blog than an encylopedia. Google may choose to modify its pagerank algorithm accordingly so non-article pages don't get good pagerank. This statement is independent of whether or not some, most, none, or all of user: and user_talk: space is indexed. (As a side note, and not part of this statement, search engines should realize that within article spaces, high-traffic, high-number-of-quality-inbound-link articles should be "ranked" higher than low-traffic, low-number-of-quality-inbound-link articles.) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. xenotalk 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --stmrlbs|talk 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) for a site as big as wikipedia, this should be done regardless of what decision is made here. So, my endorsement is more for reevaluating what I assume Wikipedia already has in place (sitemap, as opposed to robots.txt)[reply]
  5. Good plan! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree, coming from a site that appears so consistently among the top results in their engine, Google should be willing to listen to this proposal. Powers T 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. لennavecia 02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Indeed. MER-C 07:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Amalthea 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

As near as I can figure, we are basically all positing that Internet users are too dumb or ignorant to figure out that pages starting with "User" are not actually part of the encyclopedia. And the solutions are all aimed at making material (euther all of userspace or some subset thereof) unavailable to outsiders. There is another way of approaching this -- simply educate those browsing that Userspace is not subject to the same constraints as are the actual encyclopedia articles. This can be done by forcing a "This is not an actual encyclopedia article" as a disclaimer at the top of every userpage, and, better still, by actually asking search engines to mark the pages found as "User Article" in their listings (technically I think this would only require that those words automatically precede the name of any such article as the "article title" in HTML?) Collect (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "ignorance" added Collect (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Endorse but it's ignorance not dumbness at play. I would go so far as to clearly label all non-article pages as such, at least for non-logged-in users. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. However, it does not take away that the promotion may still work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Check we have access to research resources. Ask the usability team at http://usability.wikimedia.org ?

Statement by user:Irbisgreif

Something that would give noindexing more teeth: for certain types of noindexed page (user pages, subpages, and talk pages) a simple captcha should be required to view the page if you are editing as an IP. This would push spiders away from those pages without hurting anonymous (human) users.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by $USER

Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.

Users who endorse this summary:

Collaborative Position Statements[edit]

Designed to be edited collaboratively, by everyone who supports the position. New positions may be added freely, but please avoid unnecessary proliferation.

Noindexing userspace, without optional indexing

Userspace contains many things which do not deserve the attention of the wider world. These include

Policing the large and growing userspace is difficult and time-consuming, and can only grow more so as more users join, and especially as more users join whose primary purpose isn't the creation of an encyclopedia, but instead the promotion of various external products, companies, websites, etc.

Noindexing is a somewhat accepted principle: user talk has been noindexed for over 6 months on English Wikipedia, and a variety of other parts of userspace are noindexed on some other language Wikipedias (German, Danish, Hebrew).

Pros

Cons

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

Extended discussion should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Proposals[edit]

Based on the statements above and the lack of consensus for a more sweeping change, the following concrete proposals were formed.

Proposal 1: Make User: namespace NOINDEX, excluding it from search engines.

  • Wikipedia's search engine, however has been at times disabled by the devs, if this proposal is passed and the devs decide they need to disable the search engine... since user pages won't be indexed by a search engine... they will become almost impossible to find. Feinoha Talk, My master 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: Mak e User_talk: namespace NOINDEX, excluding it from search engines.

Please note this is the status quo, i.e. user talk is currently not indexed with opt-in available. –xenotalk 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3: Make User/Subpages NOINDEX, excluding them from search engines.

Proposal 4: Allow users to opt-in to bypass the NOINDEX, with a template or with __INDEX__

Proposal 5: If there is consensus for opt-in indexing, should there be a threshold for usage, like autoconfirmation.

Proposal 6: Include a mandatory and obvious warning on all user and user_talk pages and subpages, such as a different background or a textual warning that informs the reader they are not looking at an encyclopedia article.

Proposal 7: Open a dialog with search engine providers to tell them that User and User_talk should be ranked lower.

Item 8: If we do noindex user pages, at least ensure that there is some way in which attribution data is still indexed.