– electronic distribution media attract spam when the cost of sending it is virtually zero. Then it doesn't matter how many people delete spam, as long as some people buy something from spammers.
BannedContent is an attempt at fighting WikiSpam. But why fight spam in the first place? Because we all suffer from InformationOverload. Spam makes the information that really is important to us harder to find. In addition to wasting our attention and energy, spam wastes our time and money – we are getting rid of spam instead of being productive or enjoying the world.
Whether something is wasting your attention, energy, time, or money is obviously a subjective thing. Some even claim that spam is information – and we shouldn't just delete or ban it willy-nilly.
Thinking it on the lage scale, many wiki sharing and contributing to the list: - imagine people tedencially trying to harm an idea by getting sourrounding links banned. One person spams them, another gets them put on the banned list. With the big number of links on the list and the many new entries every day MaliciousBanning?
might easyly slip through and into it. I do nevertheless appreciate thinking forward in this direction. At least (if not a completely different concept on the basis of "spam is information and information is precious") we'd need a kind of DesepamEmergency?
, a place to make all know if there is a suspection for MaliciousBanning?
. Remember what sourrounds us and potentially exists within our structures. The intention for implementing this "security" must not be to achieve security. You can not. You can improve it, ya, you can delay the collaps, ya, but as there is no possible security, security doesn't exist. What you really do is create Zauber. You make an afford, a soul-work. You try something impossible, something ridiculous. You make a fool out of yourself, in front of all the others and in the middle of the stage and you do it with pride. That's what works. That's what moves and changes things.
I'm quite a pain in the ass these days, I know. Excuse me please as it's for a good purpose.
Good point – we don't want good links to be banned. So far I see 2 ways to avoid banning good links (or at least, eventually un-banning them):
- the UnbannedContent page
- tagging each URL with the exact date that a human confirmed it was spam. Then delete the oldest ones (6 months or so ?). I think AlexSchroeder came up with both these ideas (Need link here !).
We could hook into KeptPages
– fetch the oldest revision available and move all items in it to UnbannedContent
. Then bans expire more or less just as fast as our pages expire. Interesting symmetry.
Of course, spam is information, anything is. The question is whether it must be accepted as valid content by a wiki community. If the answer is yes, then you'll potentially get millions of links and updates on your pages, so this is clearly impossible (we are only at the beginning of a development). If the answer is no, then wiki communities will find ways to make wikis as secure as necessary, using as little effort as necssary. Personally I do not want to care to despam every day (its heroic that Mattis does), so my anser is no. But I'll turn on security only when it is needed (just in time) and as long as it is needed. – HelmutLeitner
The difference between data, information and knowledge needs to be considered. Spam might be considered data - pretty much everything is data. I personally don't think it is information - which I would crudely define as data which has been filtered to ensure accuracy and usefulness for a particular purpose. Knowledge I would define as information which has been refined so that it can be acted on, again for a particular purpose. Ideally I would like to see Wikis crystallise knowledge.
I think that's a good set of definitons. Then spam - contrary to Mattis and this page - is not information, because it is unfiltered. Typical wikis are to hold information and knowledge, not data. – HelmutLeitner
See also Spam ist Information