I stumbled upon this little blurb this morning:
TBRNews.org December 15, 2006
Editors note on Wikipedia Problems:
We have received a number of communications from viewers concerning ?Wikipedia? which advertises itself as an online information service, a sort of free Internet encyclopedia. The complaints are that the service is filled with articles obviously cribbed from other publications and not attributed but worse, many are obviously the work of spiteful contributors who publish reams of incorrect, and in some cases, libelous material.
Apparently the people who run Wikipedia welcome any kind of input which is posted by them without any kind of verification. Some of the raucous attacks on religious groups, political figures and historical events sound like the Daily Kos at full cry. Having some background in various historical subjects, we looked up specific subjects and discovered a porridge of fiction, prevarications and material that was to all intents and purposes, included for the purpose of disiniformation. Much of this is unsourced and as reference material, what we saw was completely worthless.
Inaccuracy and mendacity is not the main problem with Wikipedia. In a number of cases, persons who availed themselves of this service were immediately inundated with hundreds of emails on the topic they had just accessed.
In one case, a gentleman had searched for material on the Christian Gospels and within an hour, his mail box was stuffed with religious notices, fact sheets, requests for money and other support. Most of these obnoxious and unwanted communications came from Evangelical Christian groups. In the first week, this individual received over 700 emails and by the end of the month, the total had exceeded 2000.
Even more obnoxious were problems encountered by a woman whose 14 year old daughter had consulted Wikipedia on the subject of abortion, information which she needed for a school paper on that subject. She had a similar experience to the first person cited. Within minutes of closing down the Wikipedia site, this girl had received over 200 emails, mostly from religious, anti-abortion organizations and by the end of the month, the total had swelled to 3000 emails!
Needless to say, the mail boxes of both parties were jammed to the point that they were unable to receive any other emails. Both parties tried to contact Wikipedia personnel to complain but to date, there has been no response of any kind. This lack of concern is apparently standard.
The question arises, obviously, as to how the spammers obtained the email addresses of the victims. In the two cases cited above, neither had ventured into the fields of interest before. Perhaps the proprietors of the site have found a way to make a profit from their ?free site.?
For those seeking accurate and sane information on diverse subjects, we heartily recommend the Encyclopedia Britannica site. Their reputation is quite beyond reproach and no one of our acquaintance has ever received hundreds of obnoxious spam messages because of their search for information there. Editor
...........................
Now I dont know anything about hacking or how its done, and I do use WP occasionally.
But harvesting someones email addresses while they are visiting your website seems a bit far fetched to me, especially on a large scale. Is this even possible - and how would it be done?
I am NOT asking for your opinion about WP's accuracy or whether its valuable, or whether or not you go there, or where you do go.
I just want to know if this sounds really doable and that it happened the way the 2 people mentioned THOUGHT it did - i.e., their visit to WP??
Thnx
TBRNews.org December 15, 2006
Editors note on Wikipedia Problems:
We have received a number of communications from viewers concerning ?Wikipedia? which advertises itself as an online information service, a sort of free Internet encyclopedia. The complaints are that the service is filled with articles obviously cribbed from other publications and not attributed but worse, many are obviously the work of spiteful contributors who publish reams of incorrect, and in some cases, libelous material.
Apparently the people who run Wikipedia welcome any kind of input which is posted by them without any kind of verification. Some of the raucous attacks on religious groups, political figures and historical events sound like the Daily Kos at full cry. Having some background in various historical subjects, we looked up specific subjects and discovered a porridge of fiction, prevarications and material that was to all intents and purposes, included for the purpose of disiniformation. Much of this is unsourced and as reference material, what we saw was completely worthless.
Inaccuracy and mendacity is not the main problem with Wikipedia. In a number of cases, persons who availed themselves of this service were immediately inundated with hundreds of emails on the topic they had just accessed.
In one case, a gentleman had searched for material on the Christian Gospels and within an hour, his mail box was stuffed with religious notices, fact sheets, requests for money and other support. Most of these obnoxious and unwanted communications came from Evangelical Christian groups. In the first week, this individual received over 700 emails and by the end of the month, the total had exceeded 2000.
Even more obnoxious were problems encountered by a woman whose 14 year old daughter had consulted Wikipedia on the subject of abortion, information which she needed for a school paper on that subject. She had a similar experience to the first person cited. Within minutes of closing down the Wikipedia site, this girl had received over 200 emails, mostly from religious, anti-abortion organizations and by the end of the month, the total had swelled to 3000 emails!
Needless to say, the mail boxes of both parties were jammed to the point that they were unable to receive any other emails. Both parties tried to contact Wikipedia personnel to complain but to date, there has been no response of any kind. This lack of concern is apparently standard.
The question arises, obviously, as to how the spammers obtained the email addresses of the victims. In the two cases cited above, neither had ventured into the fields of interest before. Perhaps the proprietors of the site have found a way to make a profit from their ?free site.?
For those seeking accurate and sane information on diverse subjects, we heartily recommend the Encyclopedia Britannica site. Their reputation is quite beyond reproach and no one of our acquaintance has ever received hundreds of obnoxious spam messages because of their search for information there. Editor
...........................
Now I dont know anything about hacking or how its done, and I do use WP occasionally.
But harvesting someones email addresses while they are visiting your website seems a bit far fetched to me, especially on a large scale. Is this even possible - and how would it be done?
I am NOT asking for your opinion about WP's accuracy or whether its valuable, or whether or not you go there, or where you do go.
I just want to know if this sounds really doable and that it happened the way the 2 people mentioned THOUGHT it did - i.e., their visit to WP??
Thnx
Facebook
Twitter