Slashdot Mirror

Wikipedia admin accounts are bought and sold, and high end editors with more than X amount of edits get paid to post.

They get paid to edit and add bias, remove defaming info, add defaming info.

add SEO, by creating a "pseudo source" on a webserver that a webmaster wants to boost the pagerank on, they'll create a professional looking article with circular cited sources so you are in a long chain of sources that will eventually link back on itself.

these get cited often as source in articles when they are fake sources, just used to boost SEO on a website.

Here's just a few examples proving Wikipedia is useless, and only used to add/remove specific info, add bias that's not easily detected with logic fallacies, typical propaganda tricks.

Paying $1 per edit: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring a few different editors (various accounts from different ip's to look legit) to modify articles: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Wikipedia admin selling services: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring editors to make edits: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

There's thousands of links on that one site, then other sites as well.

"Paid to write wikipedia articles" is supposed to be against the rules, but you can find thousands, most even include usernames, but wikipedia don't really give a shit. unless you are a new account of course, if a 1 day old account writes a really good article you get banned. The reason for banning is they accuse you of being a professional or paid writer since they think no brand new account can write a complete article including sources by themselves so the admin accounts are bought/traded/ even hired out as well as editors of all levels that have a successful history.

http://www.wizardsofwiki.com/h...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f72...

Getting paid to edit wikipedia for leading companies:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

moral of story, never use wikipedia, it's all a facade of ads.
like southpark this past season, it's a "cloaked" ad. :P

Wikipedia admin accounts are bought and sold, and high end editors with more than X amount of edits get paid to post.

They get paid to edit and add bias, remove defaming info, add defaming info.

add SEO, by creating a "pseudo source" on a webserver that a webmaster wants to boost the pagerank on, they'll create a professional looking article with circular cited sources so you are in a long chain of sources that will eventually link back on itself.

these get cited often as source in articles when they are fake sources, just used to boost SEO on a website.

Here's just a few examples proving Wikipedia is useless, and only used to add/remove specific info, add bias that's not easily detected with logic fallacies, typical propaganda tricks.

Paying $1 per edit: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring a few different editors (various accounts from different ip's to look legit) to modify articles: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Wikipedia admin selling services: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring editors to make edits: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

There's thousands of links on that one site, then other sites as well.

"Paid to write wikipedia articles" is supposed to be against the rules, but you can find thousands, most even include usernames, but wikipedia don't really give a shit. unless you are a new account of course, if a 1 day old account writes a really good article you get banned. The reason for banning is they accuse you of being a professional or paid writer since they think no brand new account can write a complete article including sources by themselves so the admin accounts are bought/traded/ even hired out as well as editors of all levels that have a successful history.

http://www.wizardsofwiki.com/h...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f72...

Getting paid to edit wikipedia for leading companies:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

moral of story, never use wikipedia, it's all a facade of ads.
like southpark this past season, it's a "cloaked" ad. :P

Wikipedia admin accounts are bought and sold, and high end editors with more than X amount of edits get paid to post.

They get paid to edit and add bias, remove defaming info, add defaming info.

add SEO, by creating a "pseudo source" on a webserver that a webmaster wants to boost the pagerank on, they'll create a professional looking article with circular cited sources so you are in a long chain of sources that will eventually link back on itself.

these get cited often as source in articles when they are fake sources, just used to boost SEO on a website.

Here's just a few examples proving Wikipedia is useless, and only used to add/remove specific info, add bias that's not easily detected with logic fallacies, typical propaganda tricks.

Paying $1 per edit: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring a few different editors (various accounts from different ip's to look legit) to modify articles: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Wikipedia admin selling services: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring editors to make edits: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

There's thousands of links on that one site, then other sites as well.

"Paid to write wikipedia articles" is supposed to be against the rules, but you can find thousands, most even include usernames, but wikipedia don't really give a shit. unless you are a new account of course, if a 1 day old account writes a really good article you get banned. The reason for banning is they accuse you of being a professional or paid writer since they think no brand new account can write a complete article including sources by themselves so the admin accounts are bought/traded/ even hired out as well as editors of all levels that have a successful history.

http://www.wizardsofwiki.com/h...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f72...

Getting paid to edit wikipedia for leading companies:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

moral of story, never use wikipedia, it's all a facade of ads.
like southpark this past season, it's a "cloaked" ad. :P

Wikipedia admin accounts are bought and sold, and high end editors with more than X amount of edits get paid to post.

They get paid to edit and add bias, remove defaming info, add defaming info.

add SEO, by creating a "pseudo source" on a webserver that a webmaster wants to boost the pagerank on, they'll create a professional looking article with circular cited sources so you are in a long chain of sources that will eventually link back on itself.

these get cited often as source in articles when they are fake sources, just used to boost SEO on a website.

Here's just a few examples proving Wikipedia is useless, and only used to add/remove specific info, add bias that's not easily detected with logic fallacies, typical propaganda tricks.

Paying $1 per edit: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring a few different editors (various accounts from different ip's to look legit) to modify articles: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Wikipedia admin selling services: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

Hiring editors to make edits: http://www.blackhatworld.com/b...

There's thousands of links on that one site, then other sites as well.

"Paid to write wikipedia articles" is supposed to be against the rules, but you can find thousands, most even include usernames, but wikipedia don't really give a shit. unless you are a new account of course, if a 1 day old account writes a really good article you get banned. The reason for banning is they accuse you of being a professional or paid writer since they think no brand new account can write a complete article including sources by themselves so the admin accounts are bought/traded/ even hired out as well as editors of all levels that have a successful history.

http://www.wizardsofwiki.com/h...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f72...

Getting paid to edit wikipedia for leading companies:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

moral of story, never use wikipedia, it's all a facade of ads.
like southpark this past season, it's a "cloaked" ad. :P

You're believing what the music industry marketers claim?

I followed a link from TFA, and whilst I wouldn't trust this lot either, it does seem to confirm that the truth is that scammers are having their videos deleted by YouTube.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/youtube/513696-youtube-changed-game.html

Occam's Razor says those disappeared music industry videos were also deleted by YouTube, not by the music industry themselves. Of course the music industry use black hat techniques to bump their view counts. You really thought they didn't?

Google around.

around didn't provide relevant results.

But with the literal-minded housekeeper costume off, forge referer and spoof referer still don't. This page is from 2006, and this page likewise explains a flaw that has since been fixed. This page claims that it's possible to forge a referer in the visitor's browser using redirection, but only from a domain that the attacker controls. This result claims that the only way is to get the user to install a plug-in: "If you want to redirect a visitor to another website and set their browser's referer to any value you desire, you'll need to develop a web browser-plugin or some other type of application that runs on their computer. Otherwise, you cannot set the referer on the visitor's browser." A bunch of results were links to such plug-ins, but the viewer is likely to decline the plug-in installation. What am I missing?

Can Slate stop writing articles about shit it doesn't know about?

Right.

First, most of the things Slate suggests have been tried. Timing human input behavior is in use already, and attacks already do some randomization there.

Second, despite what the Slate article quotes, the CAPTCHA for Gmail has been cracked. The success rate is only 20%, but because the cracker is embedded in a botnet, that's good enough to survive IP blacklisting. MessageLabs says Gmail spam went from 1.3 percent of all spam e-mail in January to 2.6 percent in February.

All the proposed tasks - recognizing people, cats vs dogs, etc. - can be done by computers at the 20% accuracy level or better. So that's not going to work.

ReCAPTCHA isn't very good in practice. You get two words, one of which was recognized by an OCR program and one of which wasn't. You only have to re-recognize the one which some OCR program already got to pass the CAPTCHA. If you can do that, you have a 50% chance of success.

Then there are the outsourcing services. "We are 35 seater call center located in Hyderabad, we would be interested." The going rate is US$0.001 to US$0.003 per CAPTCHA solved successfully. There are always ads on GetAFreelancer for CAPTCHA solving. Read Black Hat World for sources.

The "free" model is breaking down for Craigslist. I just wrote an article about this on Techdirt. Craigslist allows free ads, but not unlimited free ads. The intent is to allow individuals to post a few ads a week. But for some advertisers, that's not enough.

Craigslist has all the usual defenses. They have limits on how much each account can post. They have a CAPTCHA. They have E-mail account validation. They check for excessive posting from one IP address. And they have a flagging system to catch any remaining spam.

All those defenses have been breached. There are power tools for Craiglist spammers. Commercially available power tools. Multiple accounts are created for ad spamming. OCR is used to break the CAPTCHA. Jiffy Gmail Creator ("Who Else Wants to Create Unlimited Gmail Accounts in Seconds Flat Without Breaking a Sweat?") is used to create vast numbers of GMail accounts to receive the account validation replies. IP proxies are used to get around per-IP limitations. Postings flagged off are automatically reposted.

Against these industrial strength automated posting tools, Craigslist is losing. Major areas of the site are over 90% spam, and angry users are deserting the site. Craigslist is trying phone verification, but even that has been broken. (Read the Techdirt article and the Black Hat SEO forums for how that's done.)

Craigslist is being hit because it's the biggest free ad site, but attack tools are available for other ad and social networking sites. You can read about it on the "Black Hat SEO" forums.