Wikipedia Labeling All Domainers as Cybersquatters

Domain page is still under construction. I added a few comments (below) to the Wikipedia discussion area. To emphasize the pointless damage:

I see the Domaining page has received considerable editing. I will be glad to prune relevant links down to 3 as suggested by the administrator. I have refrained from further editing or contributions in order to give others a chance for input.

Thank you Wikipedia for assisting in the development of a reasonable & informative page on Domaining/Domainers. I assume "Domainers" can be forwarded to the Domaining page once it is published.

Due to the despicable decision to redirect domaining and domainers in the first place to the Wiki page on "cybersquatting", it is now indexed very highly in all the major search engines. This is extremely unfortunate and will be very difficult to reverse. This alone should illustrate the unnecessary damage which can occur when someone is allowed to comandeer an entire industry and trash its community on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is often considered an authoritative resource so in this instance Wikipedia were being exploited and used to defame thousands of people in the domain community by labeling them as cybersquatters.

Never again should something like this be allowed. And in the future, there should be a much more expedient process in place for undoing improper redirects. Someone one can call in urgent situations. This wasn't an innocuous or laughable situation. Very, very serious. Thank you Wiki admins for your time.

Click to expand...

LA Times Duplicates Wikipedia's Bias Against Domainers

A Los Angeles Times "writer" has revealed more personal bias against domain name investors in an article on a recent domain name theft. Domain industry is described as "shady".

Original article at LA Times: Mark Madsen: Clipper, ex-Laker and domain name speculator | Technology | Los Angeles Times

Interesting commentary on this article (below)

Ron Jackson (DNJournal.com post): Open Season on Domainers and Domaining - Overtly Biased L.A. Times Article Leads Latest Assault on Objectivity and Accuracy

Michael Berkens (TheDomains.com post): LA Times: Domaining is “Shady” | The Domains

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

For anyone who is interested in seeing the Wikipedia Domaining page (still under review), here is the link. A Wiki mod states that the article will remain under review for 7 days, and currently today is the 5th day of that review.

-> Wikipedia Domaining page

Thanks for the links!

Domaining Official now at Wikipedia.org

Positive News: Wikipedia are now displaying the Domaining page, and it no longer redirects to cybersquatting!

The term, Domainer, also goes to the new Domaining page. Domainers, the plural, is still improperly directed to cybersquatting, but a request has been submitted to forward "Domainers" as well to the domaining page.

Thanks to everyone who showed interest in this issue, and who expressed their support and were willing to become involved. :tu:

What's interesting is how Ron Jackson becomes indignant and protective of domainers' reputations in this case, while throughout the year he highlights and glorifies typosquatters and other ethically-challenged domainers because they've made a bundle of cash squatting, hoarding, and manipulating domain auctions.

Jackson's righteous indignation would have more credibility if he was truly fair and balanced all year 'round. Knowing his track record, this episode reads more like a joke now.

mjnels said:

i posted about a similar thing 2 years ago..

http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/320988-domain-name-speculation-in-wikipedia.html

they used to have "Domain Name Speculation" redirected to this same "Cybersquatting" article... but someone from here took the time to write a better definition and its still there now.

Click to expand...

It is really sound very funny !

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

wtf

chandan said:

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

wtf

Click to expand...

I know. Truly nuts over there. My account has been suspended for "posting from multiple identities". Seriously, a Wikipedia troll has completely manufactured a lie I assume to somehow take control of the Domaining subject and block me from offering input or effective rebuttals to their personal biases.

For laughs ...

Wikipedia - Rotten Core with Deceptively Shiny Skin :tu:

Wow, Wikipedia really is run by a bunch of corrupt, power-mad morons.

Hmm, where's the pending deletion message? And the terms domainer, domainers and domaining point to domain name speculation as of this post.

Dave Zan said:

Hmm, where's the pending deletion message? And the terms domainer, domainers and domaining point to domain name speculation as of this post.

Click to expand...

now its not showing that previously it was

it redirecting to domain name speculation page now

Carlton said:

I want all domainers and those who enjoy domaining to know that a couple of mods at Wikipedia have taken it upon themselves to label all domainers as "cybersquatters".

It came to my attention a few days ago that anyone who types in "domaining" or "domainers" at Wikipedia is automatically redirected to their page on "cybersquatting". Doesn't that just piss you off? It does me.

I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate being classified as a cybersquatter. Cybersquatting is a crime. Domaining is a respectable business activity.

Click to expand...

:td: There are a great number of people that really need their heads examined these days.

Wiki's attitude is not unique unfortunately. I often encounter prospects who shoot back comments like "So you're a cybersquatter", when I introduce myself as a domainer. This paints myself, my business , the industry as a whole and the domain name I am attempting to sell in an extremely negative light, and makes the potential transaction much more difficult.

Perhaps it is time for a class action, as Wiki's deliberate and willful actions have slandered and/or defamed an entire industry and financially harmed us all.

Time to shine a light in the dark.

dtagr said:

Wiki's attitude is not unique unfortunately. I often encounter prospects who shoot back comments like "So you're a cybersquatter", when I introduce myself as a domainer. This paints myself, my business , the industry as a whole and the domain name I am attempting to sell in an extremely negative light, and makes the potential transaction much more difficult.

Perhaps it is time for a class action, as Wiki's deliberate and willful actions have slandered and/or defamed an entire industry and financially harmed us all.

Time to shine a light in the dark.

Click to expand...

I would respond to those accusations with "Are people who purchase physical real-estate also squatting on the land they purchased - simply because they waiting for the value to go up so they can sell it for a profit, or for the demand to increase hoping that someone will make an offer for it?"

dtagr said:

Perhaps it is time for a class action, as Wiki's deliberate and willful actions have slandered and/or defamed an entire industry and financially harmed us all.

Click to expand...

And who is going to speak for our 'industry' ? :blink:

There have been more developments on the Wikipedia misrepresentation issue. Yes, they are now directing domaining, domainer, and domainers to the "Domain Name Speculation" page. The "Domaining" page is no more.

I hate to say this, but its true. Wikipedia is predominantly moderated by a contingent of somewhat dishonest bullies (know-it-alls) who hide behind anonymous screen names. Wikipedia is highly subject to the personal biases of these "volunteer administrators".

They screwed domainers and the domain name industry by pre-empting our fair and comprehensive descriptions of our industry with their jaded & narrow views. It's a fact.

On the bright side, the domaining related phrases are not forwarding to "cybersquatting".

Trying to communicate and negotiate with Wikipedia anonymous administrators is by design an exercise in futility. The entire system is designed to be quite self-contained. If they want to block you, they'll block you. If they want to erase large blocks of relevant text without good reason, or persuasive arguments, or reliable verification sources, they'll delete them with no explanation. This is particularly destructive, and even dangerous, as the potential to misinform the general public is enormous ... and left in the hands of one or two admins at Wikipedia.

I am not the definitive expert of all domaining, but I know alot. And compared to the Wiki admins who literally knew nothing, it was very frustrating to have one Wiki admin destroy tons of useful information. And then suspend my account weeks later as I questioned their flawed content development process. Icing on the cake was this person's cowardice and avoidance never responding to my email for further conversation after he suspended my account. Very delicate ego's at Wikipedia.

I have learned that admins at Wikipedia do not like their "decisions" to be questioned or challenged. They emphasize (and even repeat numerous times on the site) the importance of "politeness" in order to have entries recognized, but then when you begin to ask questions about the integrity of their process, you will be penalized with account suspension. The "politeness" requirement is more accurately translated as "don't question our decisions". Sinister.

Bottom line at Wikipedia -> There is no real credibility, and practically no accountability. There is almost no recourse or person to whom you can direct questions or address unjust decisions. You will ultimately be left, if lucky, negotiating with a faceless screen name admin who is overly focused on being right, and in control. Not very healthy.

Since getting involved, I have found numerous internet articles discussing my same experience. There are many disclaimers on their site including a somewhat humorous don't contact us since we really don't have any editorial staff. Funny.

Wikipedia has enormous potential, but is sick from top to bottom.

Sounds like your typical "I'm admin/mod I will do what I want, its muh internetsss"

@optimalnames - That is a good response and I also use the physical real estate analogy when confronted with this type of closed-mindedness. The problem is that by diverting focus away from the selling of the product I'm already losing the battle. Countering objections to a purchase is one thing, countering objections to my ethicalness, morality and business credibility due to a too common misconception is often pointless.

Would you buy a product from a hobo, street tramp or shyster? This is often how this industry is perceived. From all the silly Michael Jackson names to exploitation of tragedy after tragedy, the public, through many forums (many of which have less than factual information) have very little reason to think otherwise.

@SDSINC - Not me!! I have more than enough on my plate! There is a new domain association, I believe it's the DNOA. Perhaps they can take on Wiki and make their name. I'm not associated with them and I'm not plugging them, I'm merely suggesting.

There is a similar situation in my old industry, pressure washing with several industry associations lobbying levels of government and the EPA etc. They have been modestly successful in dispelling commonly held myths and extremely successful about educating contractors about the proper use of their equipment, chemical handling and storage, business education, marketing training - essentially the whole nine yards.

They use a roundtable format and draw in contractors from around North America with demonstrations of new equipment, proper cleaning and restoration techniques, seminars on new accounting rules etc. Once gathered, press releases go out to local media outlets, some charity work gets done, every one has a good time and more importantly the PW'rs leave the city cleaner than they found it with good print and TV reports behind.

It essentially raises the level of professionalism among the attendees and this then translates to higher professional standards as the contractor trains his staff (who often become his competitors). Over time, it raises the expectations of potential clients who now know what to expect from a professional contractor in comparison to Johnny Lowballer.

It's a successful model that is easily adaptable to this industry.

Just some food for thought.

Carlton said:

On the bright side, the domaining related phrases are not forwarding to "cybersquatting".

Click to expand...

It could have been a lot worse. The decision was to merge the domaining page with domain name speculation page.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc said:

It could have been a lot worse. The decision was to merge the domaining page with domain name speculation page.

Regards...jmcc

Click to expand...

Agree jmcc. To be universally branded as cybersquatters was sickening, defamatory.

After thinking on it more, Wikipedia needs to operate strictly with paid professionals. To leave such a popular and well known "information resource" in the hands of volunteers is not realistic. As time marches forward, more and more misinformation and misrepresentations will occur.

It's a ticking time bomb. The most insidious element is a total lack of accountability ... thus the need for paid writers and editors who are answerable to a higher authority. This would include a formal appeal process based on policies and procedures that are well-defined and available to contributors.

The domaining page was butchered and undermined by unpaid administrators who chose their opinion over evidence, logic, and irrefutable facts. Moreover, they suspended several people's accounts when challenged.

Carlton said:

After thinking on it more, Wikipedia needs to operate strictly with paid professionals.

Click to expand...

Hmmm like the mainstream press journalists :blink:

sdsinc said:

Hmmm like the mainstream press journalists :blink:

Click to expand...

God no! Most of them use Wikipedia as a reference. The problem is that there are very few experts capable of writing well about a subject and good editors are even rarer. With Wikipedia anyone can edit and can revert another's edits. Eventually it grinds down even the best and after a while you just wonder why you are wasting time contributing. Sometimes the edits might bring some clarification or improvement and that can make it worthwhile.

Regards...jmcc

---------- Post added at 10:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

Carlton said:

After thinking on it more, Wikipedia needs to operate strictly with paid professionals. To leave such a popular and well known "information resource" in the hands of volunteers is not realistic. As time marches forward, more and more misinformation and misrepresentations will occur.

Click to expand...

It would be very expensive and it would fall into competition with the other more reputable encyclopedias.

It's a ticking time bomb. The most insidious element is a total lack of accountability ... thus the need for paid writers and editors who are answerable to a higher authority. This would include a formal appeal process based on policies and procedures that are well-defined and available to contributors.

Click to expand...

It could all be a bit clearer. The problem is that most of the time people don't know they are doing something wrong until another editor or admin nukes what they've contributed.

Regards...jmcc

I am thinking some Wikipedia Administrator is just mad that he didn't reg beer.com and sex.com back 20 years ago..... if he had he would no longer be living in his parents basement....

Let's hope Wikipedia don't visit Bido.