Help fix an improper redirect.
In a post earlier this month, several commentors pointed out that Wikipedia redirects the terms “Domainer” and “Domaining” to cybersquatter on its site. Although some of these people tried to remove the direct, it keeps popping back up.
The entry for “cybersquatter” on Wikipedia starts with:
Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.
This is an accurate description of cybersquatting, but not domaining.
It should come as no surprise that a site mostly controlled by self-righteous techies would try to pull this one. But getting it changed is difficult if you don’t understand the nuances of Wikipedia. A discourse has started (thanks to Max Menius) on the site to try to change it, and another Wikipedia user said that proof from reliable sources is required to show that domainer does not mean cybersquatter. In a common sense world, you’d turn that around and say “where’s the proof that they are the same”. But not on Wikipedia.
It looks like some proper advice has been provided on how to get this fixed. But if there are any Wikipedia experts out there, I’m sure your help would be welcome.
Brad says
They introduce the claim then expect the indicted to prove the claim is invalid? The “techies” need a logic lesson. Start with a little research on “misplacing the burden of proof” and “hasty generalization”.
M. Menius says
“Techies need a logic lesson”. And I might add a healthy dose of humility as well.
Thanks Andrew for using your forum to spotlight this issue. Domainers and “Domaining” in general deserve an accurate representation.
Tim Davids says
I had an “exchange” with a wikipedia person last week about an exact match .com I put a link to for an informative site I own. He said it was a spam link…how much better can you get than an exact match?
I hate wikipedia more and more each day.
David J Castello says
Wiki is beginning to remind me of the old Yahoo Directory and Dmoz editors. Their arbitrary decisions are a big reason why both are where they are today.
ActNow says
David, good point.
jp says
Yes, this must be fixed. I can see it on the 5 oclock news. A story about domaining and what is it, as they read the wikipedia article to the masses. Unfortunately I have no idea how to fix this one other than go through their ridiculous process.
It does remind me of a situation I had once with Dunn & Bradstreet a few years back. Thanks to their amazing research team they decided that my company was owned and operated by a guy named “Bill”, which of course isn’t my name. When I called them to have them change it, they said that only “Bill” could make the change. Too bad Bill doesn’t exist. The ridiculous part is they decided on the name “Bill” themselves, nobody told them to do it. It took about a month and several escalations to get it taken care of.
Steve Cheatham says
Yes, the old DMOZ debacle. As quoted from Wikipedia itself “A débâcle is an event that turns out as a disaster. ”
Cyber squatting in a broader definition also includes sitting on someone’s reputation in a manner to hurt them and gain from it. You don’t need a domain name to do it. So goes the domainer article on Wikipedia. Held hostage by people who stand to gain from it. And Wikipediat has NO process like a UDRP to get it fixed.
jagusa says
Given the culture of Wikipedia editors, I suggest adding a section on legitimate Domaining within the Cybersquatting article. First, this will provide a rebuttal within the cybersquatting article text itself. Second, if such as subsection is high quality and contains useful information, the argument for removing the redirect and having a standalone Domaining article would hold more merit.
Dominik Mueller says
I would like to note that “Domainer” is now redirecting to a page of its own, but it isn’t written in good English. I think somebody knowing how to use Wikipedia should improvie the entry as soon as possible, so that it won’t be removed from the guys over at Wikipedia.
Also, I noticed a short paragraph was added referring to the wrong use of the word “cybersquatting” within the cybersquatter entry. I hope it’s there to stay.
The term “Domaining” is still forwarding to the cybersquatting entry.
Stephen Douglas says
Here’s some names of Wiki experts who are domainers we should respectfully ask for help in this situation. These guys are asskickers:
Chuck Kisselburg (CommunityDNS)
Ray King (IcannWiki.org)
John Hartmann (FeediaMedia)
Jack Williamson (Snapnames)
Dan Mendell (IcannWiki.org)
The above names are people who can run circles around most of us when it comes to wiki management. There are a few more names, but I’m only willing to endure the vitriol from these five for putting them on the spot. 😉
(sorry guys! Please don’t remove me from your PDAs!)
Stuart says
Have you tried typing “domainers” in Google. The results are equally as frightening as the WiKipedia re-direct.
Jesse says
How about everyone just puts up a fraudulent definition of Wikipedia on their sites, make it as slanderous and derogatory as possible.. Sounds fair to me anyhow 🙂
M. Menius says
I have asked Wiki admin to provide permission for me to upload an informative page on domaining. Am awaiting an answer.
M. Menius says
Not sure how things will proceed, but I have uploaded the first draft to something called “the sandbox” at Wikipedia.org (kind of a holding review area). Here’s the link to the proposed start of “Domaining” and “Domainer” –>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domaining/sandbox#Domaining
M. Menius says
Domain Name Wire has been mentioned in the discussion at Wikipedia on the proposed new Domaining page. Consequently, I am going to post here my comments to the Wikipedia staff. They have reduced my original submission to about 10 or 20% of the original content I provided them … which was a rather thorough resource page on domaining.
My response to Wiki staff on this continuing issue …
I would like to respond with a few comments. I do understand that the number of links I submitted in the Domaining article was excessive. Agreed. I was trying to provide an accurate picture of the domain industry, and domainers, as a legitimate group who are ethical, well-organized and who do not deserve to be associated with the crime of cybersquatting. While my comments were perceived as “biased” by one Wikipedia commenter, I can only say that his perception is a projection, and a gross overgeneralization which itself cannot be justified.
We all know that cybersquatting exists and is wrong, but if one were to visit the domainer sites and tradeshows, reference our trade associations, and work within the greater industry, then you would see just how unjust it is that the whole domain name industry has been characterized at Wikipedia as cybersquatters or scammers. Ironically, I find those statements to be born of extreme ignorance of our industry and heavily injected with personal bias against all people who invest in domain names for whatever reasons.
I know that what I am sharing here is factual and objective, not merely subjective, but it is hard to prove a negative, i.e. that the majority of domainers don’t engage in cybersquatting. This is why I tried to provide so many links … so that I could provide Wikipedia staff, and eventually their users, with the names and faces of real people, real businesses, and a greater context around our industry that has absolutely nothing to do with cybersquatting.
An example for the reviewers of Wikipedia which will hopefully illustrate my point. Suppose one Wikipedia administrator was convicted of a terrible crime, and by association all wikipedia admins suddenly began being accused of the same terrible crimes and were castigated publicly. For one, we know that you are not responsible for the bad acts of another person, and ultimately his poor choices do not reflect on you personally or negate all of the good will and collective hard work done at Wikipedia. This parallels the damage that was being done by redirecting domaining and domainers to cybersquatting. The bad acts of a relative minority were being used to humiliate and disparage a large group of people who have worked ethically and responsibly for years, and always within the law and within their rights of domain name registration.
Thank you for being willing to work with me on this important subject. Domainers, as a large group, are basically investors, internet enthusiasts, and people who have careers in a variety of fields. They are reasonable people with families, the same hopes and dreams as everyone else. And moreover, have notable achievements in life. The extensive list of domainers I provided to you, and their associated websites (in my original submission), are a small representative sample of the quality of individuals involved in the domain name industry. One of my investment partners is a board certified psychiatrist working everyday to help people with mental health disorders. Another of my domainer friends heads a non-profit fund raising organization. Yet another is a professor of economics at a major university. Many of my peers are attorneys, stay at home moms, realtors, high-level techies, college students, you name it. This diverse group of people interested in domaining are everyday people with intact values and a guiding set of principles that govern their choices in life. And they have specifically avoided internet crimes and cybersquatting. I know this on a personal level which is why I was so incensed and outraged that a couple of Wikipedia admins took it upon themselves to publicly denigrate so many reputable people.
Thanks again for considering these comments, and for allowing me a voice on this critical issue.
Addendum: Another reason I included so many industry links is I want the Domaining page to be an actual resource for anyone who searches on domaining and is interested in learning more about it. The links I provided you are high quality, relevant, and central to understanding the domain name industry. Please consider allowing me to perhaps place the links at the bottom of the article such that Wikipedia users will have a great resource guide for learning.
David says
The probem is caused to a good degree by the word “domainers” which has a negative connotation and false stereotype so the word is best not used at all.
Dave from Marketing Forums says
Wikipedia is the ‘movie’ reality anyway, its not real-world facts most of the time, its got to be backed up by ‘reputable’ 3rd party sources such as newspapers and scientists who don’t question what they are told by the government / their peers, and just copy what everyone else says – if its anything new or outside the box it gets slammed.
M. Menius says
Domaining page now Official at Wikipedia.org ->
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 new domaining page.
Thanks to everyone who showed interest in this important issue, and who expressed their support and were willing to become involved.
Hard work, but with a real result that was worth it.
Stephen Douglas says
M. Menius is a hero to domainers.
Everyone light a candle and hoist up a shot of their favorite drink to his name!
Thanks MM!
Steve says
Dear M. Menius,
Thank you for fix a gross injustice and helping domainers everywhere protect their reputation. Domaining is a relatively new world, still developing definitions. It took a large step with ethic standards at The ICA.
Best regards,
SteveC, aka wikipedia, trotline
Steve says
Since I am the one that blew the whistle on them about hijacking the Domainer page they decided to cut me off. I can’t believe such a juvenile attempt at discrediting me has been attempted by people who are so vulnerable to critisim for not being honest.
Now I can’t go back to my editing on the Domainer page in continuity with my account and talk threads.
The Domainer article is back and some of my stuff is still there although it has been rewritten. That’s what wikipedia is, a collaberation and I expect to see editing AND collaberation. I dont see the collaberation yet on this article.
Just as they did the “Domainer” page they had a meeting behind closed doors and made changes to Wikipedia that have no recourse by the person being harmed.
They presented “evidence” that I was a “sock puppet” by persenting several user names they claimn I used. They never asked me to respond, just cut me off and issued a “final” decision. Just like the same people did with the Domainer page.
It has been my experience and it seems to be common knowledge that those who run around accusing people to distract from the real issue are many times actually using the issue to their benefit. (IE: Who’s the real sock puppet here?)
Since Wikipedia’s reputation seems to be eroding daily I am beginning not to care, but people do read it and the information should be correct.
I am know as Trotline on Wikipedia. Read my stuff if you can find it. I have working on the domainer page since I have been one for 12 years and a few other places where I have special training and skills. I dont have time to check right now but I would be willing to bet they have tampered wioth all my work considering their mode of operation.
If anyone wants to get on the issue and fix it I would appreciate it. I have little time and am unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures.
Best regards,
Steve
Steve says
BTW, I don’t believe what I just saw at Wikipedia Domainer page has been redired to Domain Speculation page and Domain Speculation page is going through a deletion process.
Am I going crazy? Do I even exist? All the 12 years of work I have done to help develop the Internet were all wrong and I didn’t know what I was doing?
What’s up here?
steveagain says
I couldn’t keep myself from reading the discussion about why to delete the Domaining page on Wikipedia. It would be amusing if it were a Saturday Night live skit but it is real life. This is my 2 cents worth that I added to the discussion there and I copy it here in case it too is deleted.
“I think you guys are beating a dead horse. 1. Domainers buy, sell and develop domain names on the Internet. 2.Domaining is what a Domainer does, buy, sell and develop domain names on the Internet. 3. Domain Sepculation is what a domainer does when he buys low buy registering an unused domain name, develops it with his own money and offers it for sale at a profit. Cybersquatting is doing that with someone’s intellectual property. Fellows, this is not rocket science. I and many senior domainers wonder wht tha fuss is about. The only thing that is apparent is somebody doesn’t like domainers. The nature of Wikipedia is to allow these pages to develop on their own and quit redirecting or deleting them. The world community will contribute instead of a few folks that are trying to censure. ”
from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domaining
Stephen Douglas says
@ Steve — what’s your last name, bro?
It’s not hard to believe that politics and influential dealings occur on a “open comment” website like Wikipedia. If the way they are treating you is blatantly unfair, fight like you live in the medieval age.
I was surprised to see this link today on an article from some guy who was made he lost a bid on Snapnames… it’s amazing the stupidity, or just plain jealousy, that so many people hold against the few domainers (few as in context with the rest of the world occupations).
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/23807/comment-page-1#comment-18947
David says
You should always avoid using the word “domainer” to identify yourself since it has such a negative connotation to it in the view of the public and especially with attorneys and trademark interests.
But the question is it’s not easy to think of an an alternative word for your domain name business identification. Any ideas?
SC says
David,
We are domainers and we have a legitimate business. We don’t need a new “brand”. And if attorneys and trademark interest could name everything we would be in a fine mess.
I know attorneys that don’t have political or personal agendas and they simply prosecute people who abuse intellectual property without trying to relabel them. IE: a crook accountant doesn’t mean all accountants are crooks.
After all, Nixion was still president even though he was a crook. He had a new brand; “President who was crook”.
Domainers who are cybersquatters are “Domainers who are cybersquatters”.
Boys, Comment all you want but this is my last entry in this crazy dialogue.
However, if we remane Domainers to Billionaires and give them what they need to be billionaires then I would go along with that.
SC
David says
I realize my comments are not too popular here but I still stand by what I said. Unfortunately, IMO the ‘D’ word has a real negative stereotype to it (much of it being undeserved or without merit).
M. Menius says
Much of the collective efforts of domainers were undermined by 2 or 3 Wikipedia administrators. Domaining and the domain name industry were comandeered and put down … by a couple of Wikipedia admins who abused their role & privileges.
Simply put, there is no legitimacy to Wikipedia when contributors & industry veterans can be blocked from the site by an angry teenager with an axe to grind.
Strangely ironic is when DomainNameWire.com and DNJournal.com are instantly eliminated by Wikipedia as credible news sources for our industry. Wikipedia want major media writers who have no first hand knowledge of domaining. When I point out that these “major media” writers are referencing DNJournal and DomainNameWire, Wikipedia delete any and all references to these tried & true publications with nary a word.
That’s called dishonesty. And that, among other flaws, is rampant at Wikipedia.
As far as domaining goes, it’s a fine word and a legal business activity. Someone has a problem with it, they need to check their conscience, i.e. their own domain related activities & choices.
The categorical condemnation is not really about “domaining”. Pick another word and they’ll dislike that. It’s what we do, regardless of the semantics, that is the object of envy & ignorance.
Domaining was pointed to cybersquatting. Steve identified this wrongful decision by Wikipedia, and thankfully the redirect is stopped … at least for now. What started out being our good faith effort based on principle actually actually wound up uncovering a gross lack of credibility at Wikipedia.
There is a future expose’ waiting to be written as Wikipedia has become the single greatest online source of misinformation maquerading as an encyclopedia.
David says
The post above looks like spam.
Andrew Allemann says
@ David – it’s gone now. Akismet doesn’t block 100%, but it’s amazing that got through.
SteveC says
Amen brother Menius.
It is difficult to believe some of the stunts these “clowns” are trying>. The thought that keeps me going is you can not mess around with reality by publishing incorrect information that includes outright lies. It appears that some of the previous administration’s flunkies are out of work and scrapping the bottom of the barrel to get work.
It is time to move on and label Wikipedia wnat it has become. The hijacking by unreputable folks has tarnished it and it is now not a trusted source. All of my work, hours and hours, has been totally removed. There is no trace of it and I am blocked using my regular login.
This is a call to all domainers. Pull what strings you can, talk to everyone you know and let’s get this thing in perspective for the rest of the world.