Talk:Typosquatting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Signing comments and Deleting comments

For the love of God, please do the first and don't do the second. You can do that by typing ~~~~ Harvestdancer 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam, Self-Promotion, Personal Attacks, and Off-Topic Contributions

WarriorScribe, Per Wikipedia's rules, let's try and resolve this dispute on the talk page, first. -- Jason Gastrich

You own the Google Group 2 that you link from this entry. Mentioning it is nothing more than spam/self-promotion. Jason Gastrich
The purpose of the Google 2 group is to expose the antics of self-promoting religionists whom engage in fraud and deception in order to forward that self-promotion. The group is not now and never has been about me and so it cannot be "self-promoting." It also doesn't meet any definition of "spam" of which I am aware. -- WarriorScribe
The purpose of the group is inconsequential. You are linking your site because you want people to read what you write. That's the definition of spam and self-promotion. Jason Gastrich
If we use that criteria, the "maleboge.com" site also qualifies. The fact is that the purpose of the group is relevant to the claim that its "self-promotion" and "spam." It is neither, by any reasonable definition, and "is, too," because Gastrich is upset, isn't going to cut it as a rebuttal or as evidence for his assertion. -- WarriorScribe
Whether maleboge.com qualifies or not is inconsequential. The link to your site does not improve the article. It's simply spam/self-promotion. If you think otherwise, then say why it should be included in the entry. Jason Gastrich

The MichaelNewdow.com domain name doesn't fall into the category of typosquatting. It's his actual, identical name. The same goes for Anthonyflew.com (see Antonyflew.com - you can still purchase it). Anthony Flew is one way to spell his name. -- Jason Gastrich

See below. WarriorScribe
Yes. You say here and on the article that it may not qualify as typosquatting. If you understood the definiton of typosquatting... -- Jason Gastrich
* The definition of typosquatting says, "should a user accidentally enter an incorrect website address, they may be led to an alternative address owned by a cybersquatter." Let's keep this in mind. WarriorScribe
In the context of the entry, "accidentally entering an incorrect website address" clearly refers to misspelling a url. --Jason Gastrich
...then you wouldn't be listing it here. Perhaps someone else can help you understand your error. --Jason Gastrich
Gastrich often engages in the talk of the errors of others, but when his own are exposed, he is nowhere to be found. The fact is that the definition of the terms, as they are found at various sources, is fluid, and the concensus about them is building, but not yet firm. Meanwhile, web surfers typing in michaelnewdow-dot-com are probably expecting a page owned by him or one that is about him, not about Gastrich's political or religious agendas. I'm willing to consider that the use of Newdow's name by Gastrich in this way is cybersquatting and not typosquatting, but both constitute dishonest and generally frowned-upon practices. Antony Flew does not spell his name with an "h," and it was later discovered, during that debate, as I was told, that the Gastrich-owned domain does not misspell his name because it was one way to spell it, but because Gastrich didn't spell it right in the first place (which is not, in and of itself, any big deal). WarriorScribe
Again, I'm not sure who you're talking to. Nobody else has replied in this discussion. Anyhow, for the record, I purposely spelled anthonyflew.com as I did. After doing some research and weighing my options, that is what I chose. I'm fully aware that there are two ways to spell the man's name and that the other domain remains available for purchase for $9. By the way, how do you know how he spells his name? Nonetheless, that's inconsequential. The issue is how others will spell his name. --Jason Gastrich
Typosquatting includes, in the description, that someone would type in an "incorrect website address," which would almost certainly include an address that is not owned by the named party, but by someone else--the "cybersquatter." In other words, they go to a page that they did not intend to visit and they see content for which they were not looking. The definition, the description, and the application can be rather fluid, but considering that the definition tells us that typosquatting is a form of cybersquatting, I'm not sure that Gastrich really has a defensible argument. WarriorScribe
Read above. --Jason Gastrich

Overall, your paragraph is a run-on with unnecessary details and off-topic rants; clearly written by someone who isn't used to writing encylopedic articles, but by one who is trying to defame another. --Jason Gastrich

See below. WarriorScribe
I saw below. This article needs to be written in a way that promotes nPOV and good faith. The way it is written, it's more like a personal attack (among other things like spam/self-promotion). --Jason Gastrich
The article was written in good faith and presents as neutral a point of view as can be envisioned. There were no personal attacks launched at Gastrich, merely facts about his activities and how they can be viewed as "typosquatting" and even "cybersquatting." Since Gastrich is the subject of the commentary, and since it's not very flattering to be identified as doing these things, it's almost certain that Gastrich will not view the material as being "neutral." WarriorScribe

The nljonline.org domain name isn't a redirect. It's a legitimate organization with a radio broadcast. Therefore, it shouldn't be considered typosquatting. --Jason Gastrich

The nljonline.org domain is a clear example of typosquatting. A redirect is not necessary for something to be a typosquat, nor is there any claim in the commentary that the nljonline.org domain employs a redirect. WarriorScribe
Part of typosquatting is intent. You have no proof of intent regarding this domain name. It's an organization in its own right. --Jason Gastrich
Funny how, suddenly, we're no longer concerned with whether or not there is a redirect. Remember what I wrote about Gastrich acknowledging errors.
Gastrich engages in this sort of thing a lot: "Prove it," he says, and when the evidence is presented, he's nowhere to be found. I'll grant that it's difficult to "prove" intent in a case such as this, but it's a bit much to believe that Gastrich, who attended Falwell's Liberty Baptist University and who fancies himself something of an expert in the development of web pages would not have bothered, at least, to do a search of nljonline, as a domain name, before latching on to it. If one goes to a site like Register.com, one has the ability to see if a domain is being used. If it is, the results will indicate that, and provide examples of other, similar domains that are not being used. Here are the results for a search for nljonline.com. Note that we are told that it is not available (we can make an offer for it), but we are told that, among others, nljonline.net is available. It's also a bit much to assume that, by coincidence, Gastrich's "organization" name is different from Falwell's by one word that happens to begin with the same letter. WarriorScribe
Again, who are you talking to? Wiki rules tell us to work this out. If we cannot, then we can get some moderators involved. Talking to them already (as if they are here, even though they're not) isn't appropriate.
Your meandering above does not prove any mischief on my part. --Jason Gastrich

Linking my talk page is unnecessary. I don't think it follows typical Wiki rules to link such a page. --Jason Gastrich

I'll leave it to an admin to make that determination. A general reading of many of Gastrich's interpretations of what is and is not "necessary" or what does or does not meet the "rules" has, to be kind, generally be rather, eh, "creative." WarriorScribe
It generally isn't in good taste to link a talk page in this manner. --Jason Gastrich
Asked and answered. WarriorScribe

Linking a Google search is also unnecessary. --Jason Gastrich

See above. WarriorScribe
This is an encyclopedia. Linking Google searches is poor research and a poor device. --Jason Gastrich
Asked and answered. WarriorScribe

Using language such as "religious agenda" isn't nPOV. --Jason Gastrich

Assertions of this sort are of no consequence. "Agenda" can be quite neutral, depending on the context, and it's always amused me that the people whom are most concerned about the use of the word "agenda" are those whom have one that they'd just as soon not see exposed. WarriorScribe
A good argument could be made that every person under the sun has an agenda of sorts. Nonetheless, this accusation violates Wikipedia's rules regarding nPOV and good faith. Read the rules. They even prefer words like "says" over "claims," so your pointed commentary is certainly a violation. --Jason Gastrich
Asked and answered. The only people who get worked up over the use of the word "agenda" are those who have one. I'll also point out that I used the word "agenda" with respect to my alleged self-promotion and spam, but we don't see any complaints about that. The complaint appears to be selectively applied. WarriorScribe
It simply isn't nPOV, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich

Saying there are a number of redirect domain names is, at best, inflammatory. However, do you have proof there are many? --Jason Gastrich

Citing the simple existence of redirect scripts for domain names is not, in and of itself, inflammatory. Only someone who has done that with surreptitious intent would think otherwise. However, that Gastrich has purchased domain names and then used them to redirect JCSM page. That's a matter of record. Two prominent examples are the methods by which he diverts traffic from the Talk Origins Archive and, until there was a question of legality, the Infidel Guy site. WarriorScribe
In short, you used the word "many" and listed one example. Since there is only one, current domain name that you can list, the word "many" and the implication of "many" should be removed. See good faith and nPOV. --Jason Gastrich 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I used the word "many" because I know of more than a few that exist or have existed. Amazing. I list several items and Gastrich complains that I am getting into "unnecessary detail." I list one of something else and he complains that I don't provide enough detail. There are two that I can immediately cite: There is a redirect regarding the talkorigin domain and one that is associated with the maleboge-dot-com domain. In the past, there was also a redirect for theinfidelguy-dot-com. Gastrich is being disingenuous. WarriorScribe
If there are two, then it should say two and not many. This follows Wiki's good faith and nPOV policies. However, you're still missing the underlying point. The Wikipedia entry on Typosquatting isn't for you to opine on me, promote your site that talks about me, and exaggerate what I've done. It's to inform on Typosquatting. One small part of the entry is for examples. Keep that in mind if and when we try and formulate an acceptable paragraph. --Jason Gastrich
And now to my original reply:

[edit] Warrior Scribe talks to ?

    • Well, now! There's nothing funnier than having Gastrich actually affirm the evidence of squatting with the maleboge.com link. Of course, there are no rebuttals allowed in that group, but that doesn't mean that Gastrich's comments haven't been exposed as fabrications and lies.
    • Gastrich does engage in typosquatting--he can't deny it. He took the names of Newdow and Flew, purchased domains so that web surfers typing in those names are directed to his web pages, at which he engages in his propaganda. The use of Newdow's name may, in fact, be cybersquatting, while the appeal to presumed alternative spellings of Flew's name is simply a means of trying not to be pinned down on the subject. Interestingly enough, the reference to the Falwell-owned domain was removed, and no justification for that was presented.
    • Gastrich may have problems with my writing style, but that's not enough to get something "edited" or reverted. Whether a sentence qualifies as a "run-on" sentence is often a matter of one's subjective viewpoint, which Gastrich clearly does have with respect to anything that I might write. And, of course, there is no defamation if the information provided is factual, as it is, and even verifiable, as can be readily seen. I also don't see my comments as qualifying as a "rant." That usually implies some indication of tone in a piece, and that's not evident.
    • Whether or not there exists "unnecessary detail" is, again, a subjective viewpoint. My objective is to tell the truth. My intent was to provide just enough known and verifiable information to do that. I could certainly have added other examples of known and suspected squatting, but the few provided did the trick. When providing, as the section heading says, examples of typosquatting, I don't see how any detail that provides examples can qualify as "unnecessary." Certainly, one person cannot and should not make that decision, unilaterally.

[edit] Notability of various Typosquats

Ok. First, remove the name and link to Gastrich, as wikipedia articles do not link to user pages.

Second, Anthony Flew is a cybersquat, not a typosquat. The same goes for Michael Newdow.

Thids, while the talk.origins example is a good one, Maleboge.org isn't notable enough at this time. Talk.origins is notable. You can mention this without mention the name of the squatter. The name of the whitehouse.com squatter isn't included in that entry after all. The names of the original site (no pun intended) and the squat site can both be included, and let the reader come to their own conclusions about the author of that squat. Harvestdancer 19:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

We need a non-self-referrential image.Savidan 09:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Discussion

The paragraph hypothesising Microsoft's "vested interest" in making URLs fail to resolve is not NPOV in any way, shape, or form. I've added the NPOV tag to the section and separated the last half of the paragraph, which does appear to be properly neutral. Currently checking history for details. CDarklock 10:04, 12 July 2006

The paragraph in question was added by Franks1 on 3 May 2006. CDarklock 10:15, 12 July 2006

Since there's no real discussion going on around this, I assume nobody finds the paragraph particularly defensible or essential, and have therefore removed it. CDarklock 17:18, 28 July 2006

[edit] Examples of Typosquatting

I'm removing the reference to valve-software.com as an example of a shock site, based on having visited the site and seeing that it appears to be merely a link farm. --JacquesDemien 2006-09-10 13:03 UTC

[edit] Image example is self-reference

I suggest replacing Image:Typosquatting.png with an image that does not refer to Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. It's not that it's not a decent example, but a site from the top 10 - like Google - would be even more familiar and less self-referential. Google typo sites also are likely to get significantly more traffic. Deco 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/y/p/Talk%7ETyposquatting_5c07.html"