the metafilter wiki has been spammed by an online casino site July 6, 2004 1:06 PM Subscribe
it looks as though the metafilter wiki has been spammed pretty badly by an online casino site, with several pages of info replaced with their url and some gibberish. i've emailed adrian but wonder if anyone else besides him might have a back up copy of the site.
i know some of the pages can be fixed by anyone if the original text happens to be the last revision (i've fixed a few pages this way already by copy and pasting the original), but most of them were revised more than once by the spammer...
i'm just about to fix the home page, so look at the recent changes page if you need to see pages that are still spammy.
posted by t r a c y at 1:15 PM on July 6, 2004
i'm just about to fix the home page, so look at the recent changes page if you need to see pages that are still spammy.
posted by t r a c y at 1:15 PM on July 6, 2004
...and the people who did it are bad, bad men.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:15 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by leotrotsky at 1:15 PM on July 6, 2004
you beat me to it ! yah but some of them seemed to have been revised more than once, and the history only had more spam.
yes leo, they are bad, bad men :-p
posted by t r a c y at 1:18 PM on July 6, 2004
yes leo, they are bad, bad men :-p
posted by t r a c y at 1:18 PM on July 6, 2004
It sure would be nice if one could go after people for this. This sort of thing could ruin open-edited wikis.
What happens with public (physical) bulletin boards that have "terms of use" (like, say, no commercial advertising) and someone keeps putting up stuff that's prohibited? Is there legal recourse?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:16 PM on July 6, 2004
What happens with public (physical) bulletin boards that have "terms of use" (like, say, no commercial advertising) and someone keeps putting up stuff that's prohibited? Is there legal recourse?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:16 PM on July 6, 2004
This sort of thing could ruin open-edited wikis.
Open-edited Wikis are already ruined. You can't "go after people" for doing what Wikis are designed to allow.
posted by kindall at 2:36 PM on July 6, 2004
Open-edited Wikis are already ruined. You can't "go after people" for doing what Wikis are designed to allow.
posted by kindall at 2:36 PM on July 6, 2004
Is there legal recourse?
Not really. All you have is an IP where the spammer was, and the URL they were advertising. If you can't get the authorities to tell you who the user of that IP was at that time, you can't be certain the spammer is being employed by the site, otherwise I could just spam the URL of my enemies all around and get their page banned from google.
It looks like this person was posting from an IP in israel, so invoking international law for "unauthorized use of a wiki" probably isn't a serious enough crime for anyone to do anything about them on the other side of the pond.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:37 PM on July 6, 2004
Not really. All you have is an IP where the spammer was, and the URL they were advertising. If you can't get the authorities to tell you who the user of that IP was at that time, you can't be certain the spammer is being employed by the site, otherwise I could just spam the URL of my enemies all around and get their page banned from google.
It looks like this person was posting from an IP in israel, so invoking international law for "unauthorized use of a wiki" probably isn't a serious enough crime for anyone to do anything about them on the other side of the pond.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:37 PM on July 6, 2004
Kindall: just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is allowed.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:49 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:49 PM on July 6, 2004
EB: I obviously missed where the wiki rules are. Oh, there aren't any? Heck, we wouldn't be able to enforce them even if there were. Thinking about this in terms of "legal recourse" is monumentally stupid.
I've seen this wiki-spam happening on a few other wikis too recently. Since wikis are designed to allow open editing and you'll never stop people from posting whatever the heck they want on a wiki, there are only two real solutions:
1. Restrict editing, ie. require user registration.
2. Make it easier to undo abuse -- an easy 'undo last change' button somewhere on the history page would probably suffice.
posted by reklaw at 2:54 PM on July 6, 2004
I've seen this wiki-spam happening on a few other wikis too recently. Since wikis are designed to allow open editing and you'll never stop people from posting whatever the heck they want on a wiki, there are only two real solutions:
1. Restrict editing, ie. require user registration.
2. Make it easier to undo abuse -- an easy 'undo last change' button somewhere on the history page would probably suffice.
posted by reklaw at 2:54 PM on July 6, 2004
It occurs to me that there may well be people out there inclined to use the World Wide Web-- nay, the internet itself for nefarious purposes.
posted by xmutex at 3:13 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by xmutex at 3:13 PM on July 6, 2004
Well, there's always Angry Mob JusticeTM.
posted by Johnny Assay at 3:31 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by Johnny Assay at 3:31 PM on July 6, 2004
It sure would be nice if one could go after people for this.
*Grabs torch and pitchfork, waits for further instructions*
I guess this sort of thing is the down side to having an open system like a Wiki - there are always going to be people who abuse it. Things like user registration (unless they are some sort of human-verified registration and who has the time?) are not likely to solve anything for long, because the spammers are just as smart as and probably better resourced than the guardians.
posted by dg at 4:06 PM on July 6, 2004
*Grabs torch and pitchfork, waits for further instructions*
I guess this sort of thing is the down side to having an open system like a Wiki - there are always going to be people who abuse it. Things like user registration (unless they are some sort of human-verified registration and who has the time?) are not likely to solve anything for long, because the spammers are just as smart as and probably better resourced than the guardians.
posted by dg at 4:06 PM on July 6, 2004
Why would anybody go to a casino site that was spammed on a wiki page they were looking for? I can understand how a pop-up could be convincing (perhaps alluring is a better word), but i think wiki viewers tend to be looking for something specific... odd.
I WAS looking for MeFiWiki, but maybe a quick game of roulette is in order!
posted by shotsy at 4:11 PM on July 6, 2004
I WAS looking for MeFiWiki, but maybe a quick game of roulette is in order!
posted by shotsy at 4:11 PM on July 6, 2004
Why would anybody go to a casino site that was spammed on a wiki page they were looking for?
No point, but it sure as hell does wonder for your Google Page Rank.
The great thing about the wiki is that we have 17,000 editors, whilst mr bigshot online casino only has one. It'd be interesting to see how long this carries on. Once the individual spammers realise that changes are removed almost as soon as they're added on, and that collectively we've got a huge number of man hours they'll either go the automated robot route, or they'll give up.
/me goes away to see if he can find a "type the word into the box" addendum for wikis.
posted by seanyboy at 4:22 PM on July 6, 2004
No point, but it sure as hell does wonder for your Google Page Rank.
The great thing about the wiki is that we have 17,000 editors, whilst mr bigshot online casino only has one. It'd be interesting to see how long this carries on. Once the individual spammers realise that changes are removed almost as soon as they're added on, and that collectively we've got a huge number of man hours they'll either go the automated robot route, or they'll give up.
/me goes away to see if he can find a "type the word into the box" addendum for wikis.
posted by seanyboy at 4:22 PM on July 6, 2004
Kindall: just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is allowed.
On a Wiki? Of course it is. That's what Wiki is about, after all.
posted by kindall at 4:29 PM on July 6, 2004
On a Wiki? Of course it is. That's what Wiki is about, after all.
posted by kindall at 4:29 PM on July 6, 2004
Again, just because something is possible doesn't mean it's allowed. Just as in the case of a privately-owned bulletin board that allows public postings, there's nothing preventing a wiki owner from having a "terms of use", restricting, say, anyone from posting advertising.
I can have a party at my house where I don't have someone at the door checking IDs, but that doesn't mean that A) I can't have either explicitly or implicitly limited who is welcome to attend; and, B) expel someone and have legal recourse if they return.
It's certainly true that the message of an open door and the like carries some legal weight. But it's also true that an open door and the like are not an abdication of the right to restrict someone from being on or using your property.
If something like this becomes a legal matter, in the absence of a very specific applicable law, it probably comes down to whether or not the interloper had a resonable expectation of allowed access. Posting casino adverstisements on the MeFi wiki, while erasing relevant content, would be a hard sell to convince a judge or jury of such a reasonably expected allowed use.
But I really have no idea what specific laws there are in this realm, nor what a judge or jury would think about a "wiki". Even so, my essential point is correct: open access does not imply an inability to prevent or prosecute misuse.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:30 PM on July 6, 2004
I can have a party at my house where I don't have someone at the door checking IDs, but that doesn't mean that A) I can't have either explicitly or implicitly limited who is welcome to attend; and, B) expel someone and have legal recourse if they return.
It's certainly true that the message of an open door and the like carries some legal weight. But it's also true that an open door and the like are not an abdication of the right to restrict someone from being on or using your property.
If something like this becomes a legal matter, in the absence of a very specific applicable law, it probably comes down to whether or not the interloper had a resonable expectation of allowed access. Posting casino adverstisements on the MeFi wiki, while erasing relevant content, would be a hard sell to convince a judge or jury of such a reasonably expected allowed use.
But I really have no idea what specific laws there are in this realm, nor what a judge or jury would think about a "wiki". Even so, my essential point is correct: open access does not imply an inability to prevent or prosecute misuse.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:30 PM on July 6, 2004
On a Wiki? Of course it is. That's what Wiki is about, after all.
And I'm all about kicking spammers in the nuts. But I bet that's illegal somewhere.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:32 PM on July 6, 2004
And I'm all about kicking spammers in the nuts. But I bet that's illegal somewhere.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:32 PM on July 6, 2004
I just stomped a spider. Big fucker, looking at me in a funny way. You know the story. I reckon he was probably behind it all, so stow those pitchforks and torches.
posted by squealy at 4:53 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by squealy at 4:53 PM on July 6, 2004
captchas.net offer free captcha imaging. It shouldn't be too hard to plug that into the Wiki. Adrian, if you tell me what flavour of Wiki you're using, I'll try and hack something out for possible future use.
posted by seanyboy at 4:54 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by seanyboy at 4:54 PM on July 6, 2004
And I'm all about kicking spammers in the nuts. But I bet that's illegal somewhere.
Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's wrong, though.
posted by dg at 5:17 PM on July 6, 2004
Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's wrong, though.
posted by dg at 5:17 PM on July 6, 2004
So true.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:19 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:19 PM on July 6, 2004
Let's get SomethingAwful pissed at teh casino. Perhaps they'll take a picture of it.
posted by bonaldi at 5:38 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by bonaldi at 5:38 PM on July 6, 2004
Fergit legal recourse. Go for the kneecaps.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:51 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 6:51 PM on July 6, 2004
seanyboy: But is it actually a bot doing the spamming? I suppose sooner or later, somebody is gonna invent a Wiki spambot, but I'd be surprised if they had already. (arto's corollary to jwz's law: any Internet service will advance until it contains spam.)
The upside is, eventually we're gonna see CounterStrike used as a spam medium. "Noob bitch! Me ownz j00! Go 2 bigpeniscasino.com!"
posted by arto at 8:44 PM on July 6, 2004
The upside is, eventually we're gonna see CounterStrike used as a spam medium. "Noob bitch! Me ownz j00! Go 2 bigpeniscasino.com!"
posted by arto at 8:44 PM on July 6, 2004
On a Wiki? Of course it is. That's what Wiki is about, after all.
Not really. Wiki's may historically carry some kind of "freedom for all" philosophy with them amongst open source geeks, but they are, at the end of the day, just programming code that people can do with what they wish. Just because I install something called a "Wiki" somewhere, doesn't mean I have to also subscribe to any kind of "Anyone can scrawl whatever they want here, no holds barred, information wants to be free" philosophy. If I want people to, for instance, stay on topic and not post spam, then that's a completely reasonable attitude to have. I have a wiki installed and I would be, I believe, justifiably pissed off if other people came and scrawled all over it, because I installed it to organise my private thoughts, not theirs.
posted by Jimbob at 9:05 PM on July 6, 2004
Not really. Wiki's may historically carry some kind of "freedom for all" philosophy with them amongst open source geeks, but they are, at the end of the day, just programming code that people can do with what they wish. Just because I install something called a "Wiki" somewhere, doesn't mean I have to also subscribe to any kind of "Anyone can scrawl whatever they want here, no holds barred, information wants to be free" philosophy. If I want people to, for instance, stay on topic and not post spam, then that's a completely reasonable attitude to have. I have a wiki installed and I would be, I believe, justifiably pissed off if other people came and scrawled all over it, because I installed it to organise my private thoughts, not theirs.
posted by Jimbob at 9:05 PM on July 6, 2004
Truly, because it is just, it is right.
posted by lazaruslong at 9:30 PM on July 6, 2004
posted by lazaruslong at 9:30 PM on July 6, 2004
seanyboy: the wiki runs on UseMod. Thanks tracy and everyone for spotting the spam and solving it before I even saw it! :)
posted by adrianhon at 12:29 AM on July 7, 2004
posted by adrianhon at 12:29 AM on July 7, 2004
um, persons of evil?
posted by leotrotsky at 4:24 AM on July 7, 2004
posted by leotrotsky at 4:24 AM on July 7, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
When you find a spammed page, click the "version history" link on the bottom, and then view the 2nd to newest version (before the spammer showed up). Go to edit that page, copy all the content, then edit the current version, pasting all of the previous revision content in, and save. The page is back.
I just did this with the homepage and it worked fine. That's the beauty of a wiki, anyone can do this and restore it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:13 PM on July 6, 2004