Talk:Typosquatting/Archive 3

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Typosquatting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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)

I think the image is OK, but wouldn't object to it being replaced either. WP:ASR is just a guideline, and it certainly doesn't mean that all Wikipedia-related content in articles should go as Wikipedia is notable too, and images kind of have a different rule anyway.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The image serves it purpose well, but if a better example exits, then by all means replace it. Btw, wikpedia.org is missing from the list of Wikipedia-related typosquatting but a few of the other examples seem to be down? Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Articles about online communities may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on—or is a part of—Wikipedia[...] Such pages may include: [...] Articles where Wikipedia is illustrative of the subject, such as virtual community and encyclopedia". I'm pretty sure this reference is fine, since it doesn't imply that this article is specifically being read on Wikipedia, or make an openly "meta" references to the article/website itself, which are the main points of this policy --PokeOnic (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Examples looks like Original Research

Who did that URL discovery? Who decided that these are bona fide examples of typosquatting? This section should be removed if we don't get a source for it. Dogweather (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The source for the pages are the pages themselves. Any editor is capable of verifying the URLs simply by visiting each one in the list. Go ahead, click on each one. A newer web browser on an updated system is recommended to avoid infections or other problems:

Letter swapping: iwkipedia.org, wkiipedia.org, wiikpedia.org, wikpiedia.org, wikiepdia.org, wikipdeia.org, wikipeida.org, wikipedai.org

Letter missing: ikipedia.org, wkipedia.org, wiipedia.org, wikpedia.org, kipedia.org , wikiedia.org, wikipdia.org, wikipeia.org, wikipeda.org, wikipedi.org

Letter doubling: wwikipedia.org, wiikipedia.org, wikkipedia.org, wikiipedia.org, wikippedia.org, wikipeedia.org, wikipeddia.org, wikipediia.org, wikipediaa.org

Slipped finger typo: Around each key on a keyboard is a flower-shaped collection of other keys. It is easy to press one of these by accident if the person is a poor typist. There is a huge number of permutations of these, so for just one letter example, surrounding the I key are the keys 8, 9, U, O, J, K, L: www.w8kipedia.org/, www.w9kipedia.org/, www.wukipedia.org/, www.wokipedia.org/, www.wjkipedia.org/, www.wkkipedia.org/, www.wlkipedia.org/

Misspelling: wickipedia.org, wicipedia.org, wikipeadia.org/

Incorrect www header: wwwwikipedia.org, wwwikipedia.org

Language selection, missing period in header: enwikipedia.org/, dewikipedia.org/, frwikipedia.org/, itwikipedia.org/, ptwikipedia.org/, nlwikipedia.org/, ruwikipedia.org/, plwikipedia.org/, eswikipedia.org/, jawikipedia.org/

DMahalko (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DMahalko. I'm not sure at the moment what policy I would rely on, but WP:COMMONSENSE applies and these are obvious typosquatting examples. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting compilation, but it is still original research. One problem with telling the reader "just try it out yourself" instead of citing a published source is that the status of these domains might change at any time. Therefore the information in the article will not remain verifiable in the long run.

Some such cases are however documented in published sources, e.g. two where the Wikimedia Foundation has filed an UDRP case (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-17/News_and_notes#Foundation_secures_typosquatting_domains and link there), and [1].

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)