Talk:Joe job/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Joe job. 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. |
How to repair the damage
Mention what one should do if it happens. Yeah, WP:NOT#HOWTO. Don't just not mention anything. E.g., perhaps:
In many cases one need not take any action, referring instead those that ask to articles such as the one you are reading. Indeed, the few people who are usually still fooled are those new to the Internet.
Jidanni (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is still inappropriate. Personal advice from editors isn't appropriate in articles no matter how it's phrased, and frankly I don't see that this adds anything to the article. Encouraging readers to use WP as a reference work is bad enough - encouraging them to use it as a general guide to the Internet is an even worse idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment
designed to tarnish the reputation of an innocent third party
- Can this be rephrased? The primary purpose of the hijacking may not be tarnishing the victim's reputation. Instead it may be to use a 'clean' domain/email that is unlikely to be blocked due to obscurity or white-listing. --216.241.41.217 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The phrase "joe-job" as currently used does not usually refer to revenge attacks; it's simply a spam strategy that causes honest domain owners to be among the innocent victims.
Also the story should probably include the term "backscatter" and a little more discussion of this.
--
Perhaps the article could be restructured along the lines of this change in meaning. It could explain how the original meaning came about and the motivations attached to the particular actions and then later explain the more current practice of "backscatter" and the technical advantages to spammers which motivate this.
Also, would someone who knows the "standard" form for disambiguation page do that number on this one between the "Joe Job" Canadian slang and the Internet use? 209.239.10.242 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)]
Wikipedia
Just a thought - might it be a good idea to include a small amount about how easy "joe jobbing" is on wikipedia? It is self referencing but its also a very good example of the aforementioned. Thedreamdied 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, how would they joe-job wiki? [[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)