geni wrote:
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The social issue is more important.
No those only inserting links are not part of our community.
I don't see why civility needs to be limited to community members, however that term may be defined.
Those who police thes kinds of link need to engage in a dialogue with the person who put up the link based on the presumption that the link was inserted in good faith.
Generaly most edits do not require dialogue untill they are disputed. People are generaly quite happy to answer questions as to why links were removed (and of course there are edit summeries).
Dialogue before dispute saves a lot of problems. When you delete first you are presuming that you are right do so, and that sets in motion a completely different social dynamic.
The editors who persist in adding bad links can only be judged on the basis of multiple insertions.
Depends. Sometimes yes sometimes no.
How can a single entry show persistance?
The admins who continue making perfunctory removals without dialogue perhaps need to spend time in a desysop purgatory so that they get the message.
You see there are people who read stuff like this
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=309516&highlight=wikiped...
and got the message.
Those participating in the discussion clearly have a goal in mind. It is also clear from that discussion that some links are accepted, and others not. Each needs to be examined on its own merit. Some will indeed be no better than spam links. That still doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to start a dialogue as our first line of attack.
Ec