One problem with commercial links is fairness: do we list those of the
producers who have articles on WP, those who we think major in some
other manner, all the ones we can find, or all the ones who insert
themselves? I don't have the answer to this--I'm asking in the hope of
some rational basis for deciding. (I've been trying to maintain the
e-book pages and related pages, and there is a continual barrage of
links to both companies who are new to the field and not yet notable,
and to those who are not really in the same ballpark at all.)
DGG
On 6/7/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Believe it or not, you have bacteria on your skin
whose
survival
depends upon you. Some of them are harmful, some helpful,
and some
serve no purpose at all. If you want to burn them all off
with a blow torch, go right ahead.
So, patrolling for obvious and insignificant vandalism
inserted into articles like "Charlotte is bonkers!!!" or
"Bill Gates sucks!!!" is, like, way more important? That
doesn't even qualify as serving no purpose?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but if you're saying that the
removal of a commercial link from the "external links" section of an
article related to that product is always more important than the
removal of "obvious vandalism" like the examples you present I'd have to
dispute that. When J. Random Reader visits an article with obvious
vandalism, he snorts and thinks "man, Wikipedia sucks." When he visits
an article with a spam link, he will likely not even notice it. So IMO
it's more important to get rid of the obvious vandalism first.
Fortunately the very obviousness that makes it important also makes it
easier to deal with.
Or are you admitting that Wikipedia or at least
you
personally not only disregard embedded advertisments and
shilling but find it helpful? Or just less worthwhile than
spending large amounts of time on immeasurables like morale
and patrolling search-engine-ignored user pages for
external links?
In some cases a link to a commercial website _can_ be helpful, IMO. A
number of years back I recall using a commercial chemical supply
business' website as references for a bunch of articles on chemicals
they sold, since they had a collection of MSDS pages online giving
various properties of the chemicals in question.
I think the point that Charlotte is trying to make is not that this one
particular link is necessarily a good thing (I haven't looked at it
myself so I don't have an opinion on it myself) but rather that an
unmoderated reaction of "OMG commercial link on Wikipedia die die die!"
is going to throw out some pieces of the baby along with the bathwater.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l