Hello.
Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=0&o...
It is about the removal of an external link to my site that I first inserted in October. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=6952756...
The link is this: http://portal.wikinerds.org/node/103
I insert only links that I truly believe are informational and I have no interest to insert any bogus links. I truly believe that my report is informational.
Please explain why it was considered inappropriate and give me a link to any external links policies that you may have.
The link was removed by Adam Bishop. He contacted me through e-mail and I answered promptly. I explained my concern that my link was removed because it was pointing to a "competing" wikisite. He said that the link was spam because it was pointing to my site.
Other links to my site removed by Adam Bishop have been featured on Slashdot.org - check: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/28/1825218 and http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/174240 - Links to wikinerds.org that were featured on these Slashdot stories were added (and subsequently removed by Adam Bishop) in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation_Europe - I have since inserted links to the Slashdot stories because I believe that they are informational.
All that happened the same day I decided to start contributing some of my articles on Wikipedia (and thus relicensing some CC content under GFDL for your use) - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsync
I don't agree that I should not be allowed to post links to my site just because it is mine. This isn't spam.
I post this message on the mailing list because I want a clear answer on whether my link about Homo Floresiensis was spam or not. If the other admins agree with me that self-linking is not spam then I would like Adam Bishop to reconsider and post a public apology on his userpage stating that my link on Homo Floresiensis was not spam. If you decide that the link was not informational, I have no problem with this. But I truly believe that describing it as spam was unfair. Adam Bishop stated in the History log of the Homo Floresiensis article: "01:45, 12 Jan 2005 Adam Bishop (removing spam)"
I also promise to not post any other external links without asking on the mailing list or the village pump first.
Well, the site does not really look like spam to me, and it certainly seems informational. Does it provide any information that it not in any of the other links, though? (I do not know, as I have not read the content of the other linked sites.)
Josh Gerdes (User:JoshG)
NSK wrote:
Hello.
Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=0&o...
It is about the removal of an external link to my site that I first inserted in October. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=6952756...
The link is this: http://portal.wikinerds.org/node/103
I insert only links that I truly believe are informational and I have no interest to insert any bogus links. I truly believe that my report is informational.
Please explain why it was considered inappropriate and give me a link to any external links policies that you may have.
The link was removed by Adam Bishop. He contacted me through e-mail and I answered promptly. I explained my concern that my link was removed because it was pointing to a "competing" wikisite. He said that the link was spam because it was pointing to my site.
Other links to my site removed by Adam Bishop have been featured on Slashdot.org - check: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/28/1825218 and http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/174240 - Links to wikinerds.org that were featured on these Slashdot stories were added (and subsequently removed by Adam Bishop) in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation_Europe - I have since inserted links to the Slashdot stories because I believe that they are informational.
All that happened the same day I decided to start contributing some of my articles on Wikipedia (and thus relicensing some CC content under GFDL for your use) - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsync
I don't agree that I should not be allowed to post links to my site just because it is mine. This isn't spam.
I post this message on the mailing list because I want a clear answer on whether my link about Homo Floresiensis was spam or not. If the other admins agree with me that self-linking is not spam then I would like Adam Bishop to reconsider and post a public apology on his userpage stating that my link on Homo Floresiensis was not spam. If you decide that the link was not informational, I have no problem with this. But I truly believe that describing it as spam was unfair. Adam Bishop stated in the History log of the Homo Floresiensis article: "01:45, 12 Jan 2005 Adam Bishop (removing spam)"
I also promise to not post any other external links without asking on the mailing list or the village pump first.
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 07:39, Josh Gerdes wrote:
Well, the site does not really look like spam to me, and it certainly seems informational. Does it provide any information that it not in any of the other links, though? (I do not know, as I have not read the content of the other linked sites.)
Thank you for responding. I believe that my report is informational and useful to the reader, but in the end this is something that will be decided by the readers and Wikipedia users themselves. What I insist, though, is that it was not spam. If the link is about to be kept removed, it should be for another reason (non-informational or otherwise, I welcome any constructive criticism) but not because someone thought it was spam. I hope you can understand me.
I certainly see the attraction of a 'never post links to a site you're associated with' rule - it's an easy solution, and people rarely spam sites they're not associated with. It seems to avoid messy arguments about content and relevance.
However, I think it's an easy and wrong solution. It's hard to prove someone's associated with a site they're spamming, after all, and this stops those knowledgable from posting informative links to external content they've been involved with.
I do not think there should be an /a priori/ rule that posting links to your own sites is forbidden. On the other hand, one should expect a certain amount of scrutiny if one does.
In this case, it looks like your link is on topic and relevant. Whether it is needed is another matter, but one that can be resolved in a more peaceable manner. I don't agree with removing it and citing as the sole reason that it's a site you put up.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Matt Brown wrote: <snip>
I do not think there should be an /a priori/ rule that posting links to your own sites is forbidden. On the other hand, one should expect a certain amount of scrutiny if one does.
In this case, it looks like your link is on topic and relevant. Whether it is needed is another matter, but one that can be resolved in a more peaceable manner. I don't agree with removing it and citing as the sole reason that it's a site you put up.
Ditto'd. A little extra scrutiny is not unreasonable, but calling it spam simply because it's his own site is pretty much off the deep end.
I think it's a fairly clear example of spamming. Based on a look at NSK's contributions, it seems (and doesn't surprise me) that a majority of them are adding links, many to his site. Nearly every post by NSK to Wikipedia's mailing lists, including this one, is either a) trying to convince people to go to his site, or b) trying to convince people that Wikipedia needs to be made more like his site. I think by this point it's abundantly clear that NSK is here, not to add to Wikipedia, but to advertise his own site, and that he's fast becoming one of the shining examples of Wikipedia being overgenerous with its good faith.
With this in mind, I think the removal was perfectly justified.
-- ambi
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:38:25 -0800, Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
<snip> > I do not think there should be an /a priori/ rule that posting links > to your own sites is forbidden. On the other hand, one should expect > a certain amount of scrutiny if one does. > > In this case, it looks like your link is on topic and relevant. > Whether it is needed is another matter, but one that can be resolved > in a more peaceable manner. I don't agree with removing it and citing > as the sole reason that it's a site you put up.
Ditto'd. A little extra scrutiny is not unreasonable, but calling it spam simply because it's his own site is pretty much off the deep end. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 08:47, Rebecca wrote:
(snip)
If you really believe what you said (and was not because our site is also wiki, so "competitive" in the minds of some ppl) then the admins of Wikipedia can have a discussion and decide on whether I should leave or not. I promise you that if all admins agree that I must leave from Wikipedia and the mailing list, I will do that, just to show you that my intention has nothing to do with promoting my websites.
Also consider that I have placed links to other people's sites, too, and that all the links I place are relevant and beneficial to the reader. On occasions where some of my links where removed with a good reason, I didn't reinserted the link. A true spammer would just repost his spamlinks, but I didn't. See for example [[University of Oxford]] where I posted a link to my report on the University's computing facilities. The remover didn't say it was spam, and I considered his reason not entirely invalid.
I don't care whether the links will be removed or not, but I just want to emphasise that it is *not* an attempt to spam Wikipedia.
I have also contributed and relicensed under the GFDL some of my articles, and posted them on Wikipedia. If that's not a contribution, then what is considered to be a contribution?
NSK a écrit:
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 08:47, Rebecca wrote:
(snip)
If you really believe what you said (and was not because our site is also wiki, so "competitive" in the minds of some ppl) then the admins of Wikipedia can have a discussion and decide on whether I should leave or not. I promise you that if all admins agree that I must leave from Wikipedia and the mailing list, I will do that, just to show you that my intention has nothing to do with promoting my websites.
This is not the point. I tend to agree with Rebecca in the sense that you are overly advertising your website NSK, and from time to time, you tend to be a bit too insisting on the mailing lists on topics which either hurt or irritate some people. You are welcome to be part of Wikipedia community, we need all sort of people to make a world, but I am certain you would be "more" welcome if a little less trolling. I feel quite confortable saying this as I sometimes troll a bit as well myself :-) So do not see that as an insult. I wish that you be a little lighter though.
Also consider that I have placed links to other people's sites, too, and that all the links I place are relevant and beneficial to the reader. On occasions where some of my links where removed with a good reason, I didn't reinserted the link. A true spammer would just repost his spamlinks, but I didn't. See for example [[University of Oxford]] where I posted a link to my report on the University's computing facilities. The remover didn't say it was spam, and I considered his reason not entirely invalid.
Hmmmm, I think a spammer does not necessarily resend several times. At least, my mail box is filled with messages sent only one time, but spam though. But I agree defining spamming is not easy. In this situation, though I would not say your link was spam or not, I'd say your general behavior tends to be spam.
I don't care whether the links will be removed or not, but I just want to emphasise that it is *not* an attempt to spam Wikipedia.
I have also contributed and relicensed under the GFDL some of my articles, and posted them on Wikipedia. If that's not a contribution, then what is considered to be a contribution?
Agreed. This is a contribution. All the opinions you voice around here are contributions as well.
Anthere
I thoroughly agree. NSK's site is mostly material that has been deleted from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, and his/her main purpose in life on this mailing list is to get us to go to his/her site and contribute to it. There is hardly anything there that adds to material we already have on Wikipedia.
RickK
Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote: I think it's a fairly clear example of spamming. Based on a look at NSK's contributions, it seems (and doesn't surprise me) that a majority of them are adding links, many to his site. Nearly every post by NSK to Wikipedia's mailing lists, including this one, is either a) trying to convince people to go to his site, or b) trying to convince people that Wikipedia needs to be made more like his site. I think by this point it's abundantly clear that NSK is here, not to add to Wikipedia, but to advertise his own site, and that he's fast becoming one of the shining examples of Wikipedia being overgenerous with its good faith.
With this in mind, I think the removal was perfectly justified.
-- ambi
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:38:25 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I do not think there should be an /a priori/ rule that posting links to your own sites is forbidden. On the other hand, one should expect a certain amount of scrutiny if one does.
In this case, it looks like your link is on topic and relevant. Whether it is needed is another matter, but one that can be resolved in a more peaceable manner. I don't agree with removing it and citing as the sole reason that it's a site you put up.
Ditto'd. A little extra scrutiny is not unreasonable, but calling it spam simply because it's his own site is pretty much off the deep end. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
On Thursday 13 January 2005 01:23, Rick wrote:
I thoroughly agree. NSK's site is mostly material that has been deleted from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons
Please be aware that my site is very large (right now it uses more than 2 GB of space) and has many sections and many subprojects. Every subproject is managed with different policies and has different readership. The *only* subproject where deleted material from Wikipedia is allowed to be posted is the JnanaBase Project, an experimental wiki with no policies. But if you were about to post deleted Wikipedia material on any other subproject of Wikinerds you would be banned immediately from there. Actually Wikinerds is a federation of wikis, and not a single site. Not all material in JnanaBase comes from Wikipedia VFD. Finally, please note that Wikinerds accepts other people's wikiprojects for free hosting and publishing, too.
There is hardly anything there that adds to material we already have on Wikipedia.
If you have a closer look at my site (especially in the NerdyPC Project) you will see lots of articles on Information Technology that I wrote and are much better and more updated than the corresponding articles that Wikipedia has.
NSK wrote:
If you have a closer look at my site (especially in the NerdyPC Project) you will see lots of articles on Information Technology that I wrote and are much better and more updated than the corresponding articles that Wikipedia has.
As the author of those articles you can hardly be viewed as unbiased and neutral on the subject, which makes your statements on the subject suspect.
-a
On Thursday 13 January 2005 03:36, Arkady Rose wrote:
As the author of those articles you can hardly be viewed as unbiased and neutral on the subject, which makes your statements on the subject suspect.
See http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Test:AMD_Opteron
On Thursday 13 January 2005 03:46, NSK wrote:
On Thursday 13 January 2005 03:36, Arkady Rose wrote:
As the author of those articles you can hardly be viewed as unbiased
I would also like to add that NerdyPC has been mentioned in an article of The Hindu, the Online edition of India's National Newspaper, Monday, Nov 08, 2004: http://www.hindu.com/biz/2004/11/08/stories/2004110800631500.htm
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:52:19 +0200, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
I would also like to add that NerdyPC has been mentioned in an article of The Hindu, the Online edition of India's National Newspaper, Monday, Nov 08, 2004: http://www.hindu.com/biz/2004/11/08/stories/2004110800631500.htm
Not to burst your bubble, but if you look at the context for the mention you'll see it's Wikimedia itself which pointed to your site..
"Check out this MediaWiki link (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sites_using_MediaWiki) that lists out several links to public Wikis created using the MediaWiki's Wiki engine. Links to a variety of Wikis such as NerdyPc (Computer hardware review Wiki- http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Main_ Page) and SocSci (Social Science Wiki-http://mads.warhead.org.uk/socsci/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) are included in the list."
Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado)
With all due respect to Ambi, I feel that this is a little unfair. He does promote his website, but I don't think he added that link in bad faith. I don't think we're being overly too lenient on him. So long as he doesn't start an edit war, I don't have an issue with the link.
If you think that wikinerds is spam, then my advise is to request that we add it to our list of websites that we block on our spam filter on Metawiki.
TSBDY
Rebecca wrote:
I think it's a fairly clear example of spamming. Based on a look at NSK's contributions, it seems (and doesn't surprise me) that a majority of them are adding links, many to his site. Nearly every post by NSK to Wikipedia's mailing lists, including this one, is either a) trying to convince people to go to his site, or b) trying to convince people that Wikipedia needs to be made more like his site. I think by this point it's abundantly clear that NSK is here, not to add to Wikipedia, but to advertise his own site, and that he's fast becoming one of the shining examples of Wikipedia being overgenerous with its good faith.
With this in mind, I think the removal was perfectly justified.
-- ambi
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:38:25 -0800, Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
<snip>
I do not think there should be an /a priori/ rule that posting links to your own sites is forbidden. On the other hand, one should expect a certain amount of scrutiny if one does.
In this case, it looks like your link is on topic and relevant. Whether it is needed is another matter, but one that can be resolved in a more peaceable manner. I don't agree with removing it and citing as the sole reason that it's a site you put up.
Ditto'd. A little extra scrutiny is not unreasonable, but calling it spam simply because it's his own site is pretty much off the deep end. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Once again the wise real estate agent speaks sense. NSK is overly promoting his website, to the annoyance of many, and is frequently preachy about what we [wikimedia] should do, but i really dont think that he is doing any of this in bad faith, i think that because he is so involved in what ever the hell his knowledge base thingo is, that he sees everything through that prisim; <flamebait> its like when the Dubbya Bush views the rest of the world through a wealthy american's prisim, with out realising that other place might be a might be a little different, he goes and invades places, and then gets suprised when it all backfires </flamebait>.
...sorry couldnt help it.
paz y amor, me.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:09:27 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
With all due respect to Ambi, I feel that this is a little unfair. He does promote his website, but I don't think he added that link in bad faith. I don't think we're being overly too lenient on him. So long as he doesn't start an edit war, I don't have an issue with the link.
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 08:22, Matt Brown wrote:
In this case, it looks like your link is on topic and relevant. Whether it is needed is another matter, but one that can be resolved in a more peaceable manner. I don't agree with removing it and citing as the sole reason that it's a site you put up.
Thank you very much for your valuable and insightful input.
I would like to add that it would be beneficial for Wikipedia to have a formal policy on external links, and that all admins should agree on what is and what isn't spam.
I personally would never post a link to my site (or to anybody's site) if it was not relevant to the subject and if I hadn't the belief that it is beneficial to the reader.
I also would like to point out that on our JnanaBase wiki it is allowed for people to post links to their sites. A person has already did that and wrote a nice informative article, he/she even included a link to us on his/her forum saying we have a great site. But also, many times other people are posting links that I recognise as spam. How I define spam? Well, spam is any link or reference inserted for advertising purposes that hinders the quality of our site and is not beneficial to the reader.
I have also linked to Wikipedia numerous times. Even the article in question includes a direct link to Wikipedia.
By including that link in Wikipedia I wanted to offer something beneficial to its readers. My intention was *not* to have free advertising. Actually, I have paid money to Google (AdWords) and www.LinuxISO.org for displaying my textad and banner, and I am just an unemployed Computer Science student.
Thank you very much for reading my message.
I personally would never post a link to my site (or to anybody's site) if it was not relevant to the subject and if I hadn't the belief that it is beneficial to the reader.
While that is a good start, it's clearly not enough to ensure that a link is valuable. I'm sure all the people who post links to their collected sermons of their favorite religious sect feel that their links are relevant to the subject and highly beneficial to the reader as well.
Jay.
NSK wrote:
I insert only links that I truly believe are informational and I have no interest to insert any bogus links. I truly believe that my report is informational.
Please explain why it was considered inappropriate and give me a link to any external links policies that you may have.
[Remainder snipped for brevity]
The standard policy on Wikipedia is "no self-promotion". If the reports and articles you are trying to link to are truly so useful then let others link to them.
Right now I am very much reminded of Irismeister - except you're not being *quite* as obnoxious about it.
-a