I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks. The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/ long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
Like (for another example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes. Thanks, Seth
On 5/27/06, Seth Price seth@pricepages.org wrote:
I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks. The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/ long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
Like (for another example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
G'day, welcome, and a couple of suggestions to you: *Contribute other content as well as links. People who only add links to their own site in Wikipedia are viewed with some suspicion, whether deservedly or not. *Links are of some value, but we would love it if you would actually release the photos under GFDL and upload them to Commons, our repository of multimedia content. Similarly, add information about the parks to the park articles in objective, verifiable ways. *Take it easy with the links, and go slowly. Add 10, wait a week, and see what happens. See if any get removed. See if you get any comments on your talk page. Then add another 30, and wait another week. Avoid shocking people, and avoid being mistaken for a linkspammer. *Only add links if they are among the most informative on the web for a given article. I imagine Yellow Stone Park probably has mountains of info on the web, but maybe a more obscure park doesn't. Use judgment on each link, don't add them all blindly. *Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your site to be more informative than it.
Hope that helps!
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/27/06, Seth Price seth@pricepages.org wrote:
I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks. The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/ long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
Like (for another example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
G'day, welcome, and a couple of suggestions to you:
<snip>
*Links are of some value, but we would love it if you would actually release the photos under GFDL and upload them to Commons, our repository of multimedia content.
<snip>
Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
Why?
Cheers,
N.
G'day Nick,
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
Why?
Because the GFDL is bloody awful. CC-BY-SA gives all the advantages, to both content creators and users, without the unnecessary overhead and the strange feeling that one ought to be frothing at the mouth and bad-mouthing "Micro$oft" that always occurs when one attempts to use the GFDL.
On 5/29/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Nick,
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
Why?
Because the GFDL is bloody awful. CC-BY-SA gives all the advantages, to both content creators and users, without the unnecessary overhead and the strange feeling that one ought to be frothing at the mouth and bad-mouthing "Micro$oft" that always occurs when one attempts to use the GFDL.
The GFDL has it's uses if you want to minimise reuse.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Nick,
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
Why?
Because the GFDL is bloody awful. CC-BY-SA gives all the advantages, to both content creators and users, without the unnecessary overhead and the strange feeling that one ought to be frothing at the mouth and bad-mouthing "Micro$oft" that always occurs when one attempts to use the GFDL.
I agree with images, and with many instances of text, but the GFDL is still IMO the best choice for the purpose it was designed for, Free books. It balances the freedoms of allowing others to modify and redistribute the content with some protection for the original author in the form of the history sections, front-cover and back-cover texts, and so on. Although i do agree that it's unnecessarily cumbersome to have to distribute the entire text of the GFDL rather than pointing to some canonical URL.
-Mark
On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
Why?
One of the most obvious reasons is the requirement that the entire text of the GFDL be distributed with the image.
Of course, this and most of the reasons are also good reasons you shouldn't ever use *just* the GFDL for anything. The GFDL is a horrible license. The only reason it's useful at all is the fact that no one actually follows it.
See "Criticisms of the GFDL" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL for some more info.
Anthony
I emphasize the "together" bit
On 5/29/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Please *don't* just use the GFDL for photos. Use a Creative Commons Attribution license instead of, or together with the GFDL.
Why?
Cheers,
N.
-- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/27/06, Seth Price seth@pricepages.org wrote:
I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks. The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/ long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
Like (for another example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
G'day, welcome, and a couple of suggestions to you: *Contribute other content as well as links. People who only add links to their own site in Wikipedia are viewed with some suspicion, whether deservedly or not. *Links are of some value, but we would love it if you would actually release the photos under GFDL and upload them to Commons, our repository of multimedia content. Similarly, add information about the parks to the park articles in objective, verifiable ways. *Take it easy with the links, and go slowly. Add 10, wait a week, and see what happens. See if any get removed. See if you get any comments on your talk page. Then add another 30, and wait another week. Avoid shocking people, and avoid being mistaken for a linkspammer. *Only add links if they are among the most informative on the web for a given article. I imagine Yellow Stone Park probably has mountains of info on the web, but maybe a more obscure park doesn't. Use judgment on each link, don't add them all blindly. *Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your site to be more informative than it.
Hope that helps!
Steve
I think these are great suggestions. I found another one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam.
"Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)"
Anthony
(by the way, should I be attaching the text of the GFDL to this derivative work? It's not a real question, so don't answer it.)
Thanks for your help. I've made a username (Mailseth) and fixed up some articles and added links. National Parks are pretty good already, so it's hard to find much to contribute, but I did notice an English malfunction. I've also added images for Custer State Park in SD (under the GFDL).
Much of the information on my site is compiled on-the-fly (like weather reports and yahoo maps), so it would be difficult for people to copy all of my content into Wikipedia. ~Seth
On May 28, 2006, at 7:23 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/27/06, Seth Price seth@pricepages.org wrote:
I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks. The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/ long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
Like (for another example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
G'day, welcome, and a couple of suggestions to you: *Contribute other content as well as links. People who only add links to their own site in Wikipedia are viewed with some suspicion, whether deservedly or not. *Links are of some value, but we would love it if you would actually release the photos under GFDL and upload them to Commons, our repository of multimedia content. Similarly, add information about the parks to the park articles in objective, verifiable ways. *Take it easy with the links, and go slowly. Add 10, wait a week, and see what happens. See if any get removed. See if you get any comments on your talk page. Then add another 30, and wait another week. Avoid shocking people, and avoid being mistaken for a linkspammer. *Only add links if they are among the most informative on the web for a given article. I imagine Yellow Stone Park probably has mountains of info on the web, but maybe a more obscure park doesn't. Use judgment on each link, don't add them all blindly. *Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your site to be more informative than it.
Hope that helps!
Steve
I think these are great suggestions. I found another one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam.
"Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)"
Anthony
(by the way, should I be attaching the text of the GFDL to this derivative work? It's not a real question, so don't answer it.) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I hope we are not that dumb. How many campsites in individual campgounds is way too much detail for us.
Fred
On May 28, 2006, at 4:46 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
*Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your site to be more informative than it.
Ok, I should clarify: we define the limits of knowledge that we want, and without respect to other sources of information, we attempt to fill them. It doesn't matter if there exists a beautiful, free encyclopaedia out there, if it has information that we lack, we attempt to replicate it.
I make comment this purely as an observation, not a goal.
Steve
On 5/28/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I hope we are not that dumb. How many campsites in individual campgounds is way too much detail for us.
Fred
On May 28, 2006, at 4:46 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
*Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your site to be more informative than it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 27/05/06, Seth Price seth@pricepages.org wrote:
I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks. The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/ long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
Like (for another example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
Just as a fair warning, there was an active - and very, very impolite - spammer a couple of months back who insisted on adding links to his site from every US national park article, and then kicked up a massive fuss when they went away, demanding (as I recall) that "disciplinary action" be taken against admins, etc etc.
So... people may be a little touchy!
User:Nationalparks is quite involved in these articles, as I recall from that farce - you might want to run the idea past him first for comments.
Looks good to me as an external link. We would not want all that detail in our article, but it would certainly be useful. The site has a bit of advertising but nothing outrageous.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Seth Price wrote:
I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks. The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/ long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
Like (for another example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes. Thanks, Seth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l