I have a dispute with another editor in respect of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_%281995_film%29
Question: should we use the Amazon sales page as a reference for the release date on VHS?
I say we should not, because we should not link to pages with a "buy here" link, it sends the wrong message to the legions of spammers, it gives the impression of double standards (we revert spammer.com but leave amazon.com, It's Not Fair[tm]) and the link guideline always used to say not to link to commercial sites.
On the other hand it is the most convenient place to find the VHS release date, a fact which is clearly so vital it cannot be omitted and so controversial that it cannot be allowed to stand without a citation. OK, small dose of sarcasm there.
So: should we link to a retailer's sales page as a reference for (trivial?) information? Does the presence of a "buy now" link in and of itself introduce a problem for the project?
Guy (JzG)
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I have a dispute with another editor in respect of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_%281995_film%29
Question: should we use the Amazon sales page as a reference for the release date on VHS?
The external links guideline is different to the sources guideline. I don't think there's any problem citing a commercial site as a source even when you wouldn't want to list it in the external links section. If that is the best or only source, then it ought to be cited.
Angela
On 19/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Question: should we use the Amazon sales page as a reference for the release date on VHS?
[...]
So: should we link to a retailer's sales page as a reference for (trivial?) information? Does the presence of a "buy now" link in and of itself introduce a problem for the project?
Is it a good reference? Is it accurate? Then it's an improvement on nothing.
(What spammers say is not a good argument - spammers will say *anything* that supports their marketing initiatives.)
- d.
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
So: should we link to a retailer's sales page as a reference for (trivial?) information? Does the presence of a "buy now" link in and of itself introduce a problem for the project?
Absolutely, if it's the most reliable source readily available, and IMO it doesn't introduce a problem for the project. Quite frequently sources for commercial products will be commercial sites; most software and many other products can be purchased from their producer's sites, for instance.
If one is going to cite a commercial website for such trivial but likely non-controversial information, and it can't be obtained directly "from the horse's mouth", Amazon is possibly one of the most reputable commercial sites for that info.
I'd also say that a worse-quality non-commercial source is not necessarily preferable. Given equal quality, I'd prefer the non-commercial source.
-Matt
If there's another source with the same info, we can cite that, but failing that, I agree with the other posters. If there's no better source, citing Amazon is perfectly acceptable.
On 3/19/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
So: should we link to a retailer's sales page as a reference for (trivial?) information? Does the presence of a "buy now" link in and of itself introduce a problem for the project?
Absolutely, if it's the most reliable source readily available, and IMO it doesn't introduce a problem for the project. Quite frequently sources for commercial products will be commercial sites; most software and many other products can be purchased from their producer's sites, for instance.
If one is going to cite a commercial website for such trivial but likely non-controversial information, and it can't be obtained directly "from the horse's mouth", Amazon is possibly one of the most reputable commercial sites for that info.
I'd also say that a worse-quality non-commercial source is not necessarily preferable. Given equal quality, I'd prefer the non-commercial source.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:38:14 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If there's another source with the same info, we can cite that, but failing that, I agree with the other posters. If there's no better source, citing Amazon is perfectly acceptable.
Turns out that there are three other sources... with *different* info. Amazon disagrees with all other sources. Rather dents the credibility of Amazon sales pages as a source, in my view.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Turns out that there are three other sources... with *different* info. Amazon disagrees with all other sources. Rather dents the credibility of Amazon sales pages as a source, in my view.
Do the other sources agree with each other? From a research point of view, it's probably best to cite all 4 of them, unless any can clearly be dismissed. It's much stronger to say "three autoritative sources say that X, although Amazon claims that...".
Steve
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:11:56 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Turns out that there are three other sources... with *different* info. Amazon disagrees with all other sources. Rather dents the credibility of Amazon sales pages as a source, in my view.
Do the other sources agree with each other? From a research point of view, it's probably best to cite all 4 of them, unless any can clearly be dismissed. It's much stronger to say "three autoritative sources say that X, although Amazon claims that...".
Yes. And no it's not worth citing all of them because frankly it's the VHS release date of a film, and *nobody cares*.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Yes. And no it's not worth citing all of them because frankly it's the VHS release date of a film, and *nobody cares*.
Point conceded for this example. :)
Steve
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Turns out that there are three other sources... with *different* info. Amazon disagrees with all other sources. Rather dents the credibility of Amazon sales pages as a source, in my view.
But Amazon is bigger, and bigger is better, more or less.
-Stevertigo
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Turns out that there are three other sources... with *different* info. Amazon disagrees with all other sources. Rather dents the credibility of Amazon sales pages as a source, in my view.
Are those sources any more credible than Amazon? If so, then you've done what you should - find a better source. Do the sources agree?
I'm certainly not against replacing a poor source with a better; I'm against removing a source without finding a better, and I'm against removing uncontroversial information that's sourced to e.g. Amazon.
-Matt