I feel like a baby for coming crying to the list, but so be it.
I created [[One deal a day]], a business model used by certain web-based retailers. I added a list of retailers that use this model.[1] I linked them to their websites. Another user deleted the whole list as spam, citing our "Wikipedia is not a repository of external links" guideline.
I contend that this alleged "list of links" is distinct from a normal list of advertising links as: - the list is intended to be exhaustive - the interest is in the retailer appearing in the list, not in sending the user to the website for further information - there is genuine interest in the list for its own sake: you could make a table and build further information about the entries, and you could easily conceive of someone doing research based on the list
Am I wrong? Is the list just a glorified form of advertising? Or is this an example of how we seem to throw out the baby with the bathwater, depriving ourselves of decent coverage of electronic commerce in our quest against spam and advertising?
Steve [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_deal_a_day&oldid=101273913 - the list is actually adapted from the last section in [[Woot (retailer)]].
Firstly, I don't see how such a list could be exhaustive. Secondly, your mistake (in my view) was in linking to their websites - you should have linked to their Wikipedia articles, just as we do in any other list (if they aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they aren't notable enough to be in the list).
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, I don't see how such a list could be exhaustive. Secondly,
Yeah, it turns out there are a lot more than I thought. I had thought there were a dozen or so. Looks to be more than a hundred. So in the end it's probably a non-issue. Still worth listing the most prominent ones perhaps.
your mistake (in my view) was in linking to their websites - you should have linked to their Wikipedia articles, just as we do in any other list (if they aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they aren't notable enough to be in the list).
Yes, but the flaw in that reasoning is that lack of article does not mean lack of notability. In most cases it's probably just that no one can be bothered writing the article. I normally agree that it's much preferable to link to the article about the website - but if there's no article, do you redlink, weblink, or not link? The idea of creating 12 stubs about websites of perhaps borderline notability makes my stomach churn.
Steve
Yes, but the flaw in that reasoning is that lack of article does not mean lack of notability. In most cases it's probably just that no one can be bothered writing the article. I normally agree that it's much preferable to link to the article about the website - but if there's no article, do you redlink, weblink, or not link? The idea of creating 12 stubs about websites of perhaps borderline notability makes my stomach churn.
If there is no article, but the website is notable, you have a choice of redlinking, or making a stub. Either is good.
I agree with Thomas, link internally rather than externally on lists.
Mgm
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the flaw in that reasoning is that lack of article does not mean lack of notability. In most cases it's probably just that no one can be bothered writing the article. I normally agree that it's much preferable to link to the article about the website - but if there's no article, do you redlink, weblink, or not link? The idea of creating 12 stubs about websites of perhaps borderline notability makes my stomach churn.
If there is no article, but the website is notable, you have a choice of redlinking, or making a stub. Either is good.
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 Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:03:10 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Thomas, link internally rather than externally on lists.
Yes. WP:NOT a link farm and all that.
Guy (JzG)
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If there is no article, but the website is notable, you have a choice of redlinking, or making a stub. Either is good.
What if the website isn't *that* notable? I'm not that familiar with the notability standards for websites, but it must be a tough barrow to shove sometimes. Is it a contradiction to say a website is notable enough for some given list, but not for a whole article?
Actually I'm sure it's not...you could easily imagine a list in an article that was "websites set up by John X". They would be noteworthy for that context, but not noteworthy in general.
Steve
What if the website isn't *that* notable? I'm not that familiar with the notability standards for websites, but it must be a tough barrow to shove sometimes. Is it a contradiction to say a website is notable enough for some given list, but not for a whole article?
Actually I'm sure it's not...you could easily imagine a list in an article that was "websites set up by John X". They would be noteworthy for that context, but not noteworthy in general.
For some lists, it makes sense to include less notable items, but I don't think it does in this case. The business model is notable because it is used by notable sites - if the sites it's used by turn out not to be notable, then the list shouldn't even exist. A website set up by John X is notable (although maybe not enough for an article) because it was set up by John X, rather than John X being notable for setting up the website - it's the other way around.
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
For some lists, it makes sense to include less notable items, but I don't think it does in this case. The business model is notable because it is used by notable sites - if the sites it's used by turn out not to be notable, then the list shouldn't even exist. A website set up by John X is notable (although maybe not enough for an article) because it was set up by John X, rather than John X being notable for setting up the website - it's the other way around.
Yeah, I agree with your reasoning. There's no other claim to fame for this business model. You could imagine a situation where a business model was notable due to having been endorsed by some famous person (eg, Kofi Annan says websites should do Y), then some hitherto un-notable website that actually does Y would be worth mentioning in that context.
Steve
On 1/17/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel like a baby for coming crying to the list, but so be it.
I created [[One deal a day]], a business model used by certain web-based retailers. I added a list of retailers that use this model.[1] I linked them to their websites. Another user deleted the whole list as spam, citing our "Wikipedia is not a repository of external links" guideline.
I contend that this alleged "list of links" is distinct from a normal list of advertising links as:
- the list is intended to be exhaustive
- the interest is in the retailer appearing in the list, not in
sending the user to the website for further information
DMOS is that way.
- there is genuine interest in the list for its own sake: you could
make a table and build further information about the entries, and you could easily conceive of someone doing research based on the list
Am I wrong? Is the list just a glorified form of advertising?
It doesn't really matter since I can porbably come up with quite an interesting set of policies that prevent it. no original research for example.
--- Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong? Is the list just a glorified form of advertising? Or is
The list would be reasonable without external links. There's no reason to see the pages directly. The model isn't a unique form of page design or artistic expression. The model just is their approach to selling and could be done with or without the Web. It could be a model for a daily infomercial.
Wiki links for companies like Woot that have a Wikipedia entry are OK. OTOH, Woot's entry really needs cleaning. Yes, it got some independent publicity, some fluff business articles, but the article is even promoting and linking to podcasts. This is a great example of Wikipedia being abused to advertise and promote, if not straight product placement and shilling.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
On 1/18/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
podcasts. This is a great example of Wikipedia being abused to advertise and promote, if not straight product placement and shilling.
Does that harm us?
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
podcasts. This is a great example of Wikipedia being abused to advertise and promote, if not straight
product
placement and shilling.
Does that harm us?
As an encyclopedia, yes. Would you trust another encyclopedia, pick whichever you like, if you knew it was being used for non-explicit/hidden advertising and promotion? Considering NPOV is the base policy at Wikipedia, the question is how does advertising & promotion within articles support that?
What if a company with more money views the article and companies mentioned within it as as competition and starts adjusting the content to promote it? Does that harm your claimed purpose for the article?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com