Looks like a borderline case to me, because
a) It's not at all clear to me that http://portal.wikinerds.org/node/103 adds much to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Homo_floriensis article
b) Even if it does, it's not clear that the Wikinerds link is the best source, or even a particularly good source for that information. It is not nearly as close to the source, or as authoritative as several of the other links that are already in the article.
c) NSK does have a clear promotional interest in wanting to build up his site.
There is such a thing outright gross spamming. I don't think NSK is doing this. In the email world, outright gross spammers are the people who simply pump the stuff out in bulk, more or less acknowledge that it's spam, hang tough, and just defy anyone to stop them. In Wikipedia, it is people who systematically add links as fast they can type (or as fast a Wikipedia's servers can accept them!) There was (for example) a used bookstore site that was planting literally scores of links to the site, one in every article about an author whose books they carried.
NSK isn't doing anything like this.
On the other hand, my perception is that he _is_ seeking to find ways in which he can simultaneously help Wikipedia _and also_ promote his site as a byproduct.
This is skating on thin ice, and NSK should know it.
There's a wide variation in peoples' attitude toward and trigger-happiness with things that are perceived as spam. NSK should not be surprised that some editors are going to delete this kind of link, with varying degrees of politeness.
I don't think there's any need for NSK to "leave Wikipedia" but I don't think he should be too surprised or indignant if links of this kind are removed. A reasonable reaction would be for him to exercise more restraint in adding them, and adding them only when it is clearer that the Wikinerds link _really_ is valuable. NSK should keep the frequently low. Add a note on the talk page justifying the link, because some people will tend to be trigger- happy on anything that looks spammish, even if it really isn't. And if the links get deleted as spam, shrug it off.
dpbsmith@verizon.net (dpbsmith@verizon.net) [050113 02:38]:
a) It's not at all clear to me that http://portal.wikinerds.org/node/103 adds much to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Homo_floriensis article b) Even if it does, it's not clear that the Wikinerds link is the best source, or even a particularly good source for that information. It is not nearly as close to the source, or as authoritative as several of the other links that are already in the article. c) NSK does have a clear promotional interest in wanting to build up his site.
I have no hesitation in reverting this variety of edit as spam, and usually in blocking the IP if it's an anon. I fully expect to continue as well. Because it is spam.
If it's not one of *the* *best* possible links the article could have, and it's not a reference used in the article, there's no reason for it to be there. Hence the frequent edit summary "Wikipedia is not dMoz". (Or Wikia.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I have no hesitation in reverting this variety of edit as spam, and usually in blocking the IP if it's an anon. I fully expect to continue as well. Because it is spam.
Agreed fully.
--Jimbo
On Thursday 13 January 2005 22:06, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Agreed fully.
Regarding my link in [[Homo floresiensis]] I have to say that:
I included the link there believing that my report was containing more information. I believed that it would be beneficial for the reader to read my report, after having seen the Wikipedia article and the other external links in it. Of course there was a promotional interest in my action, but I am sure that it was not spamming (and so my email is not a confession to spamming - I strongly support my position that spamming and selflinking are very different things and should be treated differently). I wanted to help the reader learn more about Floresiensis, but also to help my site grow. My philosophy is to "help myself by helping others" but a spammer simply believes that he should help only himself and screw up all the other people. It's very different.
I must admit that when I included my link there, I had no time to read in detail the Wikipedia article and all the external links in it.
Now I had a check and found that, although my report is informational and beneficial to the reader who learns about Floresiensis for the first time, it contains very little information which is not already present in the Wikipedia article and the other external links. Actually, after reading them, I found that my report is a bit smallish and I must improve it.
Additionally, after the suggestion of a user in the Talk: page, I had a very careful read of the "What Wikipedia Is Not" page. This important information, combined with my realisation above, made me to change my opinion on my link. I now believe that the readers of the Wikipedia article and its external links would not find any significant additional information in my current report, and I myself recommend that the link to my present report is not truly needed there; it would be redundant to include it since more information is already contained in the Wikipedia article and its external links which include sources like BBC, National Geographic, University of New England, and Nature. I thought deeply about this issue and found that Wikipedia, which tries to be an encyclopedia, would better avoid links with redundant information. Although I personally it is generally a good idea to have many links in a wiki, and I still maintain that the characterisation of my link as spam was not correct, I agree that in your vision of being an encyclopedia placing too many external links is not always a good idea.
Having said all that, I would like to inform you that I will not place any more external links to my site in Wikipedia articles, without prior discussion in talk pages or this mailing list and the agreement of other Wikipedians or admins. An exception to this is when a Wikipedia article contains material from my site, such as [[zsync]] (contributed by me and relicensed from CC to GFDL for your use).
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 17:38, dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
On the other hand, my perception is that he _is_ seeking to find ways in which he can simultaneously help Wikipedia _and also_ promote his site as a byproduct.
Yes, I can agree with this, and I think what I am doing is fair and useful to the reader. And hey, your post was very insightful.
I considered the situation and found that Wikipedia needs an External Link Proposal Procedure (ELPP).
Here is how ELPP could work: - The person who wants to include an external link to his site on Wikipedia will not be allowed to do that, but he should use the ELPP system. Let's name this person "Link Provider". - The first step of the ELPP process is: The Link Provider places the proposed link on his user page. - The second step: The Link Provider completes a form or writes to the mailing list (it could even be a special mailing list) or on the village pump or on the talk page of the affected article saying that he proposes the inclusion of a link to his site. He gives his userpage. - Admins and Wikipedians go to his userpage and check the link. - The Link Provider also explains on his userpage why the link is informative and where he likes it to be included (which Wikipedia article). - Admins and Wikipedians vote and discuss whether to include the link - If approved, the link will be inserted to the relevant article by an admin or Wikipedian, but not by the Link Provider.
Allowing anybody to insert links in Wikipedia is like asking for spam. ELPP solves this problem by creating a formal process for the submission of new external links.
NSK said:
I considered the situation and found that Wikipedia needs an External Link Proposal Procedure (ELPP).
You don't need all this palaver. Just negotiate external links on an article-by-article basis. If you're the only person editing an article, ask another editor to look at the link in the context of the article and remove it if necessary. Be prepared to take no for an answer and don't get into arguments, and you shouldn't encounter any serious problems.
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [050113 03:50]:
Yes, I can agree with this, and I think what I am doing is fair and useful to the reader. And hey, your post was very insightful. I considered the situation and found that Wikipedia needs an External Link Proposal Procedure (ELPP). Here is how ELPP could work:
(snip 20 lines)
Please read [[m:Instruction creep]]. Procedures are *bad*; we should have only the procedures we need, and those as lightweight as possible.
Here's a suggested better ELPP: put your link on the talk page, saying "here is my page, does anyone else think it's worth including?" Then if someone else does, they will.
I'm not going to write that up as a procedure because it doesn't need it. See [[m:Instruction creep]].
- d.
Yes, I can agree with this, and I think what I am doing is fair and useful to the reader. And hey, your post was very insightful.
I considered the situation and found that Wikipedia needs an External Link Proposal Procedure (ELPP).
Here is how ELPP could work:
- The person who wants to include an external link to his site on Wikipedia
will not be allowed to do that, but he should use the ELPP system. Let's name this person "Link Provider".
- The first step of the ELPP process is: The Link Provider places the
proposed link on his user page.
- The second step: The Link Provider completes a form or writes to the
mailing list (it could even be a special mailing list) or on the village pump or on the talk page of the affected article saying that he proposes the inclusion of a link to his site. He gives his userpage.
- Admins and Wikipedians go to his userpage and check the link.
- The Link Provider also explains on his userpage why the link is
informative and where he likes it to be included (which Wikipedia article).
- Admins and Wikipedians vote and discuss whether to include the link
- If approved, the link will be inserted to the relevant article by an
admin or Wikipedian, but not by the Link Provider.
Allowing anybody to insert links in Wikipedia is like asking for spam. ELPP solves this problem by creating a formal process for the submission of new external links.
I think it unlikely that any editor would submit themselves to this incredibly bureaucratic procedure, or that any admins would bother administering it.
Here's a simpler idea: don't post links to your own website.
And if you really think your website is that great, post a link to it on the Talk: page, and suggest to any interested readers that they might want to post it in the article, if their estimation of the website matches your own.
Jay.
First off, I'm in no way affiliated with NSK or wikinerds. In fact, I find it to be a very boring site that I wont waste my time on. Bug NSK:s very polite request and the answers, some of which was very rude that he got, got me thinking. What if NSK continues to do what he is currently doing? After all, everyone has a self-interest, some acknowledge it, others don't, NSK is atleast honest about it. Then when someone thinks that NSK has inappropriately inserted a link to his site and reverts it AND NSK disagrees with their judgement he contacts me. I will then, as an impartial observer, look at what the link links to and in which Wikipedia page it was inserted and determine if that link belongs or should be removed. Ofcourse I would not have the final say in such disagreements. It is just that then the disagreement would be between me, if I find the link fitting and someone else doesn't, instead of with NSK. I think that would be beneficial because I'm just a random Wikipedian who can gain nothing from link-spamming to wikinerds. Strange idea maybe, but totally serious.
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 21:37, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
contacts me. I will then, as an impartial observer, look at what the
Good idea, I agree. What's your Wikipedia user name?