On 24 Apr 2007 at 19:34:20 -0700 (PDT), mattman206 matt.valerio@gmail.com wrote:
I've been using Wikipedia for awhile now, and try to contribute information when I can. Lately I've edited the "External Links" section for a couple of bands that I listen to. I added links to their MySpace pages, which provide a great place to play their music and see what they sound like.
However, all of these edits get deleted quite soon thereafter. What's the deal? Does Wikipedia have a policy about removing links to MySpace? If so, what's the motivation?
It's just yet another case of people getting into a "zero tolerance" mindset and refusing to allow any finely nuanced judgment regarding what to link to. Myspace is mostly composed of the effusions of hormonal teenagers and is not very encyclopedic, so some jump to the conclusion that it never makes sense to link to it; however, as you point out, musical artists and groups often have official MySpace pages, taking advantage of that site's ability to easily embed music as well as to promote social networking among the artist's fans, so those cases do make sense for us to link to.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 24 Apr 2007 at 19:34:20 -0700 (PDT), mattman206 wrote:
I've been using Wikipedia for awhile now, and try to contribute information when I can. Lately I've edited the "External Links" section for a couple of bands that I listen to. I added links to their MySpace pages, which provide a great place to play their music and see what they sound like.
However, all of these edits get deleted quite soon thereafter. What's the deal? Does Wikipedia have a policy about removing links to MySpace? If so, what's the motivation?
It's just yet another case of people getting into a "zero tolerance" mindset and refusing to allow any finely nuanced judgment regarding what to link to. Myspace is mostly composed of the effusions of hormonal teenagers and is not very encyclopedic, so some jump to the conclusion that it never makes sense to link to it; however, as you point out, musical artists and groups often have official MySpace pages, taking advantage of that site's ability to easily embed music as well as to promote social networking among the artist's fans, so those cases do make sense for us to link to.
There are really two issues here. I have no basis for saying which links for bands are valid, so for the sake of discussion only I will concede that the links mentioned may not be acceptable.
The social issue is more important. Those who police thes kinds of link need to engage in a dialogue with the person who put up the link based on the presumption that the link was inserted in good faith. The editors who persist in adding bad links can only be judged on the basis of multiple insertions. The admins who continue making perfunctory removals without dialogue perhaps need to spend time in a desysop purgatory so that they get the message.
Ec
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The social issue is more important.
No those only inserting links are not part of our community.
Those who police thes kinds of link need to engage in a dialogue with the person who put up the link based on the presumption that the link was inserted in good faith.
Generaly most edits do not require dialogue untill they are disputed. People are generaly quite happy to answer questions as to why links were removed (and of course there are edit summeries).
The editors who persist in adding bad links can only be judged on the basis of multiple insertions.
Depends. Sometimes yes sometimes no.
The admins who continue making perfunctory removals without dialogue perhaps need to spend time in a desysop purgatory so that they get the message.
You see there are people who read stuff like this
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=309516&highlight=wikiped...
and got the message.
Geni, we all know there are spammers. However, inserting links to a band's official MySpace presence is not spam, and obviously not spam. If it's deleted, it is because the deleter is mindlessly deleting all links to MySpace without critical thought. Such ill thought-out, bot-like behavior is not generally a good idea.
-Matt
On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, we all know there are spammers. However, inserting links to a band's official MySpace presence is not spam, and obviously not spam.
No but is often a clue that the band has issues with A7
On 4/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No but is often a clue that the band has issues with A7
I disagree. Any recent band, pretty much, has a MySpace page that is an important point of contact and publicity site for the band. It's become pretty much de rigeur these days.
Of course, since many more bands are unsuccessful than successful, and unsuccessful bands definitely have a need for publicity, the vast majority of bands with official MySpace pages are unsuccessful. This does not imply that having an official MySpace page is an indicator of a band being nobodies.
The lack of any official website EXCEPT MySpace may be more indicative, but even then, I don't think too much can be read into it.
-Matt
On 4/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, we all know there are spammers. However, inserting links to a band's official MySpace presence is not spam, and obviously not spam.
No but is often a clue that the band has issues with A7
geni
Note how geni uses the word 'often' instead of 'always'. That's the nuance that's needed.
Mgm
On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, we all know there are spammers. However, inserting links to a band's official MySpace presence is not spam, and obviously not spam. If it's deleted, it is because the deleter is mindlessly deleting all links to MySpace without critical thought. Such ill thought-out, bot-like behavior is not generally a good idea.
-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
"official myspace" ....
On 25/04/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, we all know there are spammers. However, inserting links to a band's official MySpace presence is not spam, and obviously not spam. If it's deleted, it is because the deleter is mindlessly deleting all links to MySpace without critical thought. Such ill thought-out, bot-like behavior is not generally a good idea.
"official myspace" ....
Ya rly. It's a primary point of contact for a lot of bands, often to the point of printing that URL on CD covers as well as their own site. If you're in a band, you'd better have a Myspace. It's frequently as relevant as the band's own site.
- d.
On 4/25/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, we all know there are spammers. However, inserting links to a band's official MySpace presence is not spam, and obviously not spam. If it's deleted, it is because the deleter is mindlessly deleting all links to MySpace without critical thought. Such ill thought-out, bot-like behavior is not generally a good idea.
-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
"official myspace" ....
Unfortunate choice of wording. It basically means MySpace page setup by official representatives of the band. That's no less linkworthy than a band's official website.
Mgm
geni wrote:
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The social issue is more important.
No those only inserting links are not part of our community.
I don't see why civility needs to be limited to community members, however that term may be defined.
Those who police thes kinds of link need to engage in a dialogue with the person who put up the link based on the presumption that the link was inserted in good faith.
Generaly most edits do not require dialogue untill they are disputed. People are generaly quite happy to answer questions as to why links were removed (and of course there are edit summeries).
Dialogue before dispute saves a lot of problems. When you delete first you are presuming that you are right do so, and that sets in motion a completely different social dynamic.
The editors who persist in adding bad links can only be judged on the basis of multiple insertions.
Depends. Sometimes yes sometimes no.
How can a single entry show persistance?
The admins who continue making perfunctory removals without dialogue perhaps need to spend time in a desysop purgatory so that they get the message.
You see there are people who read stuff like this
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=309516&highlight=wikiped...
and got the message.
Those participating in the discussion clearly have a goal in mind. It is also clear from that discussion that some links are accepted, and others not. Each needs to be examined on its own merit. Some will indeed be no better than spam links. That still doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to start a dialogue as our first line of attack.
Ec
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see why civility needs to be limited to community members, however that term may be defined.
Social issues only kick in with community members.
Dialogue before dispute saves a lot of problems. When you delete first you are presuming that you are right do so, and that sets in motion a completely different social dynamic.
I'm not going to contact the person who added all the "Fair Use" images I remove. I don't even know who they were in most cases. If they object they are free to contact me. Contacting people before making edits is not normal wikipedia practice.
How can a single entry show persistance?
Either due to the content of the link or outside intelligence. Or because it was placed in the form of: <div style="position:absolute;top:-50px;left:-50px;widthttp://www.yourlink.com/ ]</div>
Those participating in the discussion clearly have a goal in mind. It is also clear from that discussion that some links are accepted, and others not.
Some are caught some are not.
Each needs to be examined on its own merit. Some will indeed be no better than spam links. That still doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to start a dialogue as our first line of attack.
Tried that. It hasn't worked so far (heh in fact "appear to be a confused newbie" is one of the tactics I seen suggested for getting links into wikipedia.
On 4/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see why civility needs to be limited to community members, however that term may be defined.
Social issues only kick in with community members.
Not so.
Firstly, many people are potential community members or indeed simply fairly new community members.
Secondly, the way we treat good-faith contributors who are not regulars impacts our reputation in the wider world.
Thirdly, the way we treat non-regulars impacts the way we behave towards everyone.
Dialogue before dispute saves a lot of problems. When you delete first you are presuming that you are right do so, and that sets in motion a completely different social dynamic.
I'm not going to contact the person who added all the "Fair Use" images I remove. I don't even know who they were in most cases. If they object they are free to contact me. Contacting people before making edits is not normal wikipedia practice.
Actually, in most cases, informing the uploader and tagging the image for seven-day deletion is normal practice. This is normally done in a semi-automated fashion with notification templates and is not a great imposition, even if you don't have automated tools to speed this up.
This of course doesn't apply to egregiously bad misapplications which can probably be speedied, since little attempt to do the right thing have been made.
-Matt
On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see why civility needs to be limited to community members, however that term may be defined.
Social issues only kick in with community members.
Not so.
Firstly, many people are potential community members or indeed simply fairly new community members.
Secondly, the way we treat good-faith contributors who are not regulars impacts our reputation in the wider world.
Thirdly, the way we treat non-regulars impacts the way we behave towards everyone.
Actually, in most cases, informing the uploader and tagging the image for seven-day deletion is normal practice. This is normally done in a semi-automated fashion with notification templates and is not a great imposition, even if you don't have automated tools to speed this up.
Who said anything about deletion? Plently of "fair use" images used in more than one article.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dual_wield&diff=prev&oldid...
On 4/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Who said anything about deletion? Plently of "fair use" images used in more than one article.
Apologies; I assumed 'remove' meant the deletion process. Regular edits have a lower bar than deletion. With a regular edit, an informative summary is what's required, and then discussion if someone disagrees.
It's not necessarily incorrect for an article to have more than one fair-use image or for a fair-use image to be used in more than one article, of course, but I'm sure you know that already. It's just frequently a sign that someone's been over-enthusiastic about fair use.
-Matt
On 4/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see why civility needs to be limited to community members, however that term may be defined.
Social issues only kick in with community members.
Not so.
Firstly, many people are potential community members or indeed simply fairly new community members.
Secondly, the way we treat good-faith contributors who are not regulars impacts our reputation in the wider world.
Thirdly, the way we treat non-regulars impacts the way we behave towards everyone.
Dialogue before dispute saves a lot of problems. When you delete first you are presuming that you are right do so, and that sets in motion a completely different social dynamic.
I'm not going to contact the person who added all the "Fair Use" images I remove. I don't even know who they were in most cases. If they object they are free to contact me. Contacting people before making edits is not normal wikipedia practice.
Actually, in most cases, informing the uploader and tagging the image for seven-day deletion is normal practice. This is normally done in a semi-automated fashion with notification templates and is not a great imposition, even if you don't have automated tools to speed this up.
This of course doesn't apply to egregiously bad misapplications which can probably be speedied, since little attempt to do the right thing have been made.
-Matt