From: Jesse W jessw@netwood.net
\However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the people who create them are not vandals. People who think the encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not* intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so *are* *not* vandals.
When anyone who creates a new article, a message above the edit box is displayed which reads:
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."
Anyone who goes ahead anyway and creates an article promoting their new company most certainly _is_ acting in bad faith.
Jesse is, I think, right, inasmuch as those who create articles apropos of their otherwise non-notable and/or unverifiable companies, websites, or theories may well not perceive any promotional effect from the existence of their articles, and surely may not intend such promotion. Many may read the injunctive message and think that it doesn't apply to his/her article because there is no promotional purpose and because (in his/her mind) the subject is notable. I am rather confident that George W. Bush deeply and sincerely believes that his actions are in the best interests of the American people, notwithstanding that it seems altogether clear to me that they are often not; even if it's evident to most editors that a given website/theory/company/band is non-notable (or unverifiable), it may not be evident to those creating a page.
[[WP:AGF]] (and good sense) means, I think, that we oughtn't to classify as vandals those who create a page about a topic to which we'd imagine the injunctive message to refer. Surely if one continues to create articles where he/she is cognizant of their "unencyclopedic" nature, "vandal" is an appropriate term; even if he/she doesn't intend to be disruptive, the effect of his/her actions is disruptive, and he/she has been apprised of such disruptive quality and elects (for whatever reason, most typically simple recalictrance) to continue editing in a manner to which the community are opposed.
One imperative message, though, isn't sufficient, in my mind, to ensure that a newbie well understands what is inappropriate for the encyclopedia, and I think many prospective valuable contributors could be lost by our dismissing straightaway and as "vandals" misguided or nescient new users.
Joe [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]]
"Daniel P. B. Smith" wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: Jesse W
\However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the people who create them are not vandals. People who think the encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not* intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so *are* *not* vandals.
When anyone who creates a new article, a message above the edit box is displayed which reads:
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."
Anyone who goes ahead anyway and creates an article promoting their new company most certainly _is_ acting in bad faith. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: Jesse W jessw@netwood.net
\However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the people who create them are not vandals. People who think the encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not* intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so *are* *not* vandals.
When anyone who creates a new article, a message above the edit box is displayed which reads:
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."
Anyone who goes ahead anyway and creates an article promoting their new company most certainly _is_ acting in bad faith.
Perhaps this warning should be made a click-through for all first-time editors, with the "Save page" button replaced by a button reading "Yes, I have read the warning above, and still wish to create this article, which is not about myself or any of my friends."
Mind you, they'd still ignore the warning, because they are IMPORTANT PEOPLE THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT.
-- Neil
Good points, I had forgotten about the anti-advert warning. However... On Jul 8, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: Jesse W jessw@netwood.net However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the people who create them are not vandals. People who think the encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not* intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so *are* *not* vandals.
When anyone who creates a new article, a message above the edit box is displayed which reads:
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."
Anyone who goes ahead anyway and creates an article promoting their new company most certainly _is_ acting in bad faith.
Perhaps this warning should be made a click-through for all first-time editors, with the "Save page" button replaced by a button reading "Yes, I have read the warning above, and still wish to create this article, which is not about myself or any of my friends."
Mind you, they'd still ignore the warning, because they are IMPORTANT PEOPLE THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT.
A possible way to remove the "but I didn't think it was promotional!" issue is to tell people to go to AfC (Articles for Creation) if they even *suspect* that some nutball might *think* that they are associated with their new article, or that the article is promotional. That way, when they still make it, we can point to the notice and say - "It doesn't matter if you thought it wasn't promotional - the way to create things that *may* be promotional is to go to AfC, not make them directly."
Might help.
Jesse Weinstein