Confectus
Welcome!
Hello, Confectus, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
I've reverted all of your edits because they violate Wikipedia's policy against link spam. Please read this policy before adding further external links. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Link Spam edit
You asked how your links differed from the links already on those pages. The answer is pretty simple: the others were already there. If an article already has one link to the text of a public-domain work, it doesn't need another. I didn't explore each article individually to see if there was further clean-up needed; all I had time for was to undo and halt the indiscriminate addition of links. If you want to get a sense of what kind of external linking is appropriate on Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some time contributing information to Wikipedia, and not just using it to direct people to your sites. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Review of links edit
Following my reverted edits by Jason A. Quest (talk) and in the absence of what I feel is an objective assessment of the links I've submitted, I'm bringing forth my case here in the hope that I'll receive opinions from experienced Wikipedia editors.
I will solicit these opinions from a small number of editors but anyone is welcome to comment - all replies will be reviewed and taken into consideration. However time is important, so I will take my decision for further action based on feedback I will receive by 20 February 2009.
The issue:
On 12 and 13 February I've submitted external links on 19 Wikipedia articles. Each of those links was for an online e-Book site, corresponding to the article. For instance, on the Pride and Prejudice page I have submitted a link for pride-and-prejudice.info, a website providing the whole text of the book in HTML, PDF and RTF formats. A complete list of the links I have submitted is available here: http://www.read-it-online.net in the "Our eBooks" section.
All of my edits have been reverted by Jason A. Quest (talk) on 15 February 2009. His original message can be found on this page, my reply can be found on his talk page, and finally his explanation for reverting my edits again on this page, above.
Scope:
I believe that the links I have submitted, and the pages linked themselves, are potentially useful for Wikipedia visitors. As such, I am requesting opinions from experienced, objective editors regarding the merits of the websites in question, and the Wikipedia links to them. If the view is that they should not be included in Wikipedia, I will respect the decision and leave things as they are (edits reverted).
Merits:
It is true that there are a lot of sites on the web with similar content to the sites I've brought forward. However, on careful analysis it will be discovered that many of them are flawed in one way or another, for instance: difficult to read (old website design, tiny fonts, poor contrast), awkward navigation and document structure, poor quality downloads, non-editable download files, and last but by no means least, smothered by banners and other forms of advertisements.
The websites I have suggested have a modern design, are well-structured, provide quality downloads and feature no advertisements.
Analysis of links submitted against Wikipedia policy:
"Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors."
1. Restrictions on linking
- material that violates copyright - NO (PUBLIC DOMAIN)
- sites that match Wikipedia spam blacklist - NO
2. What to link
- site content accessible to the reader - YES
- site content proper in the context of the article - YES
- site link functional and likely to remain so - YES
3. What should be linked
- Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any - NOT APPLICABLE
- an article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply - ALL SITES ARE HOSTING COPIES OF CORRESPONDING WORKS
- sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons - ONLINE E-BOOKS
- sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews - ALL SUBMITTED SITES CONTAIN "RESOURCE" PAGES (MOSTLY WORK IN PROGRESS)
4. Links to be considered
- for albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews - SEE ABOVE
- very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such - SITES HAVE A CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER STRUCTURE - LARGE PAGES AVOIDED BY DESIGN
- a well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations - NOT APPLICABLE
- sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources - NOT APPLICABLE
5. Links normally to be avoided
- any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article - SITES PROVIDE DOWNLOADS AND OTHER RESOURCES
- any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research - NOT THE CASE
- any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware on a visitor's computer - NOT THE CASE
- links mainly intended to promote a website - MAIN INTENTION IS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL RESOURCE (see Merits above for details)
- links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising - NO PRODUCTS OR SERVICES FOR SALE, ZERO ADVERTISING
- links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content - NO REGISTRATION OR PAYMENT REQUIRED OR EVEN POSSIBLE (see "Support us" on the front page of any of the sites)
- sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country - NOT APPLICABLE
- direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content - NOT APPLICABLE, ALL RELEVANT CONTENT IN PLAIN HTML
- links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds - NOT APPLICABLE
- links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists - NOT APPLICABLE
- links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority - NOT APPLICABLE
- links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors - NOT APPLICABLE
- sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article - ALL SITES ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE RESPECTIVE ARTICLES
- lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers - NOT APPLICABLE
- links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools - NOT APPLICABLE (NO ISBN)
- links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional - ALL SITES ARE FUNCTIONAL AND LIKELY TO REMAIN SO
- affiliate, tracking or referral links - NOT APPLICABLE
6. Advertising and conflicts of interest
- It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide - EXACTLY THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE
Conclusion:
I do not believe that the argument brought forward by Jason has any merit: You asked how your links differed from the links already on those pages. The answer is pretty simple: the others were already there. If an article already has one link to the text of a public-domain work, it doesn't need another.
This, in my opinion, is a very narrow view and contradicts Wikipedia policy: "Each link should be considered on its merits [...]. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter."
Besides, the sites I've suggested provide one unique feature, as opposed to the ones already there: RTF downloads. For someone who needs to format a text (for screen or print) this is a very handy resource - it saves you a lot of time since most of the work has already been done for you. Editing a PDF requires non-free software and a somewhat superior skill than editing a RTF file.
Personally, I interpret "as the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter" as a recommendation to review existing links as well as new edits with a critical eye, and to retain objectivity by comparing the merits of similar websites within the scope of the article on which they are submitted. A "first-in-last-out" policy is patently absurd, in my opinion. I have no intention to belittle the merits of other people's websites, nor the time and effort they put into creating them, but in the light of Wikipedia's policy on the amount of advertising (links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising) please take a look at this page, endorsed (or at least, not reverted) by Jason: http://www.oddparts.com/oddparts_press/texts/Pride_and_Prejudice/0.html
Confectus (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- A few preliminary thoughts:
- Please sign all of your discussion page additions with 4 tildes.
- There are [at least] two kinds of Wikipedia editors - those who prevent new broken windows in the ghetto and those that repair the dilapidated buildings. Because an editor prevents new broken windows by reverting what they consider invalid links and edits does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that they endorse preexisting copy edit, links, styles, ... in that article.
- I think there is a valid concern under WP:COI for it appears that the time line has basically gone in the manner of "(1) You made an amount of web content. (2) You, yourself, sought to link as much of this web content as possible through Wikipedia." Is this philanthropy and altruism, or something of another motive? I have no idea. While i won't presume to understand the economic model under which you're operating, i do slightly agree that the links you are offering do provide an addition to their respective Wikipedia articles and, as such, vote for their re-inclusion. Quaeler (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Procedures edit
Rather than dragging a handful of (random?) users into a debate about Wikipedia policy on your talk page (as if this were all about you), please look into Wikipedia policies ... which include established, working procedures for working out disagreements. Since you seem to be insisting that each of your links should be evaluated on its merits, the appropriate process would be to discuss it on the Talk page for each article you want to add it to. That means briefly explaining what link you want to add, and asking if someone else thinks it should be included. Adding links to your own web site is frowned upon; if the link is legit, another editor will add it. Please see How not to be a spammer for more about this. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Jason,
We're talking 19 different articles here. I think it's counter-productive to start 19 discussions for a single issue.
Besides, you did not take the time to show due diligence when reverting my edits but instead jumped at the slightest hint of a red flag.
Why should I waste time on starting 19 articles? It's all in here, and even though it might not be procedure-proof it will give us an idea of what should be done when the dust settles.
Cheers,
Confectus (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
opinion edit
In general, adding links to 19 different articles does look suspicious. My recommendation for linking to books would be to link to well-established community portals, such as Project Gutenberg, and not to an unknown website, most likely looking for Internet traffic (used, among others, for positioning, e.g. blook.ro). Pundit|utter 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Closing edit
I believe I have received all the feedback I need, so no more input is necessary.
By now 4 editors are repeating the same idea: submitting a relatively large number of links in a short time, and in the absence of what is perceived as (wiki?) editorial experience, makes said submissions look suspicious and as such are spam, or worse.
Irrespective of the fact that the "score" is tied to 1-1, I will not press the issue any further. I have no objection to my edits staying reverted.
Personally, I think the general attitude here is excellent. I particularly enjoyed the gratuitous assumptions regarding my intentions, personal or professional interest in the matter and even gender while possibly the most important assumption of all has been thoroughly ignored: good faith. What i take away from this is the conclusion that whether a link is useful or not matters little if not at all, however what is assumed about the author of that link is paramount.
Thanks:
To Quaeler: Special thanks for taking the time.
To ReluctantPhilosopher: I'm surprised by the contrast between your ability to reason and your level of commitment.
To Pundit: The SEO usefulness of Wikipedia is almost zero. Also, and running with the assumption that a website is used for positioning, whether it enjoys any traffic is irrelevant, SEO-wise.
To Jason A. Quest: Special thanks for the eye-opener and keep up the good work.
Confectus (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is that supposed to mean? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- It means that I am surprised by the contrast between the ease with which you identified the real issue and the way you chose to express an opinion. I asked a question based on principle (request instantly and correctly identified - hence my wording about reasoning) and I received answers rooted in procedure (which in my opinion shows commitment to form rather than content or technicals over fundamentals, and form is in my opinion the lesser of the two, hence mention to "level of" - my surprise just goes to show that I myself am not immune to assumptions). If you find my comment offensive in any way please accept my sincere apology, it was never my intention to offend anyone, knowing full well what it feels like to be offended.