Ccoleman tracksounds

July 2008

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Wanted (film). Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for further explanation as to what "rule" this link breaks. A full review of the musical score is clearly as relevant as links to movie review aggregator sites like rottentomatoes, metacritic and the like.

I believe these links adhere to the External Links guidelines.

Ccoleman tracksounds (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If links from a single website are being indiscriminately added by one editor, especially one whose handle endorses the website itself, it's considered soliciting. It may be worth reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. So regardless of the level of relevancy, because of who posts the link (in this case me), the edit is invalid? It's a fairly odd policy in that someone has to make a judgement call on the editor's potential intent and motives. So my question becomes, "How can I be involved or what can be done to legitimize these additions?...or is it simply not possible?" Ccoleman tracksounds (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to incorporate the contents of your link directly into the film article, commenting about its soundtrack, and requesting for other editors, perhaps at WT:FILM, to review your additions. It's a more concentrated effort to contribute to Wikipedia than just to spam a website to which you are affiliated across film articles. There have been editors in the past that have indiscriminately added reviews from film websites in an attempt to promote them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I will give that direction a try. Admittedly, using Wikipedia has a bit of learning curve and adding to the External Link section is one of the simpler means of contributing, but I'm learning. If I read you correctly, I edit an article and then somehow request the WT:FILM to review them before it get's published? Thanks. Ccoleman tracksounds (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It may depend on the condition of the article. Ideally, Wikipedia should use reliable sources to verify the content. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." When I look at tracksounds.com's reviews, though, I think it's likely that the authority of the reviewers would be questioned. On film articles of high quality, we cite reviews from widely-circulated newspapers and magazines, since these have editorial oversight for the content. If tracksounds.com was the official website of a magazine called TrackSounds and provided electronic copies of their print reviews, they would be valid. Looking at the review for Hancock, though, editors may not perceive the reviewer Christopher Coleman as an authority.

Ultimately, I don't recommend editing with content in which you have a personal interest. Being involved with the content, it's easy to perceive what you provide as important, where other editors may not see it the same way. I think it's best for editors who may have been previously involved with film publications of sorts to leave that background at the door when they come to Wikipedia. That goes for reviewers, historians, and even cast and crew alike. There are a lot of reviews on the Internet, and I'm sure everyone wants to get recognition. There are probably reviews implemented on articles that may not get the most attention, but for an article like Hancock (film), which is a Good Article, an online-only review from a website/person of uncertain authority would not be seriously considered. Sorry for the speech, but I hope you get my point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(this is lengthy...sorry in advance) Thanks Erik. I do see your points. Of course, the internet is full of reviews...people sitting at home just dropping there thoughts down, but then there are reputable sites as well. I would say each source needs to be investigated separately and thoroughly. While I don't go around calling myself an authority, I do know that the site has been running for over 10 years, has interviewed and has working relationships with those I absolutely call authorities on this topic, that our reviews are indexed by rottentomatoes, that I was recently accepted as a member of the BFCA (Broadcast Film Critics Association) - this being particularly interesting because there was debate on whether a film music review site qualified and in the end, felt my reviews added unique perspective to the voting membership. Add to this, that even existing, authoritative articles in Wikipedia currently quote or refer to reviews and comments from my site (edits I didn't make myself, btw). To sum up, I do understand the points you make and see how it could be a problem. While I still won't call myself an authority out loud, I think other credible sources have virtually said as much by their acceptance of the work published on the site. My question would be, how would visitors or other editors express dissatisfaction with the authority issue? Is it voted upon? Is there a process of validating authority for online sources? It sounds a little arbitrary there. Ccoleman tracksounds (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the judgment call to remove the reviews from Hancock and Wanted per the rationale I've shared with you. When a susceptible link is added to the EL section, I usually check that editor's contributions and backtrack his/her other edits. WikiProject Films has discussed appropriate external links that can be added to film articles, which include IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Box Office Mojo. These are, in a sense, extra resources -- cast and crew information, accumulation of reviews, and box office data, respectively. Editors can discuss what seems appropriate to include per the guidelines and per usefulness, since Wikipedia is not a link farm. If I have a dispute with another editor about a part of the article, I can invite other community members by starting a discussion at WT:FILM. Technically, on Wikipedia, we don't vote (Wikipedia is not a democracy), we work toward consensus. Sometimes it's easy to do so, sometimes it's not. A fairly heated issue I've been encountering at the moment is the inclusion of the IMDb user rating at The Dark Knight (film). We exclude user ratings because of vote stacking and demographic skew, but there are new editors who disagree and think that the film's top placement is important. Congratulations on being accepted as a member of BFCA; I hope it brings good things for you. I think, though, that we tend to directly implement reviews from "Top Critics" at Rotten Tomatoes, so there are a lot of other reviews that we don't cite. If you really are interested, you can inquire about how tracksounds.com would be received at WT:FILM. I think that movie websites are generally OK if they provide interviews (useful, descriptive information that print sources may not necessarily provide), but when it comes to reviews, I think we hesitate to cite them because there are many other indisputable authorities (in print) to cite. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)