The hottest thing on the web right now is the Wiki. For those of you new to the concept, the idea is to have web pages created and updated by any and all web users that would like to contribute. It is a self policing community that has been growing like crazy in the past few years.
I've used the most common Wiki, Wikipedia.org, on occasion. The other day I visited to get some information on Portland, Oregon. I know of a great news web site that is all about Portland so I added it as one of many external links. The next day I receive this message when returning to Wikipedia.org:
"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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....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...Thank you. Katr67."
Needless to say, my addition to the page had been removed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't removing my link counter productive to the entire philosophy of a wiki? I read "Katr67's" profile and she says she spends her time editing and monitoring Oregon related web sites. So guess that makes the Portland, Oregon page on wikipedia HER page, not Portland's page.
So how can I trust a wiki if users like Katr67 decide what does and doesn't get listed? Further more, if I can't trust the site I wont visit, and if I don't visit advertisers don't get their money's worth. When that happens a web site dies. I really wonder how local wiki sites like aboutus.org and portlandwiki.com will show their investors a return on their investment?
-Jeff the Great
Posts
10 comments:
Jeff,
Posting self-referential external links in a wiki is a way to get some additional traffic and is tempting for some. Of course they aren't always appropriate, therefore wiki admins are generally more suspect of these edits than others. Your link seems fine to me and I'd hope that after some discussion it'll be retained and that you'll once again view Wikipedia as the incredible resource that it is.
- Ray
I can totally see where the wiki admins would not want to have a link to theportlander.com but being the founder of ThePortlander and being a Portlander I would want this type of link on the wiki site. It represents Portland and Oregon as a whole and if anything is everything that a wiki is as well user generated content. Now if say The Oregonian was trying the same thing I would delete there link as they are just a news source generated by a hand full of people. Hopefully the admins at Wikipedia will change this and recognize that we are partners not enemys
Well, we did invite you to discuss the link on the Portland, Oregon talk page. Instead you left a snarky comment on my talk page. Please do come argue for the inclusion of the link where other editors can get involved. I think you've jumped to conclusions. Oh, and BTW, ray and startup empire, I'm not an admin. Any user can enforce wikipolicy. If you had read the Portland edit page carefully you will see that *all* links need to be discussed on the talk page because the Portland page is a spam magnet. Also, the link was added in the wrong section of the page, which sets off our spam alarms. Thanks!
Jeff, are you retarded? Are you able to read? I'm seriously wondering here after reading the post. Reading wikipedia many times, I've noticed that Wikipedia does not have advertisers, therefore no customers to "not get their money's worth." So I don't think lost ad revenue is going to be too much of a concern for them. Otherwise this just looks like sour grapes, boo hoo, my website is not good enough for wikipedia! Boo hooo. Me blogger (a nobody I've ever heard of living in the PDX area for nearly 30 years) now predicting the demise of, what was it you called it? Oh ya, the hottest think around? Grow up, and more importantly think before you type.
Jeff, in addition to being an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a community. Communities work best when people discuss their disagreements directly, rather than running off and blogging about them. If you don't want to take part, that's fine...but whining about the behavior of one editor (not administrator) outside the site strikes me as pointlessly immature.
Beyond that, conflating the Wikipedia site with wiki technology in general betrays a pretty major ignorance of the subject matter you're passing judgment on. Hopefully that's not lost on your blog readers.
I am sorry folks, but before you post a comment I'll need you to discuss your thoughts on my talk page. If the blog comminity agree's with what you have to say, then they'll tell you it is okay to post a comment. At that time, I'll allow you to come back to my public blog site and post a comment as long as your comment remains in the same context as what you discussed on the talk page.
This is the talk page you dumbass, that's why it says comments. What is your IQ, 70 like Forest Gump?
doc m:
You've identified the difference between a blog community and the Wikipedia community (which exists in support of an encyclopedia) quite succinctly. Would you mind if I quote you in the future when explaining that difference to others?
sarcasm, anon, it's a little something called sarcasm.
Really?
Post a Comment