How about links to Wikia? Options

[Doc glasgow]

I guess Wikipedia keeps getting new batches of rookies who don't even understand the biggest of problems.

The template is now up for deletion

[CharlotteWebb]

So, I ask you, how did they escape the wrath of WikiProject:Spam?

Non-promotional intent perhaps? Editors adding the links are for the most part indicating where they obtained the information in the article, not attempting to manipulate Amazon's sales.

I figure most of them don't realize it is a front for a retail site (myself I remember being surprised to learn this, though I can't recall how long ago) but it is a very good one.

I think people are comfortable thinking of it as a reference site because the information is very comprehensive and the commercial aspects are not immediately obvious. The "merchandising links" button on each film overview page (ultimately leading to one's Amazon shopping cart) is buried halfway down the left where I doubt 1 in 50 would find it, even if they did want to buy the tape or DVD in question.

The information is vast and generally good. That counts for a lot too.

[Text]

I figure most of them don't realize it is a front for a retail site

Entrepreneurs don't generally think much about the well being of their helpers, so, they started with tiny gogole ads in 2006, with Gil Penchina promising that "we will never use aggressive advertising". Then, around the time Essjay was busted, they moved to more aggressive stuff, and then someone came up with the Monaco skin which created a nice big square in the top right side of every page and a rectangle on the bottom. These moves angered many people, who then figured out that their legs were being pulled, including some high ranking admins. Some communities, like WikiFur, abandoned the site completely and created a fork with success.

The information is vast and generally good. That counts for a lot too.

If you need information about Star Wars and Star Trek... the quality of those pages surpasses that of "official material" by much, thanks to the obsessive and nitpicking work of fans. But if you need information about psychology or mathematics...

[Sarcasticidealist]

I figure most of them don't realize it is a front for a retail site

Entrepreneurs don't generally think much about the well being of their helpers, so, they started with tiny gogole ads in 2006, with Gil Penchina promising that "we will never use aggressive advertising". Then, around the time Essjay was busted, they moved to more aggressive stuff, and then someone came up with the Monaco skin which created a nice big square in the top right side of every page and a rectangle on the bottom. These moves angered many people, who then figured out that their legs were being pulled, including some high ranking admins. Some communities, like WikiFur, abandoned the site completely and created a fork with success.

The information is vast and generally good. That counts for a lot too.

If you need information about Star Wars and Star Trek... the quality of those pages surpasses that of "official material" by much, thanks to the obsessive and nitpicking work of fans. But if you need information about psychology or mathematics...

Charlotte was talking about imdb, not Wikia.

[wikademia.org]

{{delete it and possibly get the fcc involved}}

maybe the FCC could get involved... give Wikia a nice hefty fine and give that money out to all the other wikis that did not have the competitive advantage that Wikia had to become profitable.

This post has been edited by wikademia.org: Thu 17th December 2009, 7:19pm

[CharlotteWebb]

If you need information about Star Wars and Star Trek... the quality of those pages surpasses that of "official material" by much, thanks to the obsessive and nitpicking work of fans. But if you need information about psychology or mathematics...

Actually I was referring to imdb, not Wikipedia.

[Milton Roe]

What's a "Meta" For ???

The most relevant page I could find there is m:Linking to databases, which dates back to 2004 and actually suggests not linking to imdb on account of they aren't open-content.

So, I ask you, how did they escape the wrath of WikiProject:Spam?

Alas, the anti-spam policies on WP revolve around the INTENT of the link-maker, not the commercial nature of the link itself. Quite literally, the policy requires mind-reading, or at least inference about the mental state of the link-maker. You have to know WHY the link was made:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#2

One could not simply go about Wikipedia removing links to commercial sites, since it's full of them. There are list-articles of statistical or graphical software packages, for example, almost none of which are free. With gratuitous coomparisons between them, ala Consumer Reports (but done by editors as original research). What are you going to do?

OTOH, the prevailing standard of going by the intent of the account in adding a link, doesn't work very well, either. You catch simple SPAs that way, but not somebody anonymous who does a lot of other broad editing besides their link-spamming. On the internet, nobody knows you actually work for company X (unless you're dumb enough to post from their corporate IP address)

[Jon Awbrey]

What's a "Meta" For ???

The most relevant page I could find there is m:Linking to databases, which dates back to 2004 and actually suggests not linking to imdb on account of they aren't open-content.

So, I ask you, how did they escape the wrath of WikiProject:Spam?

Alas, the anti-spam policies on WP revolve around the INTENT of the link-maker, not the commercial nature of the link itself. Quite literally, the policy requires mind-reading, or at least inference about the mental state of the link-maker. You have to know WHY the link was made:

wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#2

One could not simply go about Wikipedia removing links to commercial sites, since it's full of them. There are list-articles of statistical or graphical software packages, for example, almost none of which are free. With gratuitous comparisons between them, ala Consumer Reports (but done by editors as original research). What are you going to do?

OTOH, the prevailing standing of going by the intent of the account in adding a link, doesn't work very well. You catch simple SPAs that way, but not somebody anonymous who does a lot of other broad editing besides their link-spamming. On the internet, nobody knows you actually work for company X (unless you're dumb enough to post from their corporate IP address)

This is either very subtle irony or total bullshit.

Sorry, I'm a bit under the weather today and my bullsifter is outa commission …

Jon

[thekohser]

I guess Wikipedia keeps getting new batches of rookies who don't even understand the biggest of problems.

The template is now up for deletion

Yeah, that stands a snowball's chance of being deleted. Jimbo still has far too many worshipers. You're outnumbered, Doc.

But, riddle me this... in all of these discussions about Wikia templates and interwiki linking to Wikia, why is it that Jimbo and Angela are never "notified" of the discussions and asked to weigh in? If the Wikipedia Review article were up for deletion, don't you think the Wikipediots would make it a point to make sure I knew about it (imagine for a moment, that I weren't banned)? I'd like to see Jimbo and Angela notified and asked to help guide the template discussion.

Once this template passes, I would like to see the Wikipedia Review template created, too.

[Jon Awbrey]

What's a "Meta" For ???

The most relevant page I could find there is m:Linking to databases, which dates back to 2004 and actually suggests not linking to imdb on account of they aren't open-content.

I was talking about the locus of link luv controll, not especially toward IMDB, but toward whatever are the Most Favored Luv Objects at any given time.

Those of us who have dealt with the Controll Φreeks on Meta, not to mention their Plausible Deniables and Sockpuppet Vigilantes like Mr. Ollie, know that the main purpose of the Official BADLIST and Unofficial BADLIST is to make sure that no links go to non-favored sites like Wikipedia Review.

Jon

I guess Wikipedia keeps getting new batches of rookies who don't even understand the biggest of problems.

And not just rookies …

Jon

I don't understand the link mechanics the way Greg does, but I'm beginning to realize that I have more actual experience with what really goes on at Meta-Global-Controll than anyone else here, including all you wiki-putative Big-Wiks.

I tried drawing WR's attention to Wikipedia's Meta-Hypocrisies on several threads way last year, but you were all too busy chasing your tails through Poetaster's hoops and making excuses for Selina's harassments and obstructions at the time. I'm not surprised at the usual crew of Wikia-Pologists, who prefer munching Lotuses to the hard facts of Reality, but I can't figure out what excuse the rest of you have.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Alas, the anti-spam policies on WP revolve around the INTENT of the link-maker, not the commercial nature of the link itself. Quite literally, the policy requires mind-reading, or at least inference about the mental state of the link-maker. You have to know WHY the link was made:

wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#2

This is either very subtle irony or total bullshit.

Sorry, I'm a bit under the weather today and my bullsifter is outa commission …

Jon

No, read the link. I think I'm re-stating WP's present spamlink policy correctly, but feel free to fix it if I'm wrong.

It's quite legal to put in a link to a commercial site on WP, and the place is full of them. What you're not supposed to do, is put in a link which benefits YOU personally (i.e., one to your own site or company or whatever). Persumably this also applies to backscratch-editing where A puts in links to B's commerical website, in return for B putting in links to A's website.

It's basically an extension of WP:COI, as specifically applied to adding commercial site or product links to articles. Tell me I'm wrong.

[Jon Awbrey]

Alas, the anti-spam policies on WP revolve around the INTENT of the link-maker, not the commercial nature of the link itself. Quite literally, the policy requires mind-reading, or at least inference about the mental state of the link-maker. You have to know WHY the link was made:

wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#2

This is either very subtle irony or total bullshit.

Sorry, I'm a bit under the weather today and my bullsifter is outa commission …

Jon

No, read the link. I think I'm re-stating WP's present spamlink policy correctly, but feel free to fix it if I'm wrong.

It's quite legal to put in a link to a commercial site on WP, and the place is full of them. What you're not supposed to do, is put in a link which benefits YOU personally (i.e., one to your own site or company or whatever). Persumably this also applies to backscratch-editing where A puts in links to B's commerical website, in return for B putting in links to A's website.

It's basically an extension of WP:COI, as specifically applied to adding commercial site or product links to articles. Tell me I'm wrong.

Please tell me you're not confusing WP:Policy with WP:Reality.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Alas, the anti-spam policies on WP revolve around the INTENT of the link-maker, not the commercial nature of the link itself. Quite literally, the policy requires mind-reading, or at least inference about the mental state of the link-maker. You have to know WHY the link was made:

wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#2

This is either very subtle irony or total bullshit.

Sorry, I'm a bit under the weather today and my bullsifter is outa commission …

Jon

No, read the link. I think I'm re-stating WP's present spamlink policy correctly, but feel free to fix it if I'm wrong.

It's quite legal to put in a link to a commercial site on WP, and the place is full of them. What you're not supposed to do, is put in a link which benefits YOU personally (i.e., one to your own site or company or whatever). Persumably this also applies to backscratch-editing where A puts in links to B's commerical website, in return for B putting in links to A's website.

It's basically an extension of WP:COI, as specifically applied to adding commercial site or product links to articles. Tell me I'm wrong.

Please tell me you're not confusing WP:Policy with WP:Reality.

Jon

Goodness, no. I'm simply reporting on what the place says about how it's supposed to work. Yes, it's bizarre in the extreme. WP has a bunch of largely anonymous editors, and yet has decided their site policy is that even though they have no idea who these editors are in real life--and don't want to find out; indeed have made it a high-crime to find out-- they want all these pseudonymous and responsibility-free persons to behave perfectly altruistically. Nobody must dare to act in their own self-interest! Not that Jimbo believes there's anything wrong with that! It's just that he also believes he's the only one who gets to do it on Wikipedia.

[Jon Awbrey]

Goodness, no. I'm simply reporting on what the place says about how it's supposed to work. Yes, it's bizarre in the extreme. WP has a bunch of largely anonymous editors, and yet has decided their site policy is that even though they have no idea who these editors are in real life — and don't want to find out; indeed have made it a high-crime to find out — they want all these pseudonymous and responsibility-free persons to behave perfectly altruistically. Nobody must dare to act in their own self-interest! Not that Jimbo believes there's anything wrong with that! It's just that he also believes he's the only one who gets to do it on Wikipedia.

Good, so let's not waste any more time trying to figure out how many WP:PINHEADS can WP:DANCE on a WP:ANGLE. That is nothing but a WP:DYSTRACTION, which is the only real intent behind it.

I already wasted enough of my life trying to talk sense to those pinheads way back when they changed WP:VANITY to WP:COI and nothing changed but the WP:COVER. I was much dumber then, but I know better now.

I have learned in the meantime to ignore what they say and look at what they do. I know from excruciating experience what really happens in that Meta-Arena, and that is all that really matters.

And wasting words in their direction won't change it one tiny bit …

Jon

[EricBarbour]

It's not a vast conspiracy. Just paternal protectionism.

Never ascribe to a conspiracy what can be explained by sheer stupidity and incompetence....

Oh yeah: how about a link from the Coprophilia article......to the Williams Street Wikia
article about a character from Metalocalypse? Conspiracy, or stupid?......

[Jon Awbrey]

It's not a vast conspiracy. Just paternal protectionism.

Never ascribe to a conspiracy what can be explained by sheer stupidity and incompetence…

There is a characteristic attitude that reigns over the whole enterprise of Wikipediocrasy. In all my dealings with Wikipediots they have proven themselves to be overwhelmingly more concerned with Controlling the Story than Finding the Facts. People like that cannot be trusted with any fraction of the world's knowledge base. They obviously collaborate in controlling the story and they obviously cooperate in eliminating editors who insist on finding the facts.

There is obviously a collusion between liars and fools, and I don't care what you call the mixture that results.

Jon

[Cedric]

There is a characteristic attitude that reigns over the whole enterprise of Wikipediocrasy. In all my dealings with Wikipediots they have proven themselves to be overwhelmingly more concerned with Controlling the Story than Finding the Facts. People like that cannot be trusted with any fraction of the world's knowledge base. They obviously collaborate in controlling the story and they obviously cooperate in eliminating editors who insist on finding the facts.

For my part, I have no doubt that this is true. I recently received an email from an en:WP admin castigating me for my criticism of WP and demanding "diffs" for one particular statement I had made. That I should receive such a pissygram during the middle of a WMF fundraising campaign is hardly surprising. It's all about controlling the image and maintaining the myth; the facts be damned.

[Jon Awbrey]

There is a characteristic attitude that reigns over the whole enterprise of Wikipediocrasy. In all my dealings with Wikipediots they have proven themselves to be overwhelmingly more concerned with Controlling the Story than Finding the Facts. People like that cannot be trusted with any fraction of the world's knowledge base. They obviously collaborate in controlling the story and they obviously cooperate in eliminating editors who insist on finding the facts.

For my part, I have no doubt that this is true. I recently received an email from an en:WP admin castigating me for my criticism of WP and demanding "diffs" for one particular statement I had made. That I should receive such a pissygram during the middle of a WMF fundraising campaign is hardly surprising. It's all about controlling the image and maintaining the myth; the facts be damned.

Yes, we've all been fooled by that … once or thrice upon a time …

When I think of all the time I wasted giving evidence to one damn wiki-posse and 4gone lynch mob after another …

Well, some of us are capable of learning from experience, however slow we are to the lesson …

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Greg,

Here are some of the threads from last year where I found myself forced to deal with this whole Meta-Global-Link-Control-Badlisting issue. These threads are kinda rambling as I did not have any idea what sort of briar patch I had wandered into and I was just struggling to report events as they happened. Since I don't have the grasp of link economics that you do — much less the ability to someyrize complicated tangles of web maya that Somey has — it might help if you could update the search parameters that are now out of date and otherwise comment on what you see in this Meta-Mess of All The Pedias.

• How Independent Are The Many Tongues Of Wikipædia?
• Best Performance In A Self-Promotional User Page
• BADSITES Goes Global : Meta-Wikimedia Spam Badlist
• In-Url Retentiveness : Attention Defecate Disorder
• His COI Bot Mistress, And Other Marvells
• New Candidates For Wikipedia Watch
• Spamalot — Or Not !!!

Jon

[thekohser]

Greg,

Here are some of the threads from last year where I found myself forced to deal with this whole Meta-Global-Link-Control-Badlisting issue. These threads are kinda rambling as I did not have any idea what sort of briar patch I had wandered into and I was just struggling to report events as they happened. Since I don't have the grasp of link economics that you do — much less the ability to someyrize complicated tangles of web maya that Somey has — it might help if you could update the search parameters that are now out of date and otherwise comment on what you see in this Meta-Mess of All The Pedias.

• How Independent Are The Many Tongues Of Wikipædia?
• Best Performance In A Self-Promotional User Page
• BADSITES Goes Global : Meta-Wikimedia Spam Badlist
• In-Url Retentiveness : Attention Defecate Disorder
• His COI Bot Mistress, And Other Marvells
• New Candidates For Wikipedia Watch
• Spamalot — Or Not !!!

Jon

Jon, I'm afraid this would make me too weary. We already know the drill, anyway.