User talk:Iamchmod

Dialogue on Linking Policy[edit]

Iamchmod 21:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC) The policy regarding external links really needs to be examined better. It's silly that some external links are allowed and others are forbidden without clear distinction. The value google places on links from wikipedia to sites is absurdly high, high enough that either a clear policy needs to be put in place aka no external links to specific companies or only 10 external links per article with the top 10 being voted upon or something else.[reply]

From the What Wikipedia is not policy page, under the advertising section, it states "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs."

So the recent complete deletion[1] of external links on the Affiliate marketing page was certainly bold. But perhaps things like that could be discussed first, so all editors can reach a consensus.

Other folks might have better pointers to info about external link policy on wikipedia. There's also the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page if you want to post more about this.

As for the google 'value' -- that is a commercial concern, but not an encyclopedic concern. Would you agree? Eclipsed 22:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question is it not? My affiliate network happens to send more traffic (aka has more revenues that several affiliate networks that were listed on the external links page - yet for some reason those corporations are "more identifiable"? Identifiable to whom? I would assume identifiable to wikipedia editors. So I did the "identifiable to my mom" test - none of those companies would have been identifiable to her. The underlying problem lies in the fact that external links on wikipedia are absurdly valuable - aka they have commercial value - so external linking to let's say Commission Junction on the affiliate marketing page gives them a higher page rank, which effectively sends more traffic to their site, which in turn gives them more affiliates, which in turn makes them more money. I would argue that that counts as an endorsement. And it also discriminates against smaller affiliate networks that may not be "identifiable" according to an editors discretion.

In summary: 1) wikipedia external links = wikipedia endorsement = google value = cash
2) My suggestions: either get rid of all external links or let all applicable external links be listed or a voting system to choose most appropriate external links.
Iamchmod 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about: wikipedia external links = notable references to the topic of the article. Links should be added based on neutrality and notability, reached by a consensus of the editors. The example of the finishing school page has an interesting discussion, where one user says "The list of school is unfortunately not an advertisement but the true representation of the market". I like that philosphy: that in a web encyclopedia the external links from articles (especially articles about commercial activity) should be based on a true representation of the market.

The stuff about google value may (or may not ;) be true, but I would argue it is moot because it is a purely commercial consideration, and is outside of the scope of the non-profit wikipedia. But the topic of validity of external links is definately open to debate. Eclipsed 23:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a moot point since the cause/effect is still there. This is a good thread and needs to be addressed. I would support a better policy in this area, so we can more effectively work together to keep out the link spammers while helping people learn at the same time. I don't think wiping out all the links in that one swoop was justified - but it was bold e.g. the link to [[2]] which is a useful tool for merchants to compare affiliate software features and "serves to identify the major corporations" as noted above.

I like the suggestion except that voting has not been viewed favourably - so let's work on the consensus. Peterkoning 16:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump Again, welcome!

Also, please be aware that commercial self-promotion is against Wikipedia policy. For example your edit to the Affiliate marketing page[3] is a promotion of your own company. For more info, please check out the Wikipedia is not page. Eclipsed 00:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I was one of the persons affected when all the external links were erased from Affiliate Marketing.

It seems to me that providing an external link to a web site which provides extensive additional information about a topic is not contrary to policy nor it is "self promotion" if the information provided on the web page is genuine. I believe the link to www.affiliate-master.com[4] clearly provides valuable additional information to a person who wishes to know more about this topic.

I noted that the blanket deletions came after an attemped spamming run, and I can appreciate that this sort of action should not be tolerated, but I'm wondering if there might be some sort of restraining mechanism installed in which removal of an external link is not a move that anyone can make on a whim.

At the very least, I think that is should be a necessary pre-requisite to removing a link, that the person making that determination views the site and verifies that the link is indeed superfluous. Possibly, too, it might be good to at least try to communicate the planned removal with the person who added the link in the first place, if there is any doubt that the link has been placed simply as an attempt to gain free publicity.

Jaxhere 17:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just had the same thing happen to me[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate_marketing

Hi I agree with your discussion. I was just erased after adding a link to our new network. Just because our Google PR wasnt high enough and our Alexa rank wasn't high enough. Seems very subjective which is a fundemental flaw in the Wiki 'Community' emphasis. Spam is Spam and legitimate external links are not Spam.

I guess I'll have to create a user account but in the meantime, regards from Gary - garymarcoccia at Yahoo.com