MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2011

=Proposed additions=

=Proposed removals=

asianmediawiki.com


Apparently this site was blocked back in 2007. The site's maintainer posted a note in 2009 requesting help getting the site delisted, but I don't believe anyone ever followed up. I discovered that the site is blocked in trying to add a reference to Warrior Baek Dong-soo (entry is commented out in the external links section). I don't see any particular reason why it should be blocked at this point. It's a reasonably good reference site for Asian films. Waitak (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, it isn't a good reference site for use on Wikipedia. It's another Wiki. All the content on it is user-generated. Wikipedia can't reference it for encyclopedic purposes, per WP:ELNO. Any reliable sources cited there could, of course, be used here, but that isn't a reason to de-list the site.
 * The site maintainer User:RamenLover also posted a request on this page (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009). The request was answered in sufficient detail by Hu12, with the conversation ending in strident demands from the maintainer. The reasoning Hu12 presented is still sound, therefore this request is . ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick answer. My understanding is that the blacklist is not for sites that are not good references, but for sites that violate WP policies in one way or another. This doesn't seem to be the case for AsianMediaWiki. Please correct me if this understanding isn't correct. The usage in this particular instance (Warrior Baek Dong-soo) was as an external link, with the thought "Here's another site that you might like to look at if you want to read more on this topic." In my judgment, it has more and better information on that particular topic than the other links in the External links, including pictures of the characters in the particular drama. I'm not suggesting that it meets WP:RS, but banning it altogether doesn't seem like it's merited.


 * As for the strident demands, having looked at the discussion, it seems to me that the maintainer is saying something like "Geez, people, how come you can have text from my Wiki in Wikipedia, but prohibit anybody from giving me credit?" Even if he responded less graciously than he might have, it's not an unfair point. Waitak (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, that isn't an unfair point, and I can understand why the maintainer would become upset. But it's an irrelevant point. Copyrighted content should be removed, not kept and cited to user-generated content on some other Wiki. The link I posted to the conversation was incomplete; I have corrected that to show the full discussion in the archive. Basically it boils down to the fact that the maintainer has no copyright claim.


 * What gets a site into the blacklist is a pattern of abuse. That happened in this case (see the COIbot link at the top of this section, as well as the maintainer's admission of abuse). Once a site is in the blacklist, the fact that it's a link to be avoided is a reason to keep it in.


 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia can function just fine without any external links at all. Print encyclopedias do this. External links aren't necessary in citations, and it also isn't necessary to add a list of them at the end of each article. It's more of a convenience, and a good way to link to official sources related to the article topic.


 * That said, if an article really needs an external link, then you can request an individual page be white listed. Just post the request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the use as an external link, the site clearly fails WP:ELNO. Also, for the reasons for blacklisting - it wasn't due to it being a non-reliable source; it was because of a clear pattern of abuse.  Details of the prior abuse can be found at the COIBot report, and manually documented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 1.5.  Given the past behavior and the evidence from the prior unblock request, I fully support the decline on removal.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses. Blacklists aren't a corner of WP that I'm very familiar with, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain the situation. I can see that it's not unreasonable that a site would have a different set of criteria to be removed from the list, than the absence of the criteria that got it onto the list in the first place. I'll drop the request. Waitak (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on this, but I noticed the discussion as I was passing through. I wanted to point out that simply being an open wiki does not violate WP:ELNO alone. By most standards for links to wikis that are allowed, this site doesn't violate WP:ELNO. According to their statistics page ( asianmediawiki.com/Special:Statistics ) the site has 18,084 content pages, 5,282 registered users, and (most importantly for ELNO) 94 active users. ELNO #12, the relevant point, states (emphases mine) "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." For a 3rd party wiki, and based off of the general consensus regarding wiki sites that are allowed, this page exceeds substantial stability and substantial number of editors.

Now, whether or not the site has anything of value, or if there is an issue of abusive linking, I don't know and have no opinion. -- Ned Scott 02:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a good point and you are correct, if it weren't for the past abuse, a link to this site probably wouldn't raise anyone's eyebrows if it were placed in one or two broad articles about Asian media. But as an external link in many articles about specific Asian TV shows, it oversteps the bounds of giving undue weight to such a Wiki. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Consultingcase101.com, Consulting Website
Hi, I was reading about management consulting firms and noticed this site was blacklisted when trying to ask about it as a reliable source in the Reliable Sources Notice Board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

I was unable to find the log for why it was blacklisted. I believe it may have been deleted because of its blog? A wiki userpage lists it as a "blog" but that is only part of the site. — WorkyJJ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Added due to Massive abuse. In addition, blog sites are Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. -Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for clarification, is it being declined for the massive abuse? It isnt actually a blog site, it is a site that has a blog on it, but I dont believe that the majority "purpose" of the site is a blog.. — WorkyJJ (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC).


 * About us...This blog site was started in summer 2010.... The main purpose of this blog is to network.....
 * Its a blog/social network site...--Hu12 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)