Talk:Community association

Untitled
Community association should not be a redirect; it's not synonymous with homeowners association. This was an effective deletion without a review. Can we have a discussion about this, please? Deirdre 07:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and restored this page; nobody responded to my complaint above, and I've since discovered more about community associations of various types. Deirdre 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Edenrage (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)== homeowners association website central link ==

The information on hoa website central is relevant to community association readers. While the two terms are not totally interchangeable, the information is universal to both. It should not be held in violation of any commercial links breaches, as the purpsoe of the page is not to sell a product or service, but to provide information. The content should not be shunned simply because the page is hosted by a website that sells products or services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of an external link to www.Cidgab.com
An administrator removed the link to www.cdigab.com. The link should be reinstated, as CIDGAB.com is not a commercial site. It does not attempt to sell or encourgae the sale of any product of any kind, with the exception of sponsorship ads to any comapny much the same way google sells adwords. If anything, the site is very similar to a wikipedia specifically for the Community Associations Industry. Please add commentary to get this external link reinstated or provide a clear policy backed reason for it to be excluded. Thank you: Edenrage (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Edenrage previously added a link to athomenet.com and cidgab.com. There is clear evidence that they are promoting a site they have interest in (see WP:COI, WP:SPAM) - The users IP address is associated with AtHomeNet and cidgab.com is run by AtHomeNet. Furthermore I do not see any reason to link to cidgab.com based on our WP:EL guidelines. /wangi (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the guidelines you have highlighted:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

[edit] Links to be considered Shortcut: WP:ELMAYBE For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations.

Cidgab includes reviews, industry articles, industry resources, a forum for Community association managers etc. THERE IS NO PLACE ON THIS SITE THAT ASKS THE USE TO BUY ANYTHING, NOR REQUEST INFORMATION TO BUY ANYTHING. It is a valid resource. I invite more commentary from more editors. Your obvious bias against the fact the site is even remotely affiliated with athomenet is obscuring a neutral review of the site's actual content. This is not about the homeowners page, or athomenet, or any other past discussions. THis is about 1 website linking to one article on a relevant subject. Can we please treat it as such. Edenrage (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC) and to correct you, CIDGAB is an indepedent entity that employs the use of athomenet's services (selling websites) to host their site. Sponsorshpi through advertising is not a valid reason to disavow a neutral resource website...as the site has sevearl sponsors and I imagine will get more as time passes. The majority of articles and websites that are linked to on wikipedia as an external link have countless for profit commercial sponsors. To suggest that simply because a website sells banner ad space, it shuold be discluded has no basis in wikipedias policies.Edenrage (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I highlight the following as even more proof that this is the standard (note the banner ads, advertisements etc on each of these sources, (all linked to from wikipedia articles)

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/money/homepage/article_1351300.php (homeowners association page) http://www.ccfj.net/HOAAARPbillart.htm (same page) http://www.nissanusa.com/ (Nissan) http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=timewarner (time warner) http://www.gametap.com/ (turner broadcasting page) http://playonsports.com/ (turner page also)

I could go on but I would run out of space. If I could find these in the 5 minutes I just spent looking around imagine what I'd find if I looked further. Edenrage (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, leave it be. The site is devoid of useful content. It has a few (very targeted) banner ads, a few links a bunch of affiliate links of books on Amazon and a forum which is dead (1 thread!) & not available to the general reader. It is of no use to a reader of this article, even if we do disregard your clear conflict of interest and spamming. The contrast with the two sites which are linked is marked. /wangi (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The very fact it is a forum that others in the community associations industry can converse, donate, and retreive info and articles from makes it a legitimate site for the community associations industry. I have confidence that other wikipedia editors will not share in your inability to judge this issue as an individual case seperate from the things you and I clearly disagree on from past edits. I will continue to lobby for it's re-insertion. Edenrage (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is most amazing to me is how selective the majority of wikipedia editors seem to be about what arguments they choose to address. Most fo these fellows seem content to harp on edits on the hoa page I have long since abandoned. Can we please focus this conversation on CIdgab, for what the site itself is...not past angst over another site or other edits. Cidgab is not a commercial site, and any assessment that it is is purely based on bias againts me from past edits. CIDgab is an individual website and entity that I do not serve on the board of nor are employed by. Noone on this forum can prove otherwise, nor is there any tangible argument that it is selling products or services. THe blatant hypocrisy of selectively targeting alleged cmmercial links is an insult to what wikipedia is supposed to be about...and if I found the ones highlighted above with minimal effort, imagine what a true look at wikipedia would reveal....yet no-one in authority wants to see the rotting landscape...preferring only to assault one patch of weeds they see fit to trim. My voice will be heard...and the voices of those like me will be heard...and if I have to speak to every wikipedia editor on earth, fairness will emerge from these proceedings... eventually....and when it does, I wish to see Wangi himself, re-insert the links to cidgab...even if I have to go to the owner of Google's house to make it happen....Edenrage (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The cidgab.com domain is registered by AtHomeNet. The site itself has no information of substance that I can find. A Google search for references and links to it turns up only 295 hits, most of which are unrelated. It features an Amazon affiliate store set up by AtHomeNet. While I can't determine the context of the links you point out above, I can point out that they are, in order: a news article, and thus a reliable source; an archive of a news article with no indication of advertising presence; a corporate website, and thus appropriate in articles about that corporation; another reliable source (the Columbia Journalism Review); a corporate site, and thus appropriate in articles about the corporation; and a link that I wouldn't particularly use outside of an article on the company in question. In context, all are useful. cidgab.com does not offer any valuable information, and with the relationship to a company that sells websites for this industry, its appropriateness under WP:EL is very, very slim. I'm going to try and make this my last comment on this discussion, because all it's doing is making me beat my head on my desk, but I highly suggest that you drop the campaign now before you are blocked. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you or any other editor are in the habit of blocking people for debating their case, then wikipedia is even more inconsistent than I suspected. I have not violated any mandate for adding or subtracting links by any editor, nor have I tried to reinstate any of the links. If you don't want to read my arguments, then don't come to the page....but eventually the truth in this matter will come to light. The amazon store allegedly "setup by athomenet" is a listing of books published by many different authors that are highly recommmended for people in the community associations industry. athomenet does not make a dime off of the sale of any of these books. By that standard alone, the site is a valubale resource for providing consumers with a listing of pertinent resources to the industry, which wikipedias own policies on external linking advocates. (as I highlighted above). Every website, run by every company can be traced to an entity that is for profit. As for your explanations on the links above existing, please explain to me how a sales page for GAmetap has anything to do with any relevant information on the company time warner. It is one thing to link to a homepage for reference...but to link to individual subsets of a company whose sole purpose is to sell goods is the most clear violation of wikipedia policy of all. The links do nothing to contribute to any reader's understanding of the company or what it does. Further, this goes back to the fundamentally flawed argument that if a company is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, they are essentially given a blank check to advertise all they want, not only on their home page...but on any page they see fit to add. At least one of the editors saw my points before and removed some links comcast had up for "OUR latest deals, sign up for cable service". If all of these double standards and inconsistencies did not exist, then people would never have gotten the impression that external links that solely push products are an infraction on wikipedia...but the selective enforcment is what makes the whole user experience chaos... So again, every editor here is suggesting that cidgab be judged for it's relation to a for profit company, which is not the meaning nor the spirit of wikipedia's guideline for determining the value of external links. Aside from the paid banner ad, there is no-where on the cidgab site for anyone to buy anything where a penny goes to athomenet or any service it provides. THat is fact...and that is the sole basis on which the site should be judged. I have not tried to reinstate any links amidst all of your editor threats. If you want to block me becuase I disagree with you and refuse to be silent about my disagreement, then this is obviously no longer a forum for discussion nor an encylopedia for anyone other than a select few who dictate random interpretations of policy as they see fit. Edenrage (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC) And I might add, how does a link ( the 1st one to the orange county newspaper article) to a biased article in a for profit news paper riddled with DOZENS of advertisements all over the page, fit as a credible external linking source? I feel quite confident that if Athomenet or anyone affiliated with it wrote an article on hoa websites and published it in a newspaper of anykind, riddled with commercial links to car dealerships, soap comapnaies, etc...you and dozens of others would immediately blast it as spam. Can you in even 1/2 way good conscience tell me there would be a difference? And please, I am anxiously awaiting to what possible argument could be lodged to justify an external link to "Gametap" from time warner's page? What possible understanding does this link bring to the company of time warner...and further, their website that is being linked to is a 100% sales site.Edenrage (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't do this, because I'm mad now, but I'm going to call you on oa couple of comments. That "Books" page is an Amazon affiliate store; as noted here, the affiliate - clearly identified as "athomenetcommuni" in the URL link to the Amazon store - receives "up to 15 percent" on any purchases. So that's wrong. As for the newspaper link, if we didn't have newspapers as reliable sources, we'd have about ten articles. Newspaper = reliable source. If Gametap is a division of Time Warner, then it makes sense to have a link there in the article on the corporate ownership. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the affiliate store remark, so what, wow, up to 15% of a 20 dollar book for referring someone to amazon? As long as the money goes to providing the site for the resource, is there really anything to say about it? The point here is if a person is searching for informational resource books on community associations, they have a website that is a reliable resource. Would you suggest lisitng a direct link to every book on amazon.com that is relevant instead? Or just not providing the resource at all. Obviously you have enough time on your hands to dig deeper in the site than I have to find something out like that. YOU find me a website where someone doesn't get money for something and I'll pay you...so the money is going to amazon and the book's authors. considering Cidgab doesn't charge anyone for this information, and provides a free portal for community association people to find info, vendors, articles, etc... if you factor in site hosting and the fees that go along with running a website/company, I'm sure that whopping "up to 15%" doens't even register on any requitable scale of monetary accomplishment. As for your defenses of those clearly commercial links...so you are suggesting that if something is in a newspaper, then they are free to advertise all they want? the whole point of 1/2 of these editors on the other debate on the hoa page was, take the pertinent information out of the hoa central page and put it in the article because the site was commercial. What could be more commercial than a newspaper, using articles as bait to sell subscriptions, along with the dozens of sponsorship ads to boot for even more revenue floating around. As for your remark on time warner..it may "make sense" to have a link to a small and I repeat "SMALL" side operation to their business....but Game tap has nothing to do with Time warner as an encyclopedia entry...and even if it did, an about us page would make more sense. You are reinforcing the idea that once a company has their name "out there' they can feel free to bombard this alleged encyclopedia with an uninhibited number of sales pages whose goals are SOLELY to increase revenue, not educate anyone. If anybody out there is seeking knowledge on game tap they are not going to find it on a 'Buy our Games" sales page. If I caused you anger, that is regrettable...but we should all be able to argue our points like adults in this forum.Edenrage (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)