Talk:Employee engagement/Archives/2013

Spam? I suspect spam.
Hi Rshydn. You will have noticed that I have once again removed the external links you added to the ‘further reading’ section. As per wikipedia guidelines, I hope you will try to generate consensus here before once again pushing ahead. Anyway, here are the red flags that lead me to believe that what you are contributing is largely spam: Anyway, if you feel inclined I am of course happy to hear your perspective on the situation. I would also be keen to hear other editors thoughts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The pages you added “primarily exist to sell products or services” (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID).
 * The pages you added do not comprehensively cover the subject matter (see Further_reading).
 * The pages you added could plausibly have been incorporated into the article body (see WP:ELYES).
 * You became a Wikipedia editor only recently and your first contributions have primarily involved adding external links to one particular website (see WP:SPAMMER).


 * Reply brought over from my talk page
 * Andrew. Thanks for communicating with me openly and directly about the issue. Forgive my initial 'ignorance' regarding the applicable guidelines for the 'further reading' section.  My assumption regarding content additions was misguided by judging similar additions to the EE page.  Allow me to respond to one of the red flags you have raised:  The pages I added do not exist primarily to sell products or services; the content on the pages is content that was published in HR industry publications (i.e., HR Reporter and T+D Magazine).  Given the publication media, I thought these additions would be of value.


 * Regarding the other red flags, I'd say they were raised by my being misinformed on the specific policies. For example, I wasn't aware that articles in 'further readings' were required to comprehensively cover subject matter; since the added publications were directly related to topics of discussion on employee engagement, I assumed them relevant and useful.


 * I'm happy to follow the implied suggestion in your third point and craft relevant, original content based on the subject matter in the pages I attempted to add to the further readings section. Would that resolve the issue?


 * Thanks again for being open and understanding. I look forward to discussing this further. User:RshydnRshydn (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi R1280. Thanks for taking the time to read those Wikipedia guidelines. I readily accept that not all are intuitive and also that Wikipedia is littered with terrible role models. In answer to your question, while yes I would be keen to see further improvements made to the article, I do have some reservations. In all honesty I still think it is good money that you are affiliated with [company] and are either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated see that business have a presence on Wikipedia. I also maintain that, while the pages you linked do have a pretense to academia, their main purpose is to attract traffic to, and increase the credibility of, [company]. Given the enormous quantity of peer reviewed journals that deal with employee engagement, I see no other reason beyond promotion to turn to compromised sources such as these.


 * That being said, I am very happy to be proven wrong. If your future edits make meaningful contributions by drawing upon reliable sources I will accept that my concerns about your motivations are misplaced. I sincerely look forward to seeing your work and let me know if you think the above is unclear or if you have further questions. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew: Thanks for being open minded. My actions were based on those of a previous editor to the page, whose edits were exactly in line--if not more promotional--than the ones I applied.  So, yes, Wikipedia does have its poor role models.  After our brief discussion last night--and after some extensive reading of the various policies you referred me to--I reversed the self-promoting, violating edits applied by the previous editor, as you can see in the page history.  Since my actions were neither directed by nor affiliated with the company you referred to (they were, rather, directed by my own choice), I've edited the name of the company out of your response.  I wouldn't want my misinformed and misdirected actions to damage another organization's reputation.  I'm actually focusing the majority of my college studies on human resources and its current industry trends and theories, like employee engagement, satisfaction, and motivation.  My recent studies relied partially on the pieces I attempted to contribute--pieces I found to be quite valuable--which is why I referenced them.  I agree that better sources would be those published in academic journals.  I also acknowledge that the employee engagement page needs a good amount of work to be able to do the theory justice.  I'll commit more time to incorporating new, relevant content based on peer-reviewed academic research.  I'm happy to collaborate further on this topic.  Cheers User:R1280 (talk).