Talk:Gratis Internet/Archives/2013

Accuracy
I think this article might need some reworking for accuracy. Didn't the free condoms come first? And what about the FreeCondoms.com, FreeDVDs.com, FreeCDs.com, FreeVideoGames.com and FreeGiftPlanet.com sites? They don't seem to work on the same kind of referral system, but they are still Gratis sites, not linked in the List of Gratis Sites that seems to suggest itself as comprehensive.

Rate The Offers
I added a link to the website Rate The Offers which outlines the experiences of other users with sites such as Gratis and etc. The site has been in existance for quite some time. I feel this is a meaningful addition but as I do have a realationship with the owner I am open to other opinions. Nick Catalano (Talk) 01:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

some editing/accuracy
I'm disputing the idea that freeipods, etc. costitute a matrix scheme. It has more resemblensce as a form of pyramid scheme, though it technically isn't that either, and in either case isn't nearly as susceptible to 'crashing'. I'll also merge 'the process' with 'the math', as I can see no reason for them to be seperate. --Dashpercent 09:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acceptable Website?
A user of my website, lookitzatree.us, placed a link on here that was removed. He then suggested that I write a unbiased article explaining the system, that would be acceptable, and not considered SPAM on sites such as wikipedia. I thought about his suggestion, and decided to go ahead and write an article. The article is located here, and I would really appreciate comments on this talk page as to if this website is acceptable to be linked to from this article. Thanks for your time!


 * Looks alright to me. There are a few typos, and I don't know who's referral link that example is reference to, but it seems pretty unbiased... not bad. (preceding unsigned comment by  03:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC))


 * Wouldn't it be better for you to contribute content directly to Wikipedia by editing this article? Generally we discourage linking to other sites when the information could easily be included in the actual encyclopedia article. Looking over the article you linked to, it doesn't seem to add anything to the information already included in this article. It also includes a referral code, and if I wasn't assuming good faith, I'd wonder if this was a sneaky attempt to gain referrals. So no, I don't think it would be acceptable to add that article as an external link. Rhobite 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the referral link was an attempt to gain referrals, however, it was not sneaky in the least. It was openly stated at the botttom.  I do understand your point about contributing directly, however, I honestly would prefer to keep it myself.  And also, one of the articles linked to from this page contains several referral codes.  Its fine if it is not appropriate to link to the page from wikipedia though.  Once again, thanks.

Edit: If it helps at all, I removed all links, except for the one at the bottom, which I believe is unobtrusive and fair game. Lookitzatree 03:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I still think it's an attempt at advertising. Please read WP:NOT. Also, your article doesn't provide any information which isn't already available in the Wikipedia article. I removed the other article - I realize that it would be hypocritical to include that one and not yours. Rhobite 03:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the consistency and respect. Your point is backed up by the policy, and its fair that you are removing it.  Hopefully, at some point I will be able to remove the link soon, and update the article, to meeting Wikipedia standards.  Finally, thanks again, sorry to waste your time! Lookitzatree 03:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would really rather if you just edited here. In general, linking to your own websites from articles is not acceptable. It's one thing for us to link to resources which are provided by third parties, but it is insincere for Wikipedians to write articles on their own websites and add them as external links. Rhobite 04:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism subheading
I have removed the following from the article:

== Criticism == People fear that the Gratis network might be coming to an end. In many cases people are not getting completed orders for   Xbox 360, iPods and other items. Other claim to receive broken, used, or foreign items

Aside from a number of mechanics-related problems I could name, I don't feel that it adds anything not previously discussed to the article. In particular, I feel that a 2-sentence section entitled "Criticism" is a bit odd in an article that discusses little else. I would consider this to be an NPOV issue, but in my opinion there is little other viewpoint to discuss. The "hey, they got their free stuff" viewpoint is mentioned enough that more discussion would seem like a shameless plug.

Regardless, sorry for the messy edit log. I made a third edit between the two that are listed but forgot to actually change anything, and as such it was ignored and the more recent edit makes no sense. —IntrigueBlue 05:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference Invalid
Just noticed that the third reference on the list [the one from Wired.com] is not valid anymore. Just thought I'd say so someone can find a replacement or cached version.

-Ta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.193.187 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

POV tag
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I added an example of an affiliate freebie gateway page
This is so readers know what one looks like.


 * And I removed the link, because it did not meet Wikipedia's external links policy. There is no need for "examples" of external links to non-notable websites in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)