User:Argon233/Spam notes

This is a personal essay about a Wikipedia topic. As this is found on one of my personal userpages, I request that you discuss any changes you may want to make to this with me on my talk page before making any changes here, so I don't mistake innocent changes for unfrendly behavior.

Why did you remove my link?
I remove external links when they met one or more of the following criteria:
 * 1) The link(s) to the website(s) in question do not belong on articles here at Wikipedia, per my understanding of the guidance.
 * 2) The link(s) to the website(s) in question should not have been added in the manner they were, per my understanding of the guidance.
 * 3) The link(s) to the website(s) in question should not have been listed as a citation, at least in the form it was listed.

Please understand that there is no absolute right for any external link to appear in Wikipedia. This means that even when you feel that a link meets any of the above criteria, it is still is subject to deleation. Citations are generally less likely to be deleated, but that is in large part because they currently have to meet a much more stringent set of criteria than do that websites listed under a "external links" section.

The offical guidance
The current guidance related to linkspam includes:
 * Spam
 * Vanity guidelines
 * External links

My personal interpration of the guidance
Please understand that all comments I make about these websites are narrowly focused specifically on the question of whether the websites are appropriate links for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have not and will not discuss how useful awebsite is outside of that context while here on Wikipedia. That broader issue is not my concern whe discussing linkspam.

Things that clearly help a site qualify as a Wikipeda link
work in progress

Things may not help a site qualify as a Wikipeda link
By themselves these items do not neccessarily disqalify a site as a valid link, but matching too many of these items while matching few or none of the clear signs of qualification listed put a link at jeperty.


 * Information repackagers/reprocessors - these are sites that claim to take data from another freely available public sources (such as the US government), and then represent that data in some form.
 * In this situation, it may be possible that a better source exists, such as though the origional publisher of the data.
 * Ads (Google/Yahoo) and links from that site to a third party sales site.

Redflags

 * Missing, improper or misleading edit summaries
 * Links that are not totally relevant to the topic.
 * Sites that are hide or are coy about who they are run by and what bias' (if any) they may have
 * Bad or sloppy web design
 * Bad or sloppy web design
 * A derivitive site that does not cite their sources, or does not do this well
 * Claims to credentials where the claim does not meet Wikipedia criteria for validation
 * claims to verification/validitity that do not properly describe how the accuracy of the material found there was/can be verified
 * Precistance in addeding links back in when they were previously legitimatly removed
 * Conflicts of intrest, including owners & employes of sites adding in linkes to thir own site(s)
 * Lack of civility

Linkspam discussions
As I am a falable human being, I may make mistakes in how I interprate and apply the guidance I have cited above.

Wikipedia is about building a online encyclopedia, and of necessity there are rules and cultural norms that have developed around that. I would gladly discussing that with you, but please note that intentionally uncivil remarks on talk pages here at Wikipedia are counter productive to that goal and should be avoided. Please keep in in mind that neither of us can predict when and how others may see these discussions, and what the future consequences of those discussions might be.

Things that may persuade me to change my mind
work in progress

Things that may or may not persuade me to change my mind
work in progress

Things that will not persuade me to change my mind

 * "I am (so-and-so) so you must do as I say."
 * Verifying online identities is a trick thing for a ordinary user like me. Just as everything here ar Wikipedia, you can't expect me just to take your word for it.
 * Even if you are (so-and-so), it usuially doesent matter, since the real discussion is about if the site meets the guidance. No matter who you are your contributions still are subject to the guidance.
 * "I am (insert claim not in evidence)" or "I have (insert claim not in evidence)" or I do "(insert claim not in evidence)"
 * Sorry unsubstanciated claims are pritty much useless here at wikipedia.
 * even if the claim can be sugstinanted, that doesn't mean I have a agree with you going against guidance
 * "I am a better (fill in the blank) than you are, so you should/must trust me."
 * Sorry, we build trust through civility, evidence, and verication, not by credentializim, making improperly supported claims, and lack of tact.
 * You are also not in a position to know what I do or do not know, or what my credential may or may not be. This is intential on my part, as those things tend to get in the way of the goal of building a online encyclopedia.
 * "I have (hundreds, thousands, millions, etc) of links to my web sites from originisation types A, B and C because they like X, Y and Z on my website."
 * That's nice for you, but that's not one of the criteria for enclusion on Wikipedia, especially if you cannot provide external 3rd party verification of this claim.
 * " I have feature X, Y, and Z, which you should really like if you knew anything about the subject."
 * Bzzz, wrong answer. Please demonstrate why the links meet the criteria with evidence, not empty claims.
 * "I need my links on Wikipedia to make more money"
 * Sorry, not a valid criteria
 * "I don't need my links on Wikipedia, I was just doing you a favor by adding them"
 * Sorry, also not a valid criteria
 * "How can you possibly think that you made Wikipedia better by removing my (insert positive description here) link?
 * If you want me to change my mind, don't cast despersions on my motives. Instead provide clear & convincing evidence supporting your position. This is usuially most effective when starting with practical discussions about why you feel I may not have done the best job of following the applicable guidance.
 * "I don't like the term linkspam"
 * In the specific context of the Wikipedia comunity, the term linkspam has a very valid and useful meaning. While is may sound similar to such things as email spam, there are some very important diffrences between the two. When I use the term linkspam here at wikipedia I am not referencing any other action outside of the Wikipedia specific context.
 * "You set yourself to be a (fill in the blank athority figure) but who are you to judge"
 * Perhaps you misunderstand who I am here. I am just an ordinarey user with a login; I have never claimed to be any more or less than this. I am not an Admin, and I certiantly am not a Burocrate, or member ot the Office staff. Any "athoridy" (really comunity standing) you may think I have only comes from how my peers rate my attempts to contribute to to our collective goal as well as how well I try to fit in with the comunity norms that have develped around Wikipedia.
 * Perhaps you do not apreciate what the act of removing linkspam really is. I like to consider it as picking up litter. left behind you people that were not clearly aware of the effect of their actions, or who just didn't care. Here at Wikipedia it is part of the culture to let people know when they litter, as as way to educate & strenten cultural norms.
 * "I don't have time to educate myself with how you do things here at Wikipedia."
 * If you'd prefer to educate yourself by experance alone that is your perogitive, but that may not end up being the most effective way to partisipate. You may find members may react in unexpected ways until you come to understand the cultural norms over time. Reading the guidance seems easier to me, but se la vi. I you are intrested in investing the minimum amount of time necessary to understanding linkspam, please see How not to be a spammer.
 * "There are lots of links on Wikipedia that go to sites a lot less deserving than mine"
 * Links don't "deserve" (impliying some form of a right) to be on Wikipedia at all. Links can be added and then taken off of articles at will. The guidance articles themselves are imperfect articulations of commonly agreed upon principles to acheving the aims of this project. Compliance with guidance will never be perfect to each and every contribution to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that it can be commonly ignored without
 * Engaging me in non-useful debate about why I should not have removed your link is keeping me from moving on to clean up even more, that is another way that your linkspam is having indirect concequences that are lowering the overal value of the material found at wikipedia.
 * "I don't like the guidance, so change it!"
 * Sorry that's not my call, and you have a whole comunity that you'd need to convince. This is usiually not a useful topic for someone new to Wikipedia to bring up, but if you realy want to discus this please do it on the specific guidance's own talk/project page, not on the talk page of the article where I removed your link, and certinaly not on my talk page.
 * "Come on, give me a break. Stop being such a (perjoritive term)."
 * I am giving you a break by pointing you to the proper guidance and by doing my best to enlighting you with these comments. I want you to be contributing member of society (both here at Wikipedia and to human society in general), so please accept my pointing you in the right direction, and go about the business of being a civilized human being.
 * "You are a (fill-in unflatering remark)!"
 * No I probibly am not, but even if I were, it still doesn't matter if you are not following the guidance &/or are not capable of civel discourse.

Linkspam parable 1
I offer the following imperfect parable as another way to come to an understanding of linkspam, especially linkspam added by self-promoters.


 * A distinguished professor of English Literature from Oxford visits Japan for a series of lectures at a prestigious university there. He has been there many times before, and has a good reputation for how well he teaches his specific subject of expertise, but he rarely goes beyond university grounds and the western style hotel he is so comfortable with. He has given this some though, and decides he needs to see more of the "real" Japan. Late one afternoon, after concluding one of his lectures, this professor mentions to one of the university staff that he wishes to visit a sento that evening, and needs a translator to accompany him.


 * The regular translator the university provides for his lectures is unavailable, so the professor is assigned a graduate student as a courtesy. Unfortunately the student has many of the common pronunciation issues that the professor has grown to dislike during his stay, and so when the student begins to describe how a sento works, the professor cuts him short. "Why do you presume that you can tell me how to behave? I've been bathing myself since before your mother was born. Now show me how to get to the bathhouse!" The student silently gestures for the professor to follow, and when they arrive, he for pays for the professor with the money that university provided.


 * When the professor realizes that the student is following him into the bathhouse, he warns him to stay out of his way and keep silent. The professor figures out where to disrobe by watching the student, but when he sees the student quickly beginning the traditional clean process, he mutters to himself "This is ludicrous; why is that boy washing oneself from that bucket and that ugly spigot on the wall when there is that big Jacuzzi at the far end of the room?" Shaking his head and grumbling about how the university has provided him a complete idiot to guide him, and to a third-rate bathhouse that is too cheep to even install proper shower heads, the professor makes his way over to the "Jacuzzi" while attempting cover himself with a towel that is not quite big enough for the job.


 * As the professor reaches the far end of the room, sets down the soap and other items he is carrying, and gestures as if to get in, he hears a voice cry out "Professor, STOP!" Startled, he glances over to where his guide is busying himself by vigorously scrubbing himself, pretending to not notice what is going on. The professor makes again as if to get in and again hears someone call out "Professor, stop, don't get in!"


 * The professor spins around to face this voice, and in tones straining under the angery load that had been building through all the perceived slights he had received today, he demands, "Who are you, and why are you bothering me? Can't you see I am trying to take a bath. What possible business is this of yours. Were you never taught proper manners, or are you just rude by nature?"


 * As the face attached to the warning voice comes into the professors view, he is somewhat amused to see the face of one of his students from his lecture earlier in the day. He knew this student as one of the Americans who was studying methods of teaching English as a second language, as well work on their Japanese language skills.
 * "Boy, what is your name?"
 * "Sir, my name is not important, and you really should keep your voice down and try not to attract too much attention to yourself. You were about to make a embarrassing mistake."
 * "Who you are and who I am are very much an issue here. Where did you learn to think that way, some Corn-fed University in Iowa? Don't you know how to treat your betters?"
 * "Sir, any mistakes in my thinking are small in comparison to what you are trying to do here. You need to wash before you get in the bath."
 * "Child, that is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard. In every civilized society a bath IS where one washes himself. Are you trying to tell me I need to find a river somewhere to jump into for a ritual cleaning? This isn't India. I am a well traveled man of the world, and I won't be taken in by your foolish little attempt at a prank. I am a important man in my field; do you really thing you can treat me with the disrespect you're shown here and get away with it? Who do you think you are?"
 * "Sir, I never said that we were in India, and I'm not trying to pull a prank on you or show disrespect for your professional standing. You are taking this all wrong. You just need wash at the spigots over there like your guide is doing BEFORE you get in. That's all I'm really trying to tell you."
 * "I don't need your help, or the help of that silly little twit over there. If what you are saying it true then this place is insane. Besides, why should I follow the example of a bunch of unwashed heathens who are sticking their head under facets on a wall, and openly displaying what only God, their mother and their wife should see?"


 * As the professor chuckled to himself about how witty he thought the "unwashed heathens" part of his comment had been, the stunned American student stood there frozen, unsure what to do next. Not wanting to be involved with additional displays of disrespect to either himself, or to the students, teachers, and University staff who the English professor had failed to recognize were also in the bathing area listening to the exchange, the American decided to try one last thing. Since the professor was a well educated man, perhaps he would be more accepting of persuasion using symbolic truth imbedded in a made-up story, with enough exaggeration to highlight certain important points.


 * The youth looked up at the wizened English professor and started, "There once was a internet entrepreneur..."

Sites where I have ongoing conserns
allcountries.org occupationalinfo.org theodora.com photius.com