User:Requestion/sandbox

test

I feel the notability / importance question is also answered by the existence of reliable secondary sources. So WP:RS can serve two valuable purposes here. (Requestion 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

That's exactly my point but we don't let the readers decide. Instead we let the experts who write the reliable secondary sources decide. If we happen to have two experts with differing opinions then we neutrally represent both points of view. (Requestion 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Claims on manufacturers sites are controversial. In fact most of the time they are contentious and unduly self-serving advertisements. Haven't you ever bought or downloaded software that didn't do what it claimed to do? This happens to me all the time. This is why secondary reliable sources are necessary if we want to build a verifiable and high quality encyclopedia. (Requestion 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. WP:RS requires verifiable secondary sources. If no reliable source can be found then the content does not belong on Wikipedia. I agree that deleting this content is undesirable which is why I'm willing to compromise by commenting the URLs, nowiki'ing them, or moving the links to the talk page. The longer this discussion drags on the more inclined I am that deletion of this unsourced content is the best solution. (Requestion 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

That still doesn't get around the fact that WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:RS are being violated. If you want those items to stay then find some reliable secondary sources. (Requestion 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

OK, we are just going around in circles here. Wrapping some refs around external links does not make them citations. They also cannot be citations because they lack WP:RS. Now WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK are being violated. I am going to delete the items that lack proper secondary sources. (Requestion 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Here are 3 combined policy/guideline quotes that sum up my position nicely. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process" (WP:RS). This is important because "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published" (WP:V#SELF) and claim anything they want which is why "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources." (WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). I think of this as a sort of reference quality control. (Requestion 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Wrong. Not WP:RS. Can't use self-links for notability and you can't use them for verifiability either. (Requestion 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

I like references that have clickable external links if they are used appropriately and if they are reliable sources. From WP:RS; "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process." The links being discussed here are promotional self-references (WP:V#SELF) and are not reliable sources. Now the quesiton is if the non-verifiable items should even be included in this list? (Requestion 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Self-published sources cannot be used to assert notability or verifiability. See WP:RS. The links in question are simply external links, not citiations, not references, not sources. Timeshifter, you've been trying to twist the WP:EL rules around for how many weeks now? It's getting extremely exhausting. Another thing, can you please stop with the ANI threats? You've done this before so this isn't the first time. Using ANI report threats as a debate tool is just plain wrong and it probably violates some guideline. Besides, do you have any idea how many times I've been reported to ANI today? 31 times, today, seriously. (Requestion 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

A problem I have seen with some software comparison tables is the desire to reference every single feature, things quickly get out of control as the reference section dwarfs the article content. There is also a problem of WP:RS when a product's website is used as a citiation to itself. What Wikipedia wants are reliable secondary sources. An article in a print magazine would satisfy this, but such an article would also satisfy WP:NOTABILITY for software so a stub article should be created at that point. I'm all for comparison tables but I think they should be kept simple as I have seen many of these transform into fearsome beasts. (Requestion 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Nobody said that all citation/references were spam. The claim was that some can be. Wrapping ref tags around a bunch external links demonstrates how simple it is to bypass this technicality. The point is that spam can exist in many places and in many forms. My goal here is to build lists/tables that deter spam and at the same time are sustainable. (Requestion 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

The whole point of the comments is so that they are inaccessible. You're not supposed to see them and the spammers don't like them. If you desire some consensus-precedent examples I can browse through the couple hundred software lists I oversee for some that use commented urls. Another option for your above list is to move the external links from the article to the talk page. In my experience both methods work well for controling linkspam. (Requestion 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

I reverted back to User:MPS's version. This solution is what we agreed to at the pump and I think it looks very nice. The external links are commented out, we are encouraging stub building for the notable items,the linkfarminess is gone, this page shouldn't attract to many spammers, well done. Thanks MPS. (Requestion 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

I would be happy having a bunch of red links with the external links. This way the link information is preserved and stub articles are encouraged for the notable entries. (Requestion 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

We've already been over this. WP:NOT#LINK overrides WP:NOT#DIR in this case. No matter how much the rules are twisted and how much a bunch of external links shapeshift into references, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. (Requestion 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

External citation / reference links are external links. In my opinion everything in WP:EL applies to WP:CITE except for the when to use it and the technical how to link sections. Shouldn't all the WP:EL avoid, self-promotion, adverstising, COI, redirection, dead link, and hijacking wisdom also apply to citations? How is spamming and linkfarming in the ref's any different? (Requestion 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Statement
To linkfarm or not to linkfarm, that is the question; whether 'tis notable spam used in the self-promotion of outrageous fortune, or the mere collection of external links, and by opposing links mainly intended to promote a website, end them. To reference, to cite; no more; and by citation to say we require reliable secondary sources from credible published materials with a reliable publication process, not unduly self-serving and contentious self-published sources of questionable reliability. The insolence of wrapping So I suggest a linkfarm of compromise which leaves the external links impotent either by, red linking,  'ing , or moving them to the talk page and thus lose the click of action. (Requestion 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC))