User:Wmahan/Linkspam

This page addresses questions and complaints about removing external links from Wikipedia articles.

First of all, if you are attempting to link to your own site, please understand that this is not allowed; see External links.

Second, if you have been adding many links to a particular website, regardless of whether you are affiliated with it, be advised that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting websites or anything else, nor is it a web directory or merely a collection of external links. You are encouraged to expand the content of articles rather than adding links; see External links.

If someone objects to links you added, it's probably not intended as an attack on you or your site. If you examine the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and still believe the links belong, you're welcome to explain why you think so in a civil manner.

Replies to common objections
The objections below are not actual quotations, but they do represent arguments that I've seen used to support adding links to Wikipedia.


 * "But there are already similar links to my (friend's/competitor's) site!"
 * If there are other links added for promotional purposes, they should be deleted as well. Nobody has enough time to examine every link they see to make sure it's relevant, so not removing a link is not an endorsement. However, the existence of other promotional links is hardly a good excuse to add more promoting your own site.


 * "How do you know it's my own site?"
 * It's not possible to prove that you own a particular website, but it's usually not difficult to detect if you are trying to promote it. When an anonymous or new user's only significant contributions are adding external links, and they all happen to lead to the same site, and that site happens to be commercial, it's not a great stretch to conclude that the editor may not have entirely neutral goals. (But tricks like using multiple accounts will probably hurt your case for including the link, because it makes it harder to assume good faith on your part.)


 * "But my site isn't commercial" or "My site doesn't have many ads" or "I lose money on my site"
 * Commercialism is not the primary issue, promotion is. Wikipedia has many links to commercial sites, but they should only be added by disinterested parties.


 * "Why does it matter who adds my site?"
 * There is a consensus for not allowing self-submitted links on Wikipedia, because people naturally tend to place a high value on websites they own or are associated with. Thus it is better to let a neutral editor add such links; if the website is indeed notable, it should not be difficult to convince someone not associated with the site.


 * "I've toiled for a lifetime making my site what it is today" or "The editor of SomeOtherSite.com says that my site is the best resource on the Internet!"
 * No one is necessarily disputing that you've worked hard on your site, or even that it is useful. If it's really an indispensable resource, a neutral editor will add it without you even asking.


 * "I think I'll post something on my site about how (you/Wikipedia editors) are praticing censorship."
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and from one point of view, yes, that is a policy of "censorsing" unwanted material. No one is trying to stop you from posting whatever you want on your site; that would be an example of harmful censorship.


 * "Since you're questioning my motives, I think I'll question yours" or [Insert random personal attack]
 * That line of ad hominem reasoning probably won't get you far. And violating Wikipedia's civility policy is extremely unlikely to convince anyone you're right.


 * "You're wrong. I'm not promoting anything and the link is useful."
 * Wikipedia works by consensus; no one editor's decisions are final. If you think one editor made a mistake in removing a link, try discussing the issue with him or her. If you can't resolve the disagreement, you can try to convince others by making your case on the talk page of the appropriate article. Wmahan. 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding links without spamming
Occasionally people ask now to have links included without drawing the ire of spam opponents. Some advice:
 * Be honest about your goals. Disclose your relationship, if any, to the site you want to include, especially if you stand to profit from more visitors to the site. That's not an official rule or guideline, but in general it's easier to trust an editor who is forthcoming. Also, it helps to log in, because it lets others see that your edits were made by the same person.
 * Seek a consensus of neutral editors. You are welcome to ask for a neutral editor to add your link on the talk page of an article. Don't overdo it, though--tactics such as posting excessive requests to users' talk pages will likely not be well received.
 * Respect others' opinions. If other editors disagree about whether your links are useful, don't accuse them of being ignorant, having a vendetta, or similar. Of course you're welcome to disagree and argue your case, but violating Wikipedia's civility policy is extremely unlikely to win you any support.
 * Contribute content to articles. Other things being equal, it's much easier to give the benefit of the doubt to a user with a history of positive contributions.
 * Understand how Wikipedia works. Most Wikipedia editors probably don't care about who gains or loses when links are added or removed from articles; they care about a useful, high-quality encyclopedia. Arguments made toward improving articles, in accordance with Wikipedia's formal and informal rules, are the most effective.