User talk:Caseyparsons

Linkspam
Casey, I realize that you're new to wikipedia, and as a fellow woodshedder I'm absolutely certain that your intentions were good, but please be aware that what you've been doing is regarded as a no-no here. The policy is at WP:LINKSPAM. The best way to build such linkages is to add actual content to the article that uses the link in a reference citation, being careful to paraphrase, not directly copy, the source material. That said, there is also a core policy here calling for reliable sources. This effectively precludes using self-published sources, wikis being a cardinal example, except in very limited contexts. Please don't do it, it will just annoy people. Now, if you happen to have some original photos (your own copyright or documented as public domain - fair use doesn't cut it) of any of these quartets, that would be a great thing to add. I can help with the mechanics of doing that if you like.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LeadSongDog, Thanks for the note. I've read the policy, and don't feel that my contributions are categorized as spam. The links that I've added, in nearly every case, have been to webpages with significantly more and better information than the relevant wikipedia page. I'm choosing to link to a much more in-depth site, rather than upload the same content in two places. Isn't this the purpose of external linking? --Caseyparsons (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize the distinction is sometimes marginal, but we try to err on the side of the angels :-) The other, related policy is WP:EL.  The problem with just linking to an external site is that it doesn't build the GFDL-licensed content at WP.  Ther Wikipedia project is all about the content. The links and references are there solely as a way of ensuring the content has verifiable and reliable sources, which the reader can check.  The main good reason for external links is to connect the reader to useful and pertinent information that is intrinsically unsuitable for WP, often because only non-free sources exist.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely splitting hairs. While I do recognize a small difference in distinction, I don't recognize the importance of that difference. I'm providing links to other specific, relevant information. These links are absolutely not spam, nor do I have any personal gain from them. They are providing a user, who clearly wants to know information about a specific barbershop quartet, to find more relevant information. Isn't that the goal of Wikipedia? Surely that is a better option than recreating exact copies on two different sites?--Caseyparsons (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, the first line of EL says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". The bolded part is exactly the purpose of the links that I have added.--Caseyparsons (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Casey, I'd never suggest you have anything to gain from it except the pride of a job well done. Sorry if something I said suggested that to you. Indeed, I don't think I know anyone who's really made money out of bbshop. But you might ask yourself why you want to put the information on a relatively obscure website with content license restrictions under CC-NC-BY-SA instead of on WP, one of the most popular sites on the web, under the GFDL. It's absolutely your choice for content you create, but if you really want it to be shared with readers and built on, the choice seems obvious. Have a good one. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the well wishes. Wikipedia doesn't make sense as a platform for the project for a number of reasons. As a barbershopper, I think your input and assistance at the Barbershop Wiki Project would be valuable.


 * One last thought: anything on WP, as free content, can be mirrored onto other sites, including the BWP. The reverse is not the case.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I read this, and I also read your remarks. I am changing the bolding, and add some:
 * "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy".
 * Also:
 * Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.
 * The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Reliable sources and Citing sources.
 * Further down, in WP:ELNO: "12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
 * And (seen "As a barbershopper..."):
 * WP:EL: "...you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked....".
 * I am therefore removing all your link-additions. We are not a linkfarm.  I am strongly suggesting you to contact an appropriate WikiProject first, and discuss with them on how to proceed.  The purpose of a wiki, and a wikipedia, is still to incorporate information, not just linking to it.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dirk, as I've said, my purpose is absolutely not to link farm. If you take a moment to read a few of the linked pages at the Barbershop Wiki Project you will see that the amount of information is substantially greater in depth than Wikipedia's articles. The Barbershop Wiki Project is a niche site, and is not try to encompass all the many topics that are included by Wikipedia. The idea of simply adding the content to Wikipedia doesn't work for this small niche community.


 * I really don't understand why Wikipedia editors are so opposed to a small, helpful, non-malicious, non-spam link. I ask you to please not remove the links that I have provided. They are a great pathway to resource of relevant, topical information! Thanks --Caseyparsons (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After further thought, and re-reading, is the main problem here that my content is licensed freely under CC? If my site "all rights reserved" so that it was not able to be included in Wikipedia, would it then be "linkable"?


 * Nope, that is not the problem. The problem is your conflict of interest (you are after all the only editor of the mainpage of the wiki linked to; and it is then better not to link too much yourself), and the problem is, that you are linking to a wiki, which is, by definition, a source of unstable information (see our disclaimer).  I again urge you to either implement the content from your wiki into ours, or to contact a suitable wikiproject.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Casey. I'm sorry, but the Wikipedia policy on External Links is pretty clear about this, even in well-intended cases like this. The targets of external links should have certain characteristics. The BWP fails as a Reliable Source because it is an open wiki. (Yes, I know this seems hypocritical, but the policy does make sense.) It would also fail because it does not cite its sources in most cases, effectively making the BWP articles Primary sources. BWP also gives the appearance of hosting copyright violations, e.g. the images - which are apparently copies of (Louisville Thoroughbred's Jim) Miller Photography works for the Society's International conventions and Harmonizer covers - that are not yet credited on BWP. This too is grounds for deleting external links.  And then there's the whole WP:COI issue that bothers Dirk.
 * I don't believe that the CC-BY license itself is a problem. CC-BY material can be used on WP with proper attribution. In most cases this is done by copying it to the Commons and filling in the attribution and license metadata. This metadata is then click-through readable by anyone, satisfying the "BY" attribution requirement of the CC-BY license. Similarly there is no problem linking to external CC-BY licensed sites that meet the other requirements for external links. LeadSongDog come howl  18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * COI does not have to be a big problem, but it is better to address it early on. We do have very productive editors who have a huge, though recognised and discussed conflict of interest (e.g. libraries, musea, and other organisations).  The solution is simple, search contact, discuss and see how you can best contribute.  The other problems are more serious, and it contains some which I did not even recognise yet.  All in all, discussion is the way forward.  It is not like we have to include them NOW, it can also be next week or next month if they are deemed OK and you proof me wrong (and then my sequence of rollbacks is easily found and undone, or they can easily be added again, it is just about 100 links).  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As another editor of the BWP, let me state that for many of the missing citations, it is due to the physical presence of the author (like myself) for the duration of the given history. For instances like that, how does one cite themselves? As an additional note, the wiki is "open," but then moderated by a team of editors to check validity of edits, etc. Does this help provide any insight? -Alan Gordon (my login wasn't working for some reason) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.130.112 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)