User talk:Scushmanuark

Link canvassing
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I am well aware that the links do not affect SEO and that was not my purpose in adding them.

While I am a member of the organization (the World Trade Center Arkansas) for which I linked the page to, I have a strong reason for doing so and I only began to add these links after I saw the same type of link on Matthew A. Waller's page, who serves the Center as an Advisor and is a technically a co-worker.

If this type of link was acceptable on page, then I reasoned that I could add the same type of links on other pages of public figures.

If this violates policy, then please proceed as normal, however please consider the following:

The Center (the organization I serve) is the official export promotion agency for the state of Arkansas, contractually partnered with Arkansas Economic Development Agency and part of the University of Arkansas's Office of Economic Development. We are publicly funded through the University of Arkansas through which he have 501(c)(3) status. We serve a substantial public interest in helping Arkansas businesses increase exports through services and training that come at no cost and by growing commercial diplomacy through diplomatic relationships with foreign countries. These initiatives fulfill the University's land grant mission to serve the state through economic development.

Considering that the subjects on whose pages I placed links are significant public figures in their respective regions, and their service as an Advisor to the Center represents a substantial portion of their public career, I would ask that you to reconsider placing the links.

In addition to this, I have 6 more public figures for which I would like to add the same link to and I can provide a list if necessary.

Sam


 * We don't link to companies like that in article text per policy. If "World Trade Center Arkansas" was a notable organization you'd link it like World Trade Center Arkansas, but there is no evidence that it is at this point. For notable companies or organizations, it may be worth mentioning the individual's board membership in the body of the article (under Career, for example), but it certainly doesn't belong in the article's lede (i.e., intro paragraph).   OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What "evidence" or lack of evidence are you considering? Further, what standards are you even using to determine "notable"?

The only reason I placed any link in the lede was that there was no "career" section to begin with. If you think it belongs in the body, then move it there.

Take a look at the news section: https://arwtc.org/news/ or better yet, see what other news organizations are saying about the Center: https://arwtc.org/news/wtc-ar-news/ You can also look at the organization itself or the other board members (arwtc.org/board) who are important public figures. Their service is voluntary and spans across the political spectrum, so I wonder what COI "may" even exist.

Further, the Center regularly works with ambassadors, heads of state, members of the federal government, foreign governments, and congressional delegations at our office on a regular basis and state media organizations cover the Center regularly.

If that's not "notable" then I don't know what is.

If there is a specific type of evidence you would like to consider, then please inform me and I can provide it.

Sam


 * Wikipedia's standard for notability is defined at Notability. For organizations, specific guidelines can be found at Notability (organizations and companies). clpo13(talk) 19:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This policy says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" - I an *not* trying to write an original article, but simply linking to the organization, not to promote but to *inform* about another area of public service that these individuals contribute to (many of which I have never met personally or interacted with). By Wikipedia's, and your own, admission, linking is ignored by search engines, so what promotion would be even be possible? Do you see the contradiction? If linking doesn't promote, then why remove the links?

Lastly, I'm certain we fulfil the notability requirements. If you visit this page (https://arwtc.org/news/wtc-ar-news/) you can see how we've been mentioned more than 80 times by 23 independent sources in the past 30 months. Which is an average of 2.6 media appearances in a month. That page is on our site, but the links will take you to the independent sources.

Sam

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Scushmanuark. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Uvalde Lindsey, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, please see the above response.

"May have a conflict of interest" is a pretty vague and uncertain term. Further under the policy, the only point that something like this would fall under is "avoid linking"/WPSPAM yet even in that page it says some links may be allowed. So please consider what I posted earlier explaining the organization (we are a public agency). Surely that would warrant an exception.


 * WP:COI. There's your definition of a conflict of interest. And no, public agencies do not get exceptions to the COI rule, since nobody gets exceptions to the rule. If you're a member of a group, organization, company, what-have-you, and make promotional edits related to it (such as...linking to it from multiple Wikipedia pages, perhaps?), that's conflict-of-interest editing. It's that simple. Of course, if they're paying you to edit, that's WP:PAID, which is a separate can of worms. creffett (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This was of my own initiative after I saw the same type of link on another internal page. If this link is allowed on one page, then why is it not allowed on others? Even though there may technically be a financial COI, it simply says COI linking is strongly discouraged on that policy. Surely the reasons I outlined above considering the nature of the organization serving a significant public good and the role we play in the state would outweigh any disadvantages re: COI. Afterall, I'm not writing a glowing review of the organization but simply saying the subjects are members of the Board of Advisors. Sam


 * WP:OTHERSPAM. It shouldn't be on another page, and its presence does not justify you adding more. Also, you seem to be interpreting conflict of interest in the legal/financial sense. Again, please read the WP:COI page (and while we're at it, WP:PSCOI). We're not saying you can't edit articles related to your org, we are saying that you need to disclose that affiliation and follow some rules. That's all. And again, there are no exceptions to the COI policies, so please stop asking for one. creffett (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was no longer asking for an exception rather if I was going to be prevented from linking due to a COI, then I was asking you to weigh the disadvantage of COI editing with the publishing the actual fact that the subject is a member of the Board of Advisors. After all a fact is a fact no matter who it comes from. The linking I did was no different than countless other links that I read on Wikipedia all the time and it was not editorializing. It's blatantly inconsistent whether you admit it or not and your policies are vague and ambiguous, full of "may"s and "could"s.

What steps or rules do I need to follow do simply place the following links on our board member's pages?:

"He/She currently serves as a member of the World Trade Center Arkansas board of advisors."

Sam

And I'm sorry, but that's utter BS, if its on one page, then it definitely should be allowed on another page - that's the basic definition of consistency, I don't need a justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.81.251 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most politicians have long lists of memberships and affiliations; we don't exhaustively list those organizational memberships, committees, and/or affiliations unless they are notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)