Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Spam1

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you


 * Comment. Firstly I'd be inclined to change the order - start with "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia." Then something like "In particular it is unlikely that links to personal wensites or commercial websites will be useful and will probably be removed.  Thank you." ?? I guess my question would be whether some Wiki links like WP:EL, WP:WELCOME or WP:NOT would be useful to the "not real spammer" brigade? --Nigel  (Talk) 10:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the order of the template is fine. We get right to the point, which a warning ought to do, and then we explain it. I don't like the wording of the first sentence, but whatever we decide on I do feel it should start with a "Please do not..." On this template, I've always liked everything except for that first sentence. Adding the "it is unlikely..." sentence I think is overly negative and sounds elitist. As this is spam1, and the template those that insert inappropriate links see first, I think if nothing else that sort of wording should be saved for later, more bold warnings. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's create sections for each proposal. I'll start with mine. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Espresso Addict proposal
My suggestion for first warning for good-faith additions:

"Adding content to the encyclopedia instead of links is preferred, as Wikipedia isn't a website directory. In particular, links to blogs, personal websites and commercial websites are often inappropriate, and they will probably be removed. If you feel a link contributes valuable material to the article, consider summarising the relevant information in the article, rather than adding the link. Before re-inserting a link that another editor has deleted, please discuss its addition on the article's talk page.

See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you."

Espresso Addict 17:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, are you proposing that this change the spam0 template? If so we should probably move this discussion to a page titled WikiProject Spam/Spam0 --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for explanations of links and methods of adding links that are considered inappropriate. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Proposal 2
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to: personal websites, websites that you are affiliated with, and websites that exist to sell or promote a product. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for further explanations of links and methods of adding links that are considered inappropriate. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Discussion
Thoughts on the above? --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it more than the current template. However, "inappropriate" is a matter of opinion. I suspect spammers would be quick to ask, "who are you to judge what's appropriate?" or simply claim that the links are appropriate. Once spam becomes a content dispute we've already lost, since there's simply not enough time to have a debate about each spam link. Wmahan. 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My thoughts were that WP:EL and WP:SPAM could cover what's appropriate and inappropriate, but you're right, spammers will argue that their link is not "inappropriate" just like they argue now that it's not commercial. Perhaps it should be more verbose... see above. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an improvement but my concern is the new/inadvertent/try it and see etc link placer. Quite a lot of spammers will make it to spam4 whatever goes in 1, 2 or 3 (or am I just being negative!) --Nigel  (Talk) 13:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Me thinks that spam0 should be used for the good faith assumptions - which should naturally be "softer" than a "1" template. Whatcha think? --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the second proposal personally, doesn't hark too much on the 'inappropreate' word, yet still uses it as it needs to be. Kevin_b_er 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I sort of like number two as well, but the 'promotion' phrase worries me.  Promotion means more than 'promote a product', I can't count the number of blog and web forum people who run "non commercial" websites that simply just want more members or readers (or pagerank for eyeballs on the ads).   I'd rephrase that sentence a bit... (   Trysha (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How about:  links to personal websites, links to websites that you are affiliated with, links that that exist to attract visitors to a website or promote a product.      This removes even more of the "commercial" aspect that so many people get hung up on.  - Trysha (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wmahan proposal
Please do not add external links that go against the guidelines at External links. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising or promotion, nor as a mere directory of links. You are encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you believe a link meets the guidelines and should be included, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Discussion
This approach might avoid any quibbling about appropriateness, and it cuts out the WP:NOT link and the word "vehicle". I think it's obvious that Wikipedia isn't a "mere collection of external links", so I rephrased that to emphasize that it's not a directory of all relevant links. I also repeated the mention of the guidelines to de-emphasize how the editor feels about the link. Wmahan. 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, to the new user who stumbles across wikipedia, they just see it as a website with lots of info that they can edit.    Websites have many links.    To such people is not obvious that wikipedia should not be used as a linkfarm, so I think the NOT link is useful.   I have even had editors try to argue this point.     I do agree on the removal of the word vehicle.   - Trysha (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trysha's proposal
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Discussion
I combined AbsolutDan's and Wmahan's proposal into the above with my concerns about of "promotion of websites" rather than product. I think this removes muchof the 'commercial' aspect that new people get hung up on, and addresses the concerns I mentioned in comments above. - Trysha (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me - spam1 needs to explain - those who won't listen won't listen! --Nigel (Talk) 18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. We might want to avoid the acronyms though--watch out for WP:WOTTA. :-) Wmahan. 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this :) - Trysha (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly has my vote - good work Trysha --Nigel (Talk) 07:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good - now the next question: do we want to try to incorporate the "External links FAQs" that is being discussed on the project talk page (the thread that spawned these proposals)? We don't want to make warnings overly dense and/or long, but it might be prudent to consider adding it to spam1 so it can be seen sooner in the warning chain... thoughts? --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Simplistically - more words earlier - less later. I think this is the ideal place for pleasantly informing people what Wiki is about.  I posted this on a new editor's talk page yesterday (in response to a query about links removal) Many people get a part of the message with Wiki - "great - I can edit this" without realising what Wiki is not. I certainly started like that..  The real spammers won't be interested anyway, tentative ones/misunderstanding newbies needs to be informed --Nigel  (Talk) 07:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the ideal place. User talk templates should be simple notifications. Real spammers only need a "please do not", while misunderstanding newbies deserve more than what can be crammed into one impersonal template message. A pointer to a FAQ (where there is actually room for even more words earlier) would suffice. Femto 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * More thoughts:
 * The "content instead of links" part needs refinement. It basically invites companies to create an article with 'generously donated' content from their website, leaving the burden on other editors to justify why such almost-but-not-quite blatant adverts should be deleted.
 * "methods of adding links that are considered inappropriate" - Okay, parsed the sentence at the second attempt, but I first thought "why would we want to explain methods how to add an inappropriate link?".
 * Femto 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How is this, i fixed the odd sentence and removed the content sentence.  I see what you are saying about the 'content instead of links', but the NOT link covers that in a different way so i removed it altogether.   If we want to add a welcome statment to a well meaning newcomer to encourage them to contribute - subst one of the many welcome templates before warning them, this shouldn't be an all-in-one warning and welcome message.  - Trysha (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Trysha's proposal. My only suggestion is grammatical; I'd suggesting inserting an "and" in the following position: that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

People seem to like this one, and I have seen several cases where this would have helped already. I went ahead and replaced this in Template:Spam and Template:Spam-n - Trysha (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not clear if this is the right place for me to leave my comments (if not, please feel free to move this paragraph), but I'd like to thank you folks for reworking the spam template. The new version is much better in my opinion and I am much happier using it.  You have done a great job and I appreciate it.  --Yamla 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)