I work for the Encyclopedia of Alabama (EOA) at encyclopediaofalabama.org, which is a non-profit partnership between Auburn University and the Alabama Humanities Foundation with the goal of improving Social Studies education, particularly in Alabama K-12 schools. We do not advertise on our site and our original content is authored by experts - primarily university professors - and is heavily edited and fact-checked by EOA staff members. I have viewed my activities in Wikipedia strictly in terms of adding value to the great wealth of knowledge that the site offers, not as an underhanded self-promotional scheme for which I appear to be receiving punishment from someone who has never contacted me. I haven't disrupted or vandalized anything.
The evidence against my account mentioned in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Encyclopediaofalabama is false; my account Bdb0005 was not created in the same hour as these Star22 accounts. This is my only account with Wikipedia. I have added helpful links to Alabama-related Wiki content under the proper heading "External Links," did not place the link above others, and explained the change clearly every time. My record of changes to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bdb0005 ) shows the frequency and nature of the external links editing I've done, at least up to the point at which they were deleted after October 10, 2008. I have never added more than 3 or 4 links in a day, I don't think, although it's hard to be sure now I am no longer allowed access to my contributions since Oct. 2008.
I am accused of spamming, a term that doesn't apply as there is no gain being had by my organization, especially recognizing that Wikipedia provides no value in Google rankings. Adding useful external links to Wikipedia entries likely causes in a slight bump in visitation to our site, but according to our Google Analytics program this result is negligible when weighed against the vast majority of traffic we receive from Google and Yahoo searches and referring sites such as the Alabama Department of Archives and History and various universities and school systems. We don't gain any kind of revenue or bonus for increased visitation to EOA; we use these statistics to encourage new or former authors to contribute new content and to inform schools and state agencies on the progress of the project.
Our view of Wikipedia has been that we want to provide students looking for reliable sources at the bottom of Wiki entries with authoritative content that they can use for school projects. EOA's approach to other online sources is one of openness and acceptance, but if Wikipedia is aggressively hostile toward additions to its content then I guess we'll ignore it in the future. I don't have time to deep-read each Alabama-related Wikipedia entry to find holes in the story and then write new content referenced to EOA.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Berntson, production editor
Encyclopedia of Alabama
334-844-6650
bdb0005@auburn.edu
Editing on behalf of an organization is not allowed, that is called a roll account. Adding external links to an org you work for brings COI and spamming issues. If you can show you can in accord with these policies, I could see supporting unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
--- -- - Thank you for a quick response but the lack of info provided and attention to the details of my initial request leaves me unsure how to proceed. Am I in communication with the person who labeled this account a "sock puppet" and claimed that it is related to a number of other accounts "created in the same hour"? Again, Bdb0005 is my only account. What is the process for correcting these characterizations of the account so it can be judged by Wiki administration on what it actually is, instead of what is written in the document explaining why it was blocked?
As for how I can be "in accord with these policies," was my description at the end of my previous message accurate? Would I have to read an article and find flaws or gaps in the story which I would correct by writing new content in the entry and making a footnote to the Encyclopedia of Alabama? If so, like I said, I don't foresee being able to add this load to my work schedule.
Can I get a more reasoned explanation as to what the problem is with adding to the section titled "External Links" links to external sources of authoritative and reliable content on subjects that this organization is uniquely suited to provide? And was my explanation of a lack of benefit reaped through this process not clear? I don't get the sense that attention is being paid to the details of this case - and I think I'm justified in asking for it after being cut from Wikipedia with no contact or warning, and without a full explanation as to why the account is being punished.
Thanks again,
Ben
- So, you're not the same person as User:Bberntson, who was editing from the same IP as yours, inserting links to the same Encyclopedia of Alabama into multiple articles? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Bdb0005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The Evidence (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Encyclopediaofalabama) against my account is inaccurate and I'm not intentionally spamming for commercial benefit, just trying to provide additional educational content on the state of Alabama
Decline reason:
Under the external links guidelines, we all agree to avoid linking to our own web sites. Since linking to your own web site appears to be all you want to do at Wikipedia, there won't be a need for you to have an active account. Don't worry; if other users find your web site the best source of information on any subject, they will certainly cite that source when they add the information they found there. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.