User talk:Beetstra/Archivists

Quality differential

There should be a difference made between a blatantly commercial site that includes content as an attempt to legitimise itself, and a renowned body such as a museum. EL from the former will (almost) never be acceptable; links from the latter may well be desirable and we should be seeking to welcome their participation by guiding them to the correct way of editing. They should not be treated as identical cases. Tyrenius 17:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what we have our spam guideline for. Those are the cases which are blatant spam. Here I try to address the en masse addition of on topic links by single purpose accounts. I agree, the user should be welcomed, but not that type of edits, we should try and guide them to a correct way of editing.

These link additions are, however you want to see them, in violation of certain policies and guidelines (and may be in violation of other guidelines), and should be treated as spam. I am sorry, until now I don't see any excuse why this should not be treated as spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I read the comment wrongly. What you practically mean is the difference between a clear edit with the purpose of promoting the site (which also contains some content) and a good content site. I guess that difference is already made with the 'libraries, musea, universities, archives'. Those are all typical non-commercial sites. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As i see it, the question is whether the resource is an unique resource or otherwise of spectacularly great importance. Almost always, bookstores and libraries are not unique in their holdings of books or magazines, or even in holding collections on a subject. Even for very rare books, there are usually dozens or hundreds of libraries--As an exception, consider the Gutenberg Bible, perhaps the most famous of all. A list of the libraries with copies is included, and it is probably mentioned in each of the articles on the respective libraries. For subject collections, again there needs to be special importance, and we would need to find some sort of rule. Examples of were it might be mentioned as an external is the Boswell collection at Yale, or the Shakespeare one at the Folger--but neither of them is, and I do not think anything of significantly lesser importance should be. DGG (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That is quite exactly why these edits should be reverted, even if it is the first external link on the page. The links may be quite unique, and give good information, but they are added in the wrong way. We can not allow these account to perform these edits, and leaving the links there would set a wrong example. These links are unsollicited (hence spam). For libraries, the majority of the books is common, and can be linked via the ISBN, or via worldcat. Then you leave with a subset which can be independently linked via gutenberg (via a template that is endorsed by a wikiproject). And then there is only a small set left, which then has to be linked directly. But I don't believe that there is any library that has such a large number of really unique books so that it then warrants an en masse addition via external links to pages, but where the book itself can not be discussed. But similar reasonings exist for musea (I guess quite a number of musea in the north of the Europe hava a couple of the carved stone knives from the stone age, so why link to your example?).

If the holding is quite unique, then a description in the text is certainly in its place: "there are 3 known examples of this book in the world, which are held by museum1, libary1, and one in the personal collection of mister x." The example held by library1 is truely unique as it contains the signature of the writer on the first page.(ref with external link to that library)" --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that we are in fundamental agreement about the current problem. I can see a section labeled: "major information resources" for an article, done either as a narrative or as external links.You are right that doing it as a narrative is less susceptible to spam, but it is possible that doing it as a list is better. I'd be very open to the possibility of helping do such a section as a demonstration somewhere, preferable on a subject not overly spam-susceptible. Suggestions?

The only disagreement is that I think WP policy is correctly not to reject COI edits--merely view them with the appropriate high level of suspicion. A great eal of the usable content of WP comes from sources which havve a certain amount of COI. The best way of preventing it is of course the hardest--for non COI people to write all the necessary articles first. But in reality we not only must put up with them--we even need them. please see the excellent related page Wikipedia:Business FAQ. But when I say we need them, I mean we need them--under the firm control of responsible neutral editors. fortunately, the good people at WP have a very strong weapon--when the spam come in, we can get it out and keep it out. Nobody can force it in against consensus. We don't take ads.

I am also open to the possibility of trying to explain to librarians why they should not add such resources. I thinkthe basic concepts are fairess and avoiding information overload. I am trying to think of the best channels for this. DGG (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest does not have to be a problem, as long as it is endorsed by a suitable wikiproject. That is why that I would discourage link additions only, but first want them to discuss with a wikiproject. I can see 3 possible outcomes there (only suitable as external link, generally suitable as a reference or to expand the article, or not suitable at all). That is what I try to expand in the Reccomendations/solutions section. I think the user should then be either tutored to adopt the right solution, or asked to stop and just not add the links himself (and treat not discussing or continued ignoring as a blockable offense). Uninvolved editors are of course still free to use the links, and add them to external links sections where they feel they are appropriate (though also, anons with a non-coi IP should be treated as spammers as well). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Link additions

I'm not understanding exactly what is wrong with a person working as a librarian/archivist whatever making edits to improve a page. I've been adding information to pages, creating pages and adding links that would be useful and important to a person researching the subject/person. How is this a conflict of interest or wrong? I believe that in order for Wikipedia to be taken seriously there needs to be information, whether that information is a link or additional information, added to the pages of Wikipedia. This should not be considered vandalism. Adding random words and letters is vandalism, adding valuable information is not. Mdazey 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your main edits involve only one website, while other websites may have similar information available. That is why our conflict of interest guideline states:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: ... Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

, and that is why we have a neutral point of view policy (you are only incorporating info from your own site). You have numerous warnings on your talkpage, and there is no discussion whatsoever from your side. Please discuss. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New museums/archivists initiative

Were you aware of User:Witty lama/Sandbox? I just linked to your very useful User:Beetstra/Archivists, and any comments you have would be welcome. The page is likely to move into mainspace shortly. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)