The Original Site Should Be Listed!
Siobhan - copying the sites and such would be fine!
I'm not 100% sure that this is where my reply should go, but that suggestion, copying the sites and then linking to the DMOZ site, is an excellent one, if it'd make the list more easily accessible and acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. Thank you, and sorry for any trouble!
Bibles2theworld is tagged (AIDS), is that correct? They claim to be promoting literacy, but the connection to HIV/AIDS is tenacious, at best. They're primarily a missionary organization, from the looks of the site.
Wikipedia, specifically, is NOT supposed to be a repository of links. I propose removing all the links to click to donate sites from this article. Does any one have a good reason why this article should not be subject to Wikipedia's general standards in this regard? --Siobhan Hansa 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see one editor agreed with me and one editor thinks we need to be making the listing available to people. I don't object to one link to a directory (would prefer to make this a dmoz.org listing instead of an individual's private website though) I would like to see the two additional links to multiple click-to-donate sites removed from the article and put in the listing. They're still just links to donation sites rather than to sites that discuss the click-to-donate phenomenon. --Siobhan Hansa 13:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering the philanthropic ideals behind the click-to-donate sites, it would be worthwhile to put the links on the article page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
- I don't see what a list of sites tells our readers about click-to-donate. A comprehensive list would be massive, overwhelming the article and violate our not a directory policy. A non-comprehensive one plays favorites and would probably violate our neutral point of view. The philanthropic ideals of click-to-donate sites don't override Wikipedia's mission or ideals. We have a link to a directory site that links can be added to for readers to browse, and anyone who can get here can probably use google. Doing things in this way also means we don't have to be on the look out for scams. --Siobhan Hansa 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why? In what way does it provide our readers with encyclopedic information that isn't already in the article? -- Siobhan Hansa 07:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
How about adding information related to charity search sites like http://www.goodsearch.com, http://www.charitycafe.com, http://click4thecause.live.com etc, which donate money to charities for every search we do on them?
Can someone program a bot to visit all those charity sites, click the link once a day, and that's it? It would save us the trouble of clicking links...then we could distribute the program widely and have it run on a daily basis. Simple
--Gautam3 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The snopes article (from the external links section) has two legit newspaper articles listed at the end. I haven't tracked down the actual articles, but presumably they would be useful in some capacity as a source for this wiki article, right? Forestgarden (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The sparechangeforchange link takes me to a site with scantily clad women and motorcycles. I'm pretty sure it's not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not know what happened with my website but I own http://www.sparechangeforchange.org and something got messed up with my web host. This has been resolved and it is sad that my site somehow got misdirected to a biker bar. This is one of the most complete click to donate sites on the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
- It seems to contain less information than the dmoz directory we currently have listed. Why don't you list your site there - dmoz actually is intended to be a directory of links unlike Wikipedia. Since you are the owner of the site you should also be aware that our guidelines expressly ask editors not to add links to their own sites directly to our articles. So you addition here and the promotion here are not appropriate. Finally the link itself isn't really appropriate in any case. Wikipedia is not a web directory and links that are not stable (for instance links where the site owner is unable to stop the site being redirected to inappropriate content) are both out of keeping with the intent of the external links section (see our guidelines). Given that this article suffers from a lot of people trying to add links to click to donate sites and similar directories we have one directory listed that any legitimate site should be able to add themselves to - I suggest you try them. -- SiobhanHansa 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)