User:Uriah923/OmniNerd

As of now, all of the OmniNerd references throughout Wikipedia have been removed by Dmcdevit, and yet the content remains. This site is to discuss the proper course of action concerning content from and references to OmniNerd articles.

I have inserted the pertinent conversations here and hope all of those involved will contribute under the Resolution heading so a decision can be reached and we can move on. Uriah923 06:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From Uriah923 talk page

OmniNerd Spam?

Uriah, I don't want to be insensitive, but your position has been completely strange. You've been adding links to Omninerd all over the place. Why? Your links have been deleted many times, by different people, who've asked you to stop the obvious link spamming. Omninerd is not a noteworthy web site (yet, maybe some day). Why don't you promote the site through other means, besides Wikipedia external links? Jehochman 05:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions without reading up on things. For example, when I first realized the article on OmniNerd had content to add to the SEO page, I just added an external link. After it was removed, I thought, "Why? It has valuable content." So I re-added it. This is when I read up on policy that informed me that content should be added instead of just a link. So, I added content (word for word) from the article and then put a link at the end of each paragraph. This, also, was deleted. Upon further investigation and discussion, I learned that I needed to reword the content and then add it with a reference. This is what I have done. The content is valuable, and as it was "gleaned from an external source" the link is required.

So, as you can see, I've discontinued the activity that I was told to stop and have started making significant contributions to Wikipedia in the way of content and edits - both using OmniNerd, other sites, and my own knowledge. All of these follow Wikipedia policy and are in the best interests of Wikipedia. If you can show me otherwise, I will be happy to concede. Uriah923 15:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not come on my talk page and accuse me of doing things I have not done. I have not added any commercial links or any links to my own private website. The only links used are those used as references as required by Wikipedia policy in order to avoid copyright violations. I will not discontinue adding content or references where they are required. Uriah923 15:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Are we still dealing with this? The problem Uriah, is that Omninerd is an extraordinarily low quality reference, so using that as your justification for adding the link is specious at best. Combine that with the fact that you are repeating that on many articles leads to a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the external links policy. It's obvious you're doing this for your own gain, otherwise you would look for higher quality sources and cite those. Instead, you are repetitively adding Omninerd links. Please don't make this into a bigger deal than it is, but since you have been asked by multiple, multiple people to stop, please reallize that you are acting against community consensus. Please stop. - Taxman ^Talk 18:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

We are not still dealing with anything. When you were involved before, there were copyright issues to consider and external links being added without content. Those issues have been corrected. You will notice by my activity that I have made many significant contributions to Wikipedia since then. Yes, some of these contributions include references to OmniNerd, but many of them do not. All of the actions taken have been in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I have not repetatively added any links, only included references where they were required BY POLICY. If I am breaking policy that I am unaware of, please provide at least a link and I will abide by it. Uriah923 18:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If there's something about what I wrote that your don't understand let me know. But clearly you are violating the spirit of the external links policy and doing it through considering them references. They make very low quality references and are not helping Wikipedia. Low quality references probably do more damage than good. So that, and the fact that you have been asked by multiple people to stop should be enough. Stop adding Omninerd or other low quality web site links. Please make other useful contributions using higher quality references. - Taxman ^Talk 19:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you consider any references I've used to be low quality and why you think any content additions I've made are not helping Wikipedia. Please demonstrate both and provide Wikipedia policy support. Uriah923 19:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's probably part of the problem: that you don't understand the difference between high quality references and low quality ones. Think about the reasons behind references, trust and verifiability. So sources that are well respected by others are higher quality. For example journal reveiw articles in prominent journals and well regarded textbooks are among the highest quality available. About as low quality as possible are random people's opinions including self published books and websites where anything can be published, and there is no editorial policy or respect. Wikipedia potentially suffers from the same problem and the only way out is to use high quality references and use them accurately. This is not just my opinion, this is just how it works. You need to learn about and use higher quality references. Don't spend anymore time asking why your links aren't high quality, go learn for yourself. - Taxman ^Talk 20:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the differences between high and low quality references. However, I do not see a place in Wikipedia policy that prohibits listing anything but "prominent journals and well regarded textbooks." Thus, even if a reference I listed was considered 'low-quality' (which I still disagree with), why would it constitute spam?

It seems that one of three things should happen on the pages where my references are disputed (following a discussion on the respective talk page):

1. The content that was added is deemed unnecessary and the content and reference are deleted.
2. The content that was added is deemed necessary, but a higher quality reference is needed. The reference remains until replaced by a higher quality reference with the same information.
3. The content that was added is deemed necessary and the reference is found to be of sufficient quality.

Is not this the way things should proceed, instead of blanket deletions following a search for 'OmniNerd'? Uriah923 20:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It constitutes spam because they are multiple links to the same site, are a low quality reference, and the only party that benefits in the situtation is those affiliated with Omninerd. Wikipedia is worse off, and by common sense, we should not let that happen. And it is becoming extraordinarily obvious that that benefiting Omninerd is the only thing that interests you, or you would have long ago moved on to using actual high quality references. So we should assume your #1 above, but if the material can be verified by a higher quality source, it can stay or go back in. Like I said, I don't see a major copyright problem but I have not reviewed all of the content that was added. If you do know it is a clear copyright violation, you should remove yourself all the content that is still essentially the same as when you added it. That would be the way to solve the copyright problem, not re-adding your links again. And that Omninerd represents a very low quality reference is so obvious that the burden would fall on you to establish otherwise before adding any more links to it. - Taxman ^Talk 21:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would rather have all of the content removed than investigate the possibility of it being a quality source or finding a good replacement. But, as that is the case, this is what I propose. I will remove all content added from the OmniNerd references and open up a discussion on each talk page to determine if the community thinks the content and reference should be re-added. How does that sound? Uriah923 21:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly rather have quality references as replacements and would support any process that would help get that done. If you think the material is a clear copyright violation, your proposal is a great start, but certainly since it is all related to the same site, there should be one main discussion, not wasting effort on separate ones. I'm not quite sure where the best place would be to have it, but a subpage of your userpage would work optimally I guess. Irrespective of what else you do, that central discussion needs to happen. Just add a note and a link to it in each page where you added material or a link. And don't add fuel to the fire by adding the links back to any articles. - Taxman ^Talk 21:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no really, there needs to be one spot for the discussion. Create one, such as User:Uriah923/OmniNerd or find one, but separate discussions are a waste of peoples time and not what we are after here. - Taxman ^Talk 22:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking policy violation by Dmcdevit

I was recently blocked by Dmcdevit and this is in violation of the Wikipedia: blocking policy. First, we are currently engaged in multiple disputes and the policy specifies that "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Also, I have not committed any of the violations listed in the policy. Uriah923 20:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked you only because he did appear involved in the dispute. I do however agree that you are violating the spamming policy. You contributions show reference re-added about 20 times. Since it has been removed by multiple people, re-adding a link to the same site does constitute spam. If you do it again, I will block you or make sure someone else does. Since you've already done the deed, Dmcdevit is within his rights to have someone else block you. - Taxman ^Talk 20:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

First, thank you. Second, the only references I've re-added are those that Dmcdevit removed. He's the only one. In each case I opened the floor for discussion on the talk page. Why is it that Dmcdevit can carry out this vendetta without justification? He removes a link without reason or explanation and then calls it 'spam' because I add it back. How does that make sense?

That is incorrect, I see at least one other editor removing them. [1]. Also, I've already stated the reasons why he is correct in classifying it as spam, so it is not without justification. You were asked many times to stop and you ignored that. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

But, you will notice that I did not replace the reference on the Muhammad page once a dialogue was opened. I am willing to discuss and take action concerning my content, but why should I not revert an edit that is performed without explanation and without support?

Also, the only reason you have listed for the 'spam' classification is re-adding links when they have been removed by multiple people - and that has not happened, as I did not re-add the link on the Muhammad article. Uriah923 21:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, there is the issue of copyright violations, which you and I have previously discussed. Wikipedia policy is clear that a reference is required when information is gleaned from an external source. How can these sites reference-less and not violate the copyright policy? Uriah923 20:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you're clearly using that to hide behind for your improper adding of links. It appears you've slightly reworded the material and it is only a small part of the articles it was added to. Therefore, at the worst it is not an urgent copyright problem, but as the issue is looked into, it all may need to be removed, and replaced with material from better references. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

As it is looked into? You mean it has not been investigated, and yet the link is removed and the content remains? Why not follow the procedure I outlined above? It would avoid potential copyright issues, allow for community consensus, and get others involved in looking for better quality references (if deemed necessary). Uriah923 21:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Uriah, I apologize for the excessive block that came from my frustration. It's good you're unblocked now. But let me reiterate, the reasons for the block were sound. You are a persistent spammer and you even used a sockpuppet (or there's two identical spammers). You must stop now if you want to continue with Wikipedia in a constructive way. Dmcdevit·t 22:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Discussing the quality of OmniNerd content additions

As it was decided in the above discussion, I am going to remove all OmniNerd references as well as the content I added from them to the Wikipedia articles. After doing so, a discussion will be opened on the respective talk page in order to discuss the value of the content and the quality of the source and to decide the proper course of action.

I have created a sub-page for general discussion with respect to OmniNerd content and the quality OmniNerd articles as sources. This page will also contains links to each of the discussions as I open them. Uriah923 22:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No. You cannot go around and remove content now. That's even wrse. Removing valid article content is tantamount to vandalism, or at the very least smacks of bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm confused. If he added the material from the disputed reference, then him removing it now is certainly not vandalism, but I also can't see how that is bad. If they are potential copyright violations, as he claims above they are, how is removing them, then discussing not the best course? - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

By definition, Uriah's edits cannot be a copyright violation. In adding them to Wikipedia, he granted permission for them to be distributed under the GNU FDL. The fact that the same material might appear on omninerd.com or anywhere else under similar or different licensing terms is utterly immaterial. There is no copyright violation here unless someone else copied material from his website, which seems very unlikely. Uriah is the copyright holder, and he has granted Wikipedia perpetual and irrevocable right to distribute the material under GNU FDL. If he didn't like that, he shouldn't have editted.

So, yes, it is now wrong for him to go removing these items, particularly if claiming a copyright violation. The junk about this material allegedly being unsourced is a smokescreen. We don't source things because of any obligation to do so under copyright law. We source things in order to verify them. Any questionable piece of information should be sourced, preferably from some site besides Uriah's. Anything that is obviously true to any observer shouldn't need to be sourced, and definitely not removed. Jdavidb 06:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware: 1) many of Uriah's edits are just aesthetic, and excuses to include the spam, 2) If he did add any consequential information, none of that is disputed, only the reference, so no content should be deleted, and 3) nothing that he added was really novel, so we should not include the link to the unreputable website when it can be referenced otherwise. There is certainly no reason to go around deleting valid content out of spite for not being allowed to have his spam though. And to claim some kind of copyright infringement is silly. Dmcdevit·t 22:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

1) If my edits were just aesthetic, then you would have no problem with me removing them. 2) If the information added is 'consequential,' then it is very much a copyright violation to leave it and not provide a reference. 3) If the material can easily be found elsewhere, then you should have no trouble doing so.

Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to keep the additions I've made from OmniNerd articles, then they will have to be referenced. Uriah923 03:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on separate discussions, which I still feel will waste time compared to having one discussion, at least make sure every one has a link to User:Uriah923/OmniNerd. - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I will include such a link. Uriah923 22:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

From this page before consolidation

You can't just arbitrarily delete a web reference. Wikipedia is about citing sources, and anything using the {{web reference}} template is just that, a citation. I will now be going through your contribution history to make sure you haven't done this elsewhere. ¦ Reisio 23:03, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

The problem is that the links in question are all to the same website. They are being passed off as references in order to try to avoid the prohibition against spamming commercial links. My stance is that they still are spam and represent such a low quality reference that they harm Wikipedia more than they help. What can they possibly verify? The writeups there are essentially blog style from what I can tell and have no editorial policy, review, etc to insure accuracy. Wikipedia doesn't need that. We already suffer from the perception that we can't possibly b high quality because anyone can edit articles. The only way to avoid that is to increase our Wikipedia:Verifiability through using high quality sources such as respected textbooks, journal articles, and other respected sources. - Taxman ^Talk 23:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Reisio, you echoed my thoughts exactly. I only pursued this course of action because it was the only one left me by Taxman and Dmcdevit. See my talk page for more details.

Taxman, this gives away how very little you have actually investigated the references. Although the home page of OmniNerd consists of news, the references are to academic articles also contained on the site. I assure you, there is an editorial policy and a detailed review - it is evident by the article quality. Check them out and see for yourself. Uriah923 03:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From Dmcdevit talk page

War on Linkspam

I understand what you're -trying- to do with cleaning up linkspam and it's understood. What I don't understand is why you delete references without deleting the content they reference in the wiki pages. I have added some considerable content to a few pages both with my name and anonymously when I forget. If you feel that all OmniNerd links need to be removed, then by all means, delete away. I apologize for trying to fill in the gaps on wiki with the content that is posted on OmniNerd. I don't speak for Uriah, he's just a member of the site. I am the owner of it. We, like wiki, try to gather credible information. A few months ago when it was mentioned, we said it might be nice to take the info our users were giving us and fill in some gaps in wikipedia which we often use to learn about a variety of topics. So, I apologize if you or any other admin views this as spam. We're just trying to help the cause. You will note that in several articles on OmniNerd, wikipedia is cited since that's where the info came from. I just find it odd that you have info on your site from OmniNerd that is accepted because it doesn't get deleted, yet you have no issues deleting the reference.

So my point is this, if you're going to delete the reference, do the academic thing and delete the content that goes with it rather than taking it for your own. Just my thoughts after reading your conversation with Uriah (I was the anon comment, not him) and watching your indiscriminate deletions. I'll be sure to avoid adding content in the future. MarkMcB 21:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting to me that deleting article content is the "academic thing"? My deletions were very pointed, only Omninerd spam. Your deletions, however... Dmcdevit·t 23:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's consider the alternative: Someone provides you a summary of their work, the same person provides a reference that credits the statements provided. You delete the reference, but leave the work. There's a word for it: plagiarism. So yes, it is generally considered academic to either cite your sources when you borrow information, or not use the information and come up with something original... kinda like the wiki policy states. The only things I deleted were the things I added. So like I said, if you want to delete, fine, just be consistent and live outside your self-made spam rules. MarkMcB 00:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no. Look at the big bold words that appear every time you edit a page. You released your words under the GFDL and they can't be taken back. Just because I don't want to link to your personal website doesn't change that. Dmcdevit·t 00:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

You know, I have nothing against you deleting my stuff, I really don't. But let's be serious for a second, the purpose/spirit of the GFDL isn't, "oh sucker, you wrote that on here so it's ours now!" I believe it's to provide others with freely available information, i.e., visitors of the site. I encourage you to read the big bold words that say, "Please cite your sources so others can check your work." Here's the link: Cite_sources. If what you're saying is correct, could you please advise me where I should go to have that read, "Cite your work at your own risk. Most admins will accuse you of link dropping and delete your citation prior to any discussion on the page in question." Thanks. MarkMcB 01:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not the purpose and spirit of the GNU FDL, but the purpose and spirit of the big bold words at the bottom of the page are to let you know that you are making your edits available under certain terms which you might want to check out. Don't make agreements if you can't keep them. Jdavidb 06:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Spam

That was my misunderstanding - but if we remove the references, the content should also be removed. ¦ Reisio 23:16, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

If the content is good (and not really bad as the discussion on Uriah's talk page suggests), then the web reference links should remain. ¦ Reisio 23:52, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

If the reference is unreliable, then so is the information - both should go. ¦ Reisio 01:03, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Reisio, I don't think it's a question of reliability, as the articles in question are well-research and annotated. The question is of notability and spamming. Apparently since our site doesn't yet get x-thousand hits per day that makes the content unworthy. If that is the true standard, then I guess the content must go. I thought it was a helpful addition, but I seem to be outvoted by the admins. As far as I can tell, the content was within policy and guidance, it's just a matter of the source: OmniNerd.com. If it's not notable enough, so be it. I just don't like the idea of blocking useful and valid information based on the web traffic of the source, which seems to be the case here.MarkMcB 02:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From MarkMcB talk page

Baffled

First, wiki is a great idea. I use the site quite often. But what baffles me is the resistence to content additions. I have written a few original article on various aspects of computing. Using these articles as a reference, I added content to wiki pages and then referenced my articles. Apparently that's "linkspam." Fine, whatever. I just think it's sad to delete content because of what you "think" it might be, ESPECIALLY when there is a section on a wiki page that says "needs to be added." Oh well, I guess I'll just be a user and not a contributor. MarkMcB 20:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Take your ball and go home. The rest of us will play by the rules, which preclude self-aggrandizement. Zora 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I love it. The inability to discern between "self-aggrandizement" and a citation to what the editors of the pages call "useful information." MarkMcB 00:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Blanking

Please do not delete valid article content. This is basically vandalism if it isn't being removed because of the merit of the content itself. Dmcdevit·t 22:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, you deleted the reference so I deleted the content I added. If you're not up for academic references just because I own the site that is the reference, don't get upset when I delete my content. You're right, random deletes are vandalism, which you started. I was merely cleaning up your mess.MarkMcB 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have copied this conversation to the sub-page set up specifically for this purpose so a decision can be made. Please continue there. Uriah923 05:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please allow me to help

Mark, as a non-admin, and somewhat of a new user myself I completely understand where you might have felt wronged. The main issues here, as I see them, are that your site, OmniNerd, was not deemed notable enough (based on a written Wikipedia guideline which factors in Alexa ranking and Google hits [called a "Google test"]). In addition, the article, written by two of the site's creators, can, and usually will be seen as "vanity"—you are writing an article on something you created. Sadly, "quality" of the site has no reflection on notability, and I urge you to recreate it once it reaches a level of necissity. Your "link spam" as it is called, meant that you were linking articles to your own site, that, as decided on your VfD, was not notable enough for its own article. Spam, as it's called means that you continually linked to your site in several different articles, a seemingly obvious ploy for more traffic. My first article, a joke, was deleted, leaving me feeling quite saddened and betrayed. I quickly realized that I had made a mistake, and am now somewhat of an active user. And I encourage you to do so as well, we need as many good people as we can get. Thanks a lot, -Sunglasses at night 01:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm slowly learning the numbers game that somehow equates to quality. That's ok though, I'm sure one day in the near future OmniNerd will be "notable" enough. My biggest irritation is that they were deleting the citations that the site so clearly asks for in bold on the edit page, yet they were leaving my content. It just seems that if they're going to delete the citation, they should delete the cited content as well. It's particularly odd to me because one user on OmniNerd has been published and has a book on the shelves of your local Borders or Barnes and Noble, yet because he writes for OmniNerd as well, his content is somehow unworthy. Another user is about to have the content of an OmniNerd article published in a computer science book, but again, it's not good enough for wiki. I guess I should just be glad that I have OmniNerd and am capable of judging content for its value, not the number of hits it gets per day. So again, thanks for the kind approach. Your advice is appreciated.MarkMcB 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what Mysekurity says and am trying not to sound unnecessarily harsh to you (though your messages on my talk page seem to be getting more hostile each time). So let me try this again. But first, let me tell you that this has nothing to do with admins. I am an admin, yes, but I, like others, am only using my normal editorial discretion. Now, I never said that any of the information you contributed was wrong, or that it needed to be removed, quite the opposite. All I dispute is that the OmniNerd reference is reliable enough to go in our encyclopedia. The reason I looked up the stats on Alexa was not because there is some numbers game going on, but just because I wanted to get an idea of how widely read it is (which somewhat correlates to how reliable it is). You are fond of referring to Wikipedia:Cite sources, but please reread the actual policy there. "Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources for their information." Now read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly the online sources section. I do not believe Omninerds is reliable, and so, even if was used, it would hurt Wikipedia's credibility to use it. That also doesn't mean I think Omninerds is wrong. Just that I can't rely on it to be right because it hasn't been independently verified to be so. Well known online sources like New York Times and PBS are. That is why I don't want a reference to OmniNerd on the articles. I do encourage you to continue to contribute, however. Dmcdevit·t 02:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I seemed hostile. It wasn't my intention, just being a little sarcastic. I somewhat follow what you're saying, but here's my disconnect. You're stating (A) the paraphrasing on wiki, which is less than the article on OmniNerd, is good enough to stay, and (B) OmniNerd is not good enough to cite. I don't follow. You if A is good enough, then why isn't B? The link wasn't to the OmniNerd homepage, but rather was to the article from which the information was extracted. I could understand if you were saying A was poor quality and seemed unreliable so you checked B and confirmed, but you seem to be saying that A (the known lesser) is ok, yet somehow B is not. I just don't follow. I never cited the OmniNerd site, I cited the article with more detailed information. This is why it seems like a numbers game. You're telling me that you can cite the NYT, but newspapers are known to slant stories, often intentionally. Why then would you be unwilling to cite an article, regardless of the site it's on, if it's correct and well-annotated? It's just confusing to me. Like I said before, I'm not concerned with the deletion. If you want to rid wiki of my work, that's completely ok with me. My concern is with your method. It seems very contradictory. If you don't like my source, then why would you like my contribution to wiki? If B is bad, wouldn't it follow that A is too and should be deleted? MarkMcB 02:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I said the website is unreliable, but I never said it was poor quality or wrong. What I'm trying to say is that the quality doesn't matter and has no bearing on te reliability. Consider for a second that it doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong. I could write the most brilliant prose in my diary every night. It could be better than any other resource. It is accurate. But it is not reliable. What I mean by that is that others who are not knowledgeable on the topics it contains and would use it as a resource don't have any way of knowing if it is accurate or not. It is unreliable it that aspect: not that it is necessarily wrong, but that it is not well-known enough for it's accuracy to be knowable. OmniNerd is the same way. It just as easily could be perfect, but I can't verify that and so it's still no use to me. So if I assume good faith on your part that all of the information added was accurate, than of course I want the information to stay. But that still doesn't make the website (which could be absolutely accurate) reliable to the outsider. You say that newspapers are known to be biased, but (if we accept that) it would still be possible to use a well-known newspaper with a well-known bias, because that bias could be taken into account when analyzing it's usefulness. Please tell me you see what I mean. Dmcdevit·t 03:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

First, though I disagree with you, thanks for keeping up this discussion as you could have just as easily ignored me, I appreciate it. I understand that OmniNerd isn't notable/reliable/whatever-you-want-call-it. It's a fairly new site that's trying to be a major player on the Internet. I understand that this won't occur overnight. I understand that you see "OmniNerd" and think, "what the heck is that?" That's all great and good. My concern is that I think the resolution should be one of two things: acceptance of content and citations, or rejection of content and citations. In every academic paper I've ever written for research or in college, I've always had to back my claims. The general line of thinking was that if you didn't come up with it on your own, tell everyone where you did. That's what is done on OmniNerd. All articles have references on the site stating where various information came from. We've gotten submissions in the past that have been tossed out because the author would not cite his/her information. I think that's a good practice. But now on Wiki I'm being told that I can post information and give absolutely no information regarding its source. I think that's terrible practice. Why should a reader believe anything I provide Wiki if that user cannot find the information's source? It would be great if a user looked at the OmniNerd citation, decided he/she could find a better source, tweaked my text and then provided the better reference. Then all future users and myself would benefit from the maturing sources. But as it is there are no sources for the information I've provided and I think that's bad. It's bad because it leaves the user with a dead end, and because if my information isn't entirely correct someone may assume that it is. So my point is that if OmniNerd truly is unreliable, then it's content is too. If you don't want one, then don't take the other. If you do take content from the site, at least tell people where it came from so they can decide whether or not more research needs to be done. It's all part of the academic process. I've never turned in an academic paper and been told "delete note 43 because that source is unreliable." Rather, the fact that it is unreliable lets the reader know that this particular claim may need further validation. So yes, I see what you mean, but please tell me you understand why I think the link between text and citations is so important. Please tell me you understand that my intentions aren't spam, arrogance, or any other self-serving reason. I love the spread of information. If I didn't I would spend all of my time creating a site called OmniNerd and attempting to transfer the best of that site into the gaps on Wiki so that others may benefit. I simply think claims should be founded in something.MarkMcB 03:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Resolution

All those who have familiarized themselves with this dispute, please weigh in here.

---

Just to throw a two cents in - I see Mark's point though. If we are to cite sources, then if the information added comes from OmniNerd and nowhere else, then one of two things should happen:

1. OmniNerd needs to be cited as the source.
2. OmniNerd is not reliable, therefore the information is not reliable, and the information should be excised.

I'm not sure there's a middle ground here that isn't logically contradictory. Of course, if the information can be primarily derived from elsewhere, let's do that (i.e. if OmniNerd is merely a secondary source). But the non-notability of OmniNerd is not an issue if the quality of the information is considered good enough to include. And if the quality is not good enough, then I don't see why it should be included. To state the blatantly obvious: the point of providing footnotes, or references, or sources is so that readers and verify for themselves that the information is indeed accurate.

I am also uncertain that OmniNerd necessarily qualifies as linkspam. It does not seem to be advert-based (or maybe that's my ultra efficient Adblocker working) or a commercial site. If the link leads to an article that provides more information, and is useful, I don't see why it should be barred, unless there's something more fundamental I'm missing here.

What it boils down to is simply this - either OmniNerd is a good enough source, therefore it should be linked, or it isn't, and the information that it provided towards the article should be gotten rid of. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

khaos, you don't have to have ads or be commercial to commit linkspam. I have a discussion site for members of my faith I would like to link to from the appropriate Wikipedia article. I refuse to do so, because that would be self-promotion of my site. It would be spam. I am way too close to the issue to make an honest judgment about the value of my site to readers of the article.

And I have no qualms about expecting other people to hold to the same standard of behavior. In general, people just should not link to their own sites. There might be some exceptions to this, but they rapidly vanish when people go around adding links to their site to dozens of articles. You know, it doesn't even have to be your own site. If a member at my website jumped on to Wikipedia and tried to link it from every article he thought was even remotely related, I would be deeply embarrassed and fully support removal of the linkspam. IMO, Wikipedia needs to recognize site-promoters for what they are: people who are more interested in the promotion of some other site than they are about the good of Wikipedia. As such, their desires by definition have no bearing on the goals of this site.

I do agree with you that the remaining information needs to either be 1) recognized as something mind-numbingly obvious, 2) sourced to a site other than omninerd, or 3) removed. But it doesn't need to be removed simply on the say-so of the omninerd people. Jdavidb 06:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm one of the Omninerd linkspam removers. In fact, I'm a serial linkspam remover! <evil overlord chuckling> As far as I'm concerned, it's linkspam whether it's commercial or not and whether it's well-intentioned or not. Editors should have the modesty not to link their own sites, as they are not the best judges of whether or not the sites are notable or useful. I'm the webmaster for my Zen group's site and I'm just sitting on my typing fingers waiting for someone else to add it. If no one else thinks it's useful, it's not useful.

I've been running into the Omninerd linkspam on various Islamic articles and I've never seen Uriah add anything that wasn't "common knowledge" for people who read academic literature re Islam. It's the kind of stuff you don't need to source or cite because everybody knows who the Abbasids were, or what zakat is. The man on the street may not know, but anyone who's had a few college courses on the subject does. If the linkspammers go round taking things out, I can darn well rephrase them and put them back without having to cite anything. Zora 07:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not linking to your own site is fair enough, but if another editor, unaffiliated with OmniNerd say, takes it upon themselves to add that link, would that be permissible? I'm not going to do it myself, since I have no particular interest in these articles, so my judgement on this would be uninformed, but that seems to me a possible way out.

Hypotheticals aside, perhaps the next step should be having someone go through the OmniNerd additions to the article(s) and see which of the 3 solutions outlined applies. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is figuring out who is unaffiliated with Omninerd. Given the ease with which people can edit from anon IPs, or create sockpuppets, we have to infer affiliation from edit patterns. Frankly, after a site has been persistently linkspammed, I assume that any anon IP or new user adding the site is just the linkspammer under a new guise. I'd only let the link alone IF the editor adding it were someone with a track record of sensible edits and willing to defend his/her choice to link. I don't think that any such editor will come forward, myself. If I wanted to use something from Omninerd, frex, I wouldn't trust it until I'd checked the article references and then I'd use THOSE references in my edits. Zora 07:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Zora. BrandonYusufToropov 10:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No article

If OmniNerd [2] is so notable, why is there no artcile on it? Andy Mabbett 06:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)