Talk:Studio monitor

External directory link

Hello, I added this link http://directory.proaudioguide.com/directory/index.php?s1=1&s2=400&s3=50 which was deleted by Kmccoy as Spam. The link follows the external link guidelines and is meant as a useful addition to the subject, in fact it is directly related namely to studio monitors. Imho links directly to single manufacturers are more spam suspicious and less helpful. What do you think? I have also added a similar link for mixing consoles which was also deleted. If you look at the external link list there, it is hard for me to understand what is seen as relevant to a subject and what not. I am looking forward to your views on this.

Audioholic 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since your only contributions upon joining the project were to add links to this directory, it gives a strong impression of your being involved with this directory and trying to drive traffic to your site. My suggestion to you is that you contribute to the project for a while and show that your interest is in improving the articles about sound equipment, then if you are unaffiliated with directory.proaudioguide.com, add the links back in a few months. If you are indeed affiliated with that site, you should not add the links back at all, but rather mention them on the talk page and allow other editors to decide if they merit inclusion in the article. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever click on one of the four links I added? Should not the quality of an edit or addition count? Are you saying that one has to spend some months contributing to Wikipedia before he is allowed to add three highly relevant links and update another one? Do you really see enough reason to suspect me of being involved with that site from four links? If I know someone working for the publisher, am I involved? If I just think the site is very good and helpful, am I involved than? I really think that content quality should be the prime issue in Wikipedia. I ask you again to reconsider your reverts and would be happy to receive any comments from other editors. Thanks! Audioholic 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I clicked on at least one of the links before I reverted them, and I eventually looked at the others. I'm not saying there are any rules for what editing you must do before you may insert links, or even if you must do any at all. I'm just saying that it's easy to see your first four edits and think "spam". A way to avoid that perception would be to make contributions that are not simply additions of links, but rather contributions to articles. As you say, "content quality should be the prime issue in Wikipedia". I place a couple of other issues right up there as well, like making sure that our content is free, but I don't disagree with you. But Wikipedia isn't a collection of links, and I believe that the harm to the project by allowing links to remain when they appear to be spam added by someone whose only contribution is to add them is greater than the harm caused by not adding those links for a little while. I don't know if you're involved with that site or not. Are you? kmccoy (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I involved? I have already commented on this. You seem to refuse to have a discussion about the content quality of the edits I made. To me this appears to be the opposite of constructive, it is destructive. I do not have the time nor the will to have unfruitful debates like the one we are having, and it will cause me to stop contributing to Wikipedia if this is what I have to expect. This way you won't get experienced professionals to contribute valuable knowledge.
"A way to avoid that perception..." would be to be less paranoid. If you do not have the experience or knowledge to judge over content quality, than you should should not aggressively revert edits. If you have a suspect like in this case you can mention it on the talk page and get more opinions. This would be constructive. Audioholic 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have become very personal to you. I certainly don't mean any ill will towards you. If you don't have the time nor the will to discuss this matter, then I'd suggest making other contributions to the encyclopedia and letting other editors re-add those links if they're seen as important to the articles. I would very much like to see you continue contributing to Wikipedia, especially in the field of professional sound. However, I believe my reverts were entirely proper, considering that your only contributions were to add links to a commercial web site. Unfortunately, the amount of spam hitting the project is always on the increase, and reversion of edits like this from a new user isn't paranoia, it's a necessity. Check out this advice on why you set off my "radar." Discussion of every spam rollback on talk pages isn't practical. With regard to the "content quality", as you like to say, the links in this case are of medium value. Linking to a directory of manufacturers is sometimes a nice alternative to including such a list in the article, but linking to an open directory is nicer than linking to a commercial web site. The specific manufacturers that ProAudioGuide chooses to feature at the top of its lists seem odd -- my guess is that they're either chosen by which companies have submitted further info or have paid as sponsors. Either way, it makes the site feel a little odd to me. I look forward to seeing your contributions to articles in the audio field! kmccoy (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place where this can be discussed with more people? I really would like to get more opinions from other Wikipedians. Audioholic 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened across this article and saw this discussion thread. I have no vested interest in any part of this article or the audio industry, other than to be informed. As I read this, it seems to me that Kmccoy has some valid concerns. ProAudioGuide is not an objective source, as it clearly gives prominence to certain vendors above others based on some kind of advertising methodology. Also, Audioholic seems to be avoiding the question as to whether he is involved with the site. When asked point-blank by Kmccoy if he is involved, he neither affirms nor denies his association, responding that he has already "commented" on that, which is not an answer. To me this is very suspicious. He also apparently is very angry at having his opinion questioned, another sign that Kmccoy has nailed the situation perfectly. But personal defensiveness isn't really relevant. What matters is whether the link is appropriate. In my opinion, ProAudioGuide is as objective as any advertising supported publication which sells prominence to those who pay for it. In other words, not very objective. (However, I do see why a person associated with the site would want it referenced by a Wikipedia article, as it would increase traffic to the site.) 70.88.254.65 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)