Talk:Electronic publishing

I offer an external link to the article on electronic publishing -- my new website, readersandwritersblog.com. It is a nonprofit site intended to give writers a place to publish their work -- nonfiction, fiction or poetry of any length, published or unpublished -- and to give readers a chance to read that work and, if they choose, to comment on it. Sid Leavitt 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Sid Leavitt

External Links

An editor added a spam warning to the external link list. But if Wikipedia is to have an article on electronic publishing (as I think it should), then surely some links to electronic publishers make sense as exemplars and sources of further information. This is, in fact, the most conventional use of external links in articles about industry sectors. The list as it stands seems reasonable, if incomplete. MarkBernstein 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• As a senior figure in one of the technology vendor companies in question you have a conflict of interest which you should declare. The point of the spam warning is to encourage other editors to have a look and make a neutral judgement. I've restored the warning. andy 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Very recently, you edit-warred to delete the same link on [Hypertext]. As I had just written a COI disclaimed on the Talk page there, and as you raised the identical issue here, I accidentally omitted to repeat it here. It read

"Recent pruning of the external links to Hypertext Fiction included removing links to Eastgate_Systems. I think that's wrong. I'm an employee of Eastgate, but I'm also past program chair of the Hypertext Conference (twice), and I'm program chair of WikiSym 2008, and in this context I'd appreciate extension of assumption of good faith to this discussion. Eastgate has been publishing hypertext fiction since 1990, and its catalog includes the majority of titles discussed in books about literary hypertext, taught in courses on hypertext fiction, and examined in conferences and monographs. I'd prefer links to specific works of hypertext fiction in this place, but understand the desire for a concise list. Concision means trimming the list as much as possible, but not more. (I'd prefer to discuss this by email bernstein@eastgate.com if discussion is necessary) 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)"

Further, all four vendor links connect to wikipedia pages about the vendors. "Wikipedia spam consists of external links. The external links section is haphazard but not wikipedia spam. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Quite possibly so. On the other hand it's not appropriate for a vendor to remove a {{cleanup-spam}} tag. An independent person who knows the subject will eventually come along and have a look at it and may well agree with you that Eastgate should be kept. Or not. IMHO at least a couple of those WP articles about vendors should go as well, but I don't count myself as sufficiently expert to do it. andy (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• I see that one of the vendor articles has been tagged as spammy and that Eastgate itself was afd'd recently. That's how the system is supposed to work. QED. andy (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Eastgate afd was a silly stunt by one admin who had a beef with a writer who we happened to publish. It wasn't close. Stuff like this is a blight on wikipedia. But, in any case, the wikipedia pages ARE wikipedia pages, and so the spam tag cannot be appropriate. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to conventional publishing

I deleted a proposed section comparing electronic to conventional publishing, finding the proposed text read as advocacy (or advertising?) rather than adding to the reader's knowledge. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for standardization of the topic....

Can some sharp eyes tell if the page number for the term of Aspartame is a bold type or not in the following...???

• http://www.pharmacopoeia.co.uk/pdf/2009_index.pdf

--222.64.211.100 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is meaningless. andy (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, have a look at my comment at

• Talk:International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry#IUPAC name vs CAS index name.... about the differences of paper publishing and electronic publishing

--222.64.29.88 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

and
the search results of

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%E3%80%8A%E4%BA%92%E8%81%94%E7%BD%91%E5%87%BA%E7%89%88%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E6%9A%82%E8%A1%8C%E8%A7%84%E5%AE%9A%E3%80%8B+site%3Awww.gapp.gov.cn%2F&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%E3%80%8A%E4%BA%92%E8%81%94%E7%BD%91%E5%87%BA%E7%89%88%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E6%9A%82%E8%A1%8C%E8%A7%84%E5%AE%9A%E3%80%8B&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

--222.64.29.88 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%E3%80%8A%E4%BA%92%E8%81%94%E7%BD%91%E5%87%BA%E7%89%88%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E6%9A%82%E8%A1%8C%E8%A7%84%E5%AE%9A%E3%80%8B+gov.cn&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

See how many website of international cities in China are of genuine dual-language publishing--222.64.29.88 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By looking at the above government pages, I'm not sure whether all the foreign journalists are capable of comprehension of Chinese--222.64.29.88 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You see the function of English version is not equivalent to the one of Chinese which is of search capabilities

• http://www.shanghailaw.gov.cn/fzbEnglish/page/aboutsial.html
• http://www.shanghailaw.gov.cn/fzbChinese/index.jsp

--222.64.29.88 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)