User talk:BenjaminBrock: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Boxford: re sources |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I agree, inclusion of local businesses can lead to abuse, but Ponix clearly isn't benefiting in any of the ways you're suggesting: it's an independent research firm, and it isn't a virtual storefront. In terms of gaining prominence through abuse, Wikipedia includes code so that references don't give websites "Google search points" for precisely this reason, so Ponix isn't gaining anything on that front either. In terms of secondary sources, what exactly would you be satisfied with? ([[User talk:Xiii1408#top|talk]]) 16:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
I agree, inclusion of local businesses can lead to abuse, but Ponix clearly isn't benefiting in any of the ways you're suggesting: it's an independent research firm, and it isn't a virtual storefront. In terms of gaining prominence through abuse, Wikipedia includes code so that references don't give websites "Google search points" for precisely this reason, so Ponix isn't gaining anything on that front either. In terms of secondary sources, what exactly would you be satisfied with? ([[User talk:Xiii1408#top|talk]]) 16:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Okay, granting that as a research firm they'd have little to gain in terms of profit--although some folks do believe that an encyclopedic listing does help confer broader credibility--I'd hope that the necessary sources wouldn't be provided to satisfy me. It's about Wiki's guidelines, which require independent reliable sources. [[Special:Contributions/99.137.209.90|99.137.209.90]] ([[User talk:99.137.209.90|talk]]) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:02, 18 October 2011
Boxford
My guess is that nobody in Boxford is suffering unduly if unsourced promotional content is removed. And though your invitation to me to stay out of editing 'your' town's article is interesting, contributors are welcome to make constructive edits and join in dialogue anywhere on Wikipedia. To that end, you're welcome to engage at the Boxford talk page, or at [1]. Thank you, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, perhaps the ice cream parlor's inclusion is unsourced, but Ponix Laboratories' inclusion has a source, along with the town library.[2],[3] Beyond the fact that a facility, industry, firm, or business exists, where does the threshold of notoriety lie within a town?(talk) 16:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Xiii1408
- I don't think there's a problem including town libraries, but local businesses are known to use Wikipedia articles as means of promotion. Primary references--linking to one's own website-- aren't acceptable and don't establish importance, otherwise every virtual storefront could claim prominence. Promotional motives aside, the other point we're talking about is whether local notability merits mention; there, too, reliable sources are necessary, rather than your or my say-so, per the difference between WP:RELIABLE and WP:NOR. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, inclusion of local businesses can lead to abuse, but Ponix clearly isn't benefiting in any of the ways you're suggesting: it's an independent research firm, and it isn't a virtual storefront. In terms of gaining prominence through abuse, Wikipedia includes code so that references don't give websites "Google search points" for precisely this reason, so Ponix isn't gaining anything on that front either. In terms of secondary sources, what exactly would you be satisfied with? (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, granting that as a research firm they'd have little to gain in terms of profit--although some folks do believe that an encyclopedic listing does help confer broader credibility--I'd hope that the necessary sources wouldn't be provided to satisfy me. It's about Wiki's guidelines, which require independent reliable sources. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)