Talk:PEST analysis

Why were the external links removed? They added to a very sparse article. I recommend going back in history to 11:44, 15 November 2006 Jayhands (Talk | contribs) (→External links). If no one disputes this proposal I'll rv in 24hrs. Trigger happy editors please note: "Another perceived flaw in Wikipedia is the lack of a common understanding on adding external links... many users at Wikipedia feel obliged to remove most external links which are added to articles. This includes the vast majority which are legitimate links to sites that directly relate to the article at hand... This external link paranoia has driven many good editors away from Wikipedia." http://lorenzen.blogspot.com/2004/09/critical-views-of-wikipedia.html Pgrieg 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding back the links except to the 321 books web site. It was cleaning up this excessively linked site which led me here. See Talk:SWOT analysis for related discussion, and please note that the previous editor acknowledges an interest in these links. Please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Notinasnaid 12:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definition of "excessive" in the TOS. There's about thirty links for a site with thousands of pages. These have been added one at a time**, with thought, over many months; years even. Is that excessive? Spammers aim auomated systems at wikipedia and add thousands of links at one time - that's excessive! ** - one exception, see below

The author of the "free online book" on Tesco at 321books.co.uk has no connections with Tesco, so there is no conflict of interest. The tone of the book reflects this. Notinasnaid found part of one article that suggested Tesco might adversely affect Third World Suppliers. Even though it provided references to the literature he attacked it for being "biased". That Notinasnaid should attack this well supported, small section of the article makes me suspect his neutrality. I have agreed with Notinasnaid that I should be more careful in adding links, as I added several in one day. Reading the TOS I see this is REALLY frowned on, and I shall not be doing it again. Take warning folks - discuss any links you want to add or, at least, add one and wait for a reaction before adding another. Any more than one a day and the hob nail boots will come down. Not only will the links you added that day be deleted, all your other links are likely to be as well! Even ones that have been there for months and providing more information than Wikipedia! So I repeat my plea for the reinstatement of ALL links, including the 321books link. Let a thousand flowers bloom!

The conflict of interest comes about when you post links to your own sites/material, and that is what I refer to. The conflict is perceived between keeping Wikipedia as a source of neutral information, and between edging it towards promotion of a particular site. This is why a neutral review of each link in advance, with interests stated, is so strongly recommended. Your comments suggest that you were responsible for all of the 321 books links, currently standing at almost 40, including those unrelated to Tesco. A case could be made for a complete removal of all of them. I will seek advice from disinterested parties. Notinasnaid 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information on my site is pretty neutral. I have no strong feelings for or against Tesco, and I have no particular bias towards any method of SWOT analysis.

This is why a neutral review of each link in advance, with interests stated, is so strongly recommended.

Point take. But I certainly see little evidence for this occuring. If wikipedia want this to happen why don't they set up a procedure to make it so? It shouldn't be too difficult. The reason is, I suggest, that it would drastically cut the number of external links and make wikipedia much less appealing.

Your comments suggest that you were responsible for all of the 321 books links, currently standing at almost 40, including those unrelated to Tesco. A case could be made for a complete removal of all of them. I will seek advice from disinterested parties. Notinasnaid 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add all the links. Whoever added tham, many have remained in place over months. Don't you think those with interests in the subject should decide what stays and what goes?

A further suggestion: as this is evidently a subject you know plenty about, why not use your knowledge to improve the article. How about a worked example about a fictitious company, for example (maintaining neutral point of view, not copying your existing site). There is considerable suspicion, I have to warn you, of the motives of editors whose edits mainly consist of adding external links; some (other) editors revert out of hand in this case. With a track record as an established editor and a few hundred productive edits behind you, your proposals for links might fall on more fertile ground. 13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just yesterday improved the [SWOT analysis] article, which the SCAN expert readily appreciated. I tend to use Wikipedia anonymously and have made many modifications that way. Maybe I should start logging in more often. Though I am less and less inclined to contrubute to Wikipedia because of "out of hand" edits (see the blog link at the start of this discussion).

321 books

I have read the discussion above but have deleted the links to the 321 books page on the grounds that there is more advertising on the page than information. Wikipedia is not here to support other peoples ad campaigns IMHO. Wikikob 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many words of advertising are there? How much content? Obviously a lot more content. The ratio is probably similar to that found on commercial TV stations. Wikipedia is not about persecuting sites that use advertisers. Read the TOS. If you don't have a free market way of looking at the world then please state that up front and not make simple mis-statements of fact.— Pgrieg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Links normally to be avoided- rmvd--Hu12 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Links normally to be avoidedsection is far too ambiguous. Broadcasting authorities lay down strict objective rules on advertising, i.e. so many minutes per hour. Wikipedia needs similar ruiles, e.g. density per page. Ambiguous rules give everybody carte blanche to delete external links for any reason. This is probably why links are disappearing from Wikipedia! To remain flexible and informative wikipedia needs to encourage contact with the outside world. Pgrieg 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links disappearing? Wikipedia is drowning in 8.5 million links increasing daily. Many are inappropriate and we need discipline getting rid of the bad ones. Spam is everywhere. --BozMo talk 12:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And discipline keeping the good ones. It's so easy to hit the delete button, so difficult to review a page objectively. Maybe if they paid the admins they'd do a better job. God knows why they do it. It's like volunteering to be a traffic warden -- the only 'benefit' is that they get to make up their own traffic laws. Oh well, good training for their future careers as petty bureaucrats. :-)— Pgrieg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Request to add External Link

Dear Author,

I request you to visit my analysis on PEST. I have tried to analyze all factors in details. Hope this link will be helpful to readers. Here is the link:

http://www.brainbubbles.biz/PEST-Analysis_Strategic-Management_theory_27.aspx

I am now aware whom to ask to add external link so i am using this page.

Thanks