Talk:Geotagging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Low value links[edit]

This contribution (and the following ones) in which Loki racer repeatedly adds external links to the article is not welcome. Firstly he/she deletes a reference, which is a well written magazine article that discusses a number of products relevant to the subject of the article. Secondly he/she adds several software products with embedded external links. I don't have issues with the products themselves, although Wikipedia is not a directory, but I do object strongly to external links. These are governed by WP:ELNO and in this case simply don't add any value to the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a problem with the article on directionsmag.com either. Right now the links are removed, but I don't see the relevance of this statement: " Examples include GPS-Photo Link, Alta4, EveryTrail, or EasyGPS." either. There are a bunch of other programmes out there as well that could be put in as examples - why these? I think it is better to remove them all together to avoid WP:NOTDIR. --Heb (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree fully and if you want to remove the examples go ahead. I put them in (minus external links) as a compromise because Loki racer seems quite passionate that they should be listed, but ultimately WP:NOTDIR dictates they are redundant/unnecessary. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Biker Biker added talks about one product only, and that product is produced by the writer of the "article". It's also over 2 years old, which is like a decade in technology years. How is this more valuable than actually listing a few of the applications (I only added a link to the freeware software) that actually correspond with what is being talked about. Nothing in the WP:ELNO says that website that offer services or products that do exactly what is being talked about in the article can't be mentioned or linked. The links don't degrade from the article and make it easier for someone unfamiliar with geotagging photos to begin finding applications that can help them. Obviously if each of these applications / services had a Wikipedia page, I would link to those, which would have reference links in the footer, but these applications don't have their own pages and probably never will, so I link directly to the websites. --Loki racer (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the applications you mention do not have articles should be an indication of why they shouldn't also be linked to. Wikipedia is not a directory, so listing a number of applications like you did is unnecessary. As for the magazine article, have you read it beyond the introduction? It seems well written and is balanced, not giving preference to any particular vendor even though it is written by somebody from the industry. I can't see what your objections are. If you can find a suitable category in the DMOZ Open Directory - http://dmoz.org - then you could list that in the article using the {{dmoz}} template in the external links section of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the article? It's written by an employee of the only geotagging application mentioned. It's titled "Camera Options" which has nothing to do with geotagging applications, which is what you have been removing. The article is also over 2 years old. These cameras mentioned aren't even for sale anymore. You keep saying Wikipedia isn't a directory. Says who? There are hundreds of pages that are directories for this; OS pages, modchips, wireless routers, on and on. Keep saying I added the list of applications / services. I listed one, the freeware one, which I did so that people interested in seeing what geotagging application options are available would be aware of a freeware option. Remove them if you want, but they clearly add to the article, while your linked article is either a paid ad by you or you finding a random article to link to. --Loki racer (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So if a person works at company, he/she can't be used as a reliable source for general information in that field? That's not gonna fly. It's not about the specific software (which is only mentioned once or twice I think), but the general principles, which I think the article covers fine. There are probably alternatives that does that as well. Regarding the "Wikipedia isn't a directory" question, it's a policy - and has been for quite some time: WP:NOTDIR. --Heb (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I never said the author wasn't reliable. Please leave your strawman arguments at the door. I said that the article is 2 years old and not relevant to this part of the page. This part of the page is talking about options for people that don't have GPS integrated in their cameras. The linked article that Biker Biker linked to talked about one software (the writer's software) and then moves to talking about camera hardware. You and Biker Biker need to stop being internet trolls. I've shut down every argument you've made for keeping these links and not using Biker Biker's, and instead of admitting that the software I linked to adds value to the article, you move to other arguments. Show me a Wikipedia rule that says relevant software or services that lack their own Wikipedia page can't be linked to or mentioned. --Loki racer (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Having been a regular user of the Internet since 1996, that is in fact the first time anybody has named me a troll. I guess there really is a first for everything... @User:Loki racer, did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't write that the author wasn't reliable. You wrote "It's written by an employee of the only geotagging application mentioned" and the only reason to write that, is that you believe that, that is a disqualifying parameter for a source. If you had another intention with that statement, please bring it forward, and accept my apologies. I doubt you'll find a Wikipedia-rule/-guideline/-policy, that specifically prohibits linking to "relevant software or services that lack their own Wikipedia page", as these are in mostly of a rather general nature. WP:NOTDIR still comes to mind though - did you read that? On a side-note, I find your language slightly agressive and not really respectful and civil mannered. As per the 5 pillars (the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates), this should be strived for along with Wikipedia:Consensus, which I don't feel you are looking much towards either :( V/R Heb (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you drunk? First you claim that I called the article unreliable. Which I didn't. Then you say that I claim you said the article was unreliable. Which I didn't. The article is biased by the fact that it's written by an employee of a geotagging software company. Plus the fact that it's over 2 years old. Plus the fact that it's about hardware not software, which is what the link I recommended is about. So, since there's no rule about linking to applications/software that are relevant to the subject, you can kindly put my links back in. I'm sorry you're sensitive about my language. I don't take kindly to people telling me to check the rules about something, when no said rule exists. --Loki racer (talk) 20:45, 02 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Are you drunk" - please cease personal attacks like this or you will be blocked from further editing. If you want to be taken seriously then behave appropriately. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We have heard your arguments but disagree. As Heb points out, it looks like you have not read WP:NOTDIR and it seems to me that you have not read WP:ELNO. As for your argument about two year old articles - what is wrong with that? It is useful to have a reference that shows what rapidly-chaning technology was like at a specific point in time - and this would be ideally complemented by a recently published source setting out how things are now. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's called a question, not an attack. An attack would be calling someone a tool for quoting rules that don't exist. I'm sorry you disagree, but you Heb already admitted there's no rule saying people can't link to software. You'll block me? Over what? Dude, get a grip. Your talk page history is full of people complaining about your tactics. --Loki racer (talk) 22:39, 02 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misread me a bit. I never wrote that you claimed the article where unreliable nor that I said it was reliable. I merely quetions that just because, the author might or might not have an economical interrest in a given written piece, doesn't mean it can't be used as a unreliable source. The authors affiliation with said company is clearly stated, so I don't think the bias is a problem in regards to WP:IRS. This of course may be discussed on WP:RSN. And for reference wasn't drunk then and isn't now. --Heb (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.69.101 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dangers of geotagging[edit]

Many user of Twitter do not realise the implications of geotagging. (1) In the basic Twitter app the location is only displayed as the town. But Tweets include the geolocation to full resolution. Other apps are available which can show the exact location on a map. (2) Tweets can be followed for a location. So for example all Tweets for the departure lounge of an airport can be followed. Then a selected Tweet's user's previous Tweets can be checked to find the vacationer's home. QuentinUK (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geotagging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)