Talk:Reseller web hosting

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

I feel an external link to http ://www.resellerguide.com/ would be really helpful in the external links section. Dan told me to post this here to see what the editors thought. ResellerGuide.com is the only site on the internet focused on helping people start web hosting companies and all its articles and news are focused on that point of view. Everything from defining reseller hosting terms, to marketing, to building a business plan, to watching for fraud etc are covered. Benwb 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benwb (talkcontribs) 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That was me that suggested the above. I currently have no opinion myself on its inclusion in the article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Any Update?. --Benwb (talk)
Give it time - sometimes it takes a while to get another set of eyes on an article. There's no rush to "get Wikipedia right" --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
But what am I waiting for? There is a good link I don't understand why it can't be added, its non commercial and has info you can't find anywhere else. What is the point of wikipedia but to provide good information on subjects? This doesn't make any sense. Is there a higher up or someone who has to approve this and they are just really busy and only check this section once a year? Frustrated. --Benwb (talk)
This is why we ask people not to insert links to websites they are affiliated with - they take too personal an interest in having the link here. Just leave the link here, someone will stumble across the article eventually. If you really feel you can't wait any longer, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion for another set of eyes on this. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry its not personal just seems really inefficient. I thought the entire point of a wikipedia was anyone can add info and its community edited. So if I add info or a link that is bad/crap its removed instantly, but if its good and valuable its kept as its helps readers. Am I missing something key? Is wikipedia trying to be more like an encyclopedia with really long review periods before its added permanently? I thought the benifit was anyone can add info and its so dynamic. I'm just unclear what we are waiting for as there doesn't seem to be any authority figure just mass review by users if the info is useful. --Benwb (talk)
There's 2 things that apply here - first, the guidelines that suggest one shouldn't add links to websites that they are affiliated with. If another neutral editor doesn't decide to insert the link, then we can live without it. Wikipedia is in need of more cited content from reliable sources, not more bare external links. There are plenty of good and featured articles that don't have a single non-citational external link. Plain ELs don't really help an article much - thus, there's no rush for us to include them. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Reseller hosting is not an article like one on Zebras, its just a short intro that covers 0.01% of what reseller hosting is. I figured a good idea would to put a link to a site that explains the other 99%. People that are looking up reseller hosting are not like people doing a report on zebras, they are going to need more info then 2 paragraphs as you can write a book on the subject and still barely cover all the twists and tidbits. Does that make sense as I think you are classifying the subject incorrectly as something more simjilar to an entry on an animal or something that doesn't require further reading to understand it fully... --Benwb (talk)
I understand what you're saying, this article definitely is short and could use further information. The idea here, however, is to add that information directly to the article instead of just adding links to further information on the topic. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the time to do that, I do have the time to link to a site that does have the time to write on the subject. From what you are saying the policy is that links to helpful sites should not be added and instead we should just wait for someone to come along and write articles on the massive subject of reseller hosting? I hope I don't seem too jaded and pessimistic but it seems like next I'll be expecting rainbows to fly out my ass :). Could we in the mean time give a link to a site that helps since the article that is so lacking in addressing a subject a book could be written on and then when someone does write a lot more on it just remove the link? Seems like that would be more helpful for someone trying to learn about reseller hosting which I hope is the goal of this... helping people find helpful information? Damn I do sound jaded, I truely hope someone comes along to write on this subject but it seems like in the mean time a link to a site that does the same would be awesome for readers. --Benwb (talk)
Well, you've listed the link at the top of this talk page. Eventually some editor with more time and motivation than both of us have will come around and check it out, and perhaps incorporate information that is missing from the article. When articles are missing information, we really discourage the simple linking to further information and highly encourage adding it here, even if it takes longer. There is no rush - Wikipedia is an ongoing project and it will take time to get it right. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok but this vision of Wikipedia is not something I support and will not take part in, Wikipedia should be about getting quality great info out to people, not just building a traditional closed static encyclopedia. This is the wrong direction and I think with time more of the pedia community will see it. --Benwb (talk)