Jump to content

Talk:Big Brother (Australian TV series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Mediation

Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediator. I will be acting in the most neutral way possible to try and resolve this edit war. To start off with, with reference to Wikipedia:External links, please outline your cases as to why the link should stay, or why the link should not stay. I've filled in the first in both. I understand User:WikiDavid is currently blocked, feel free to outline your case to remove and then when he comes back he can make a counter case. - FrancisTyers 13:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick note: Hang 5. I'll install any old CMS software, whip up some appropriate images, and list my site here as well. In fact, I'll make one for every interested editor. Linkspam overload. Geddit? -- Longhair 11:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC) is not particularly helpful. A reading of WP:CIVIL might be in order. Also, props for pointing the user at Wikipedia policies to Barrylb. - FrancisTyers 14:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps my comments were harsh, but they're not far from what's being attempted here for a very long time indeed. We've encountered either WikiDavid, or someone just as insistant on including this link for several months now. At the time of that edit, I was in the middle of a persistent vandal cleanup on a major scale, and perhaps let my temper rise a little. I'll keep myself in check and observe civility. -- Longhair 14:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I know things can get heated sometimes :) - FrancisTyers 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(The lower the rank the more popular)

Unsure how having your site listed by dmoz.org makes it more popular! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDavid (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2006.
Firstly, please don't modify my posts. It is highly rude, if you would like something made more clear, ask me. Secondly, you misinterpret my intentions, The Alexa traffic ranking shows that the site is more popular. Please see the Causes of possible confusion section below. The Google Directory link was an example of what might be included should we take the extreme case option regarding fan sites. - FrancisTyers 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, still new to the wiki thing and learning about it all. Dave 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.
  2. Perhaps a link to all the big brother fan sites could be displayed as at ausbb.atspace.com, does "extreme cases" related to the most popular reality television program in Australia with hundreds of fan sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDavid (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2006.
    Possibly, I would be happy to achieve consensus by linking to a directory rather than a single site. - FrancisTyers 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. insidebigbrother.com also offers a big brother tipping competition which I believe to be great content and fun for big brother fans. Perhaps a link should be added to this section of the site instead of the overall fan site, as other Australian big brother fan sites do not operate such a service. Surely that is worthy of wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDavid (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2006.
    According to Wikipedia policy, it is not the case that this makes it worthy of inclusion in the External links section. I have no idea what tipping involves and I don't think a discussion of it is germane to this issue. - FrancisTyers 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Perhaps it is wrong to call the site a "fan site", as insidebigbrother.com is more of a site with news and current information (and tipping, etc) - its not so much a "fan site". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDavid (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2006.
  5. It is impossible for anyone to say for sure that any site is "better" than another. This comes down to POV. Being around longer does not make a site "better". If one link stays, then I do not think you can remove all other links. If you do not want more than one external link on the wikipage, then we should link to a directory. 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.191.167.40 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 January 2006.

Remove

  1. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.
  2. I agree entirely with "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming." -- WikiDavid has some involvement in the site in question, and has ulterior motives for its' inclusion in this article. Longhair 13:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Response: Yes I do have some involvement in the site, the webmaster is a friend of mine and I help contribute to the site. Dave 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. The Keep Fan Site reason is really a reason to remove because behindbigbrother.com is the major fansite. insidebigbrother.com does not appear to come close. Barrylb 14:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Response: I do agree that behindbigbrother.com is more popular than insidebigbrother.com. Dave 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Firstly I would like to identify myself as the webmaster of behindbigbrother.com. Secondly I would like to comment that insidebigbrother.com was born out of an imitation of my site (with some content being directly copied). See my comment above under "www.insidebigbrother.com" for details. --sebiv 17:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'd like to request that you stay out of this mediation for the meantime. - FrancisTyers 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Response: One could say the format of the website is influenced by the format of the show. One could also assume (taking from your comment) that any new big brother fan site displaying news articles, photos, forums are imitating behindbigbrother.com. I believe this reason should be nulled. Dave 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes of possible confusion

  • Wikipedia is all about free speech and free content.
Please read "What Wikipedia is not". Wikipedia is about building a free encyclopaedia. That is all. - FrancisTyers 13:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the question "How popular is your site?" - that data should not be needed to suffice a link on wikipedia.
Please read "External links": Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.. In discussing which site is the most major it is necessarily to measure which site is most popular.
According to Wikipedia:Notability (websites), a website's popularity or impact can be demonstrated by: 1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention; 2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or 3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better..

Comparison

Taking into account Wikipedia:Notability (websites), it is quite clear that behindbigbrother.com is the more popular site, and as such if there is going to be a single external link to a fan site, this should be it. See below. - FrancisTyers 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

insidebigbrother.com

  1. No
  2. unknown
  3. 2,280,120

behindbigbrother.com

  1. Yes
  2. unknown
  3. 1,498,801

I'm just spelling it out here, in terms of Wikipedia policy. - FrancisTyers 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question. What's the "yes" and "no" comments here about? -- Longhair 03:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Having been the subject of national or international media attention :) Maybe I'm wrong, I thought I read it above, I'll double check. - FrancisTyers 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we are; behindbigbrother.com is notable, period. They've been referenced in the media, and have had relatively high profile clashes with the BB production team themselves. Hell, Mike Goldman has even mentioned them during his late night show. What claim to fame does IBB have? -- Longhair 11:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC) - FrancisTyers 03:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that clears it up. I was unsure what was being agreed to here. Again, thanks. You're doing a fine job. -- Longhair 03:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding number 2 (the number of forum users):

  • forum.behindbigbrother.com - 6068 registered users.
  • www.insidebigbrother.com/forums - 34 "non-blank" registered users

-- Barrylb 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a source for that? - FrancisTyers 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the source is those web addresses. Each site has a memberlist link. Barrylb 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Directory

In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

Please make your cases for or against including a directory as opposed to a single link. I would appreciate it if you kept your comments to your own section. As a note to all concerned, I realise this may be tedious, but please stick with it if we are going to reach consensus. If you think I'm doing a bad job or would like to adjust the way this mediation is running, I am, as always, open to suggestions. - FrancisTyers 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, if we decide on linking to a directory then after this we'll have to decide which directory :) - FrancisTyers 00:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I had another idea, doesn't come from the policy, but feel free to comment on it. - FrancisTyers 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Causes problems such as this one we are currently in. Dave 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Does not offer users the wealth of information that is available on the Internet, but instead gives them tunnel vision to one fan site on the topic. Dave 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Single links can cause "tunnel vision", I agree. Including links to websites filled with Adsense ads is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Tone them down a little, place more emphasis on content, and I may just change my mind. -- Longhair 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. A link to a directory of fan sites (and related sites) could offer users of wikipedia more choice and consequently more information. Dave 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Big Brother is Australia's most popular reality television programme. It is followed closely on the internet by millions of viewers, therefore I believe the viewers should have an accessible list of fan sites, information sites and related. Dave 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. A directory such as the Google directory (DMOZ) is human-edited and therefore a quality list of sites will make it to the list. Dave 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. We are going to have this same problem everytime someone tries to put a link up to an external site. There are 100's of Australian Big Brother sites, so this problem is going to occur quite frequently unless either everyone is allowed to add an external link (not just 1 site) or if we create a directory to link to. 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. A link to a directory would only be justified if there were a number of notable competing fan sites. This is not the case here. The major fansite behindbigbrother.com is miles ahead of anyone else. Barrylb 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. A directory would be a great idea and stop disputes like this one. As someone mentioned above, behindbigbrother.com is miles ahead of anyone else, but it also offers people other websites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.46.157 (talk • contribs) . . This comment is the first edit from this ip. -- Longhair 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. A link to a directory can actually diminish the usefulness of this article as an information resource because the directory will not be an immediately useful resource. Readers will need to wade through a list of sites, possibily without knowing the significance of each one. A link to the major fansite is immediately useful. Barrylb 06:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. You could just link to the google directory that ranks them by page rank, behindbigbrother.com is on top and people can instantly recognise that it is the most popular and visit it - BUT - they can also visit other sites to find different views. Big Brother Fan 10:41pm, 6 January 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.47.249 (talk • contribs) . The above comment is the first edit from this ip. -- Longhair 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like:

  1. If your going to have more than one link, why not have ten? behindbigbrother.com is listed as the first result on the directory page, why does it need to be listed on the wiki page as well? -- Big Brother Fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.47.249 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2006.
My reasoning was that the policy states a link to the most popular site is what should be there, or in extreme cases, a link to a directory. Now, we have some people on the single link side of the debate and some people on the directory side of the dispute. A synthesis of these two sides yields what is in my opinion a reasonable compromise. People can see the most popular fan site immediately and if they want a list they can visit the directory. This isn't my choice to make though, you guys have to reach the consensus, not me :) I'm just trying to help things along :) - FrancisTyers 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, lets have a link to behindbigbrother and a link to google directory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.44.54 (talk • contribs) .
2. I'm happy to accept this idea. Barrylb 16:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a directory OR everyone can list their websites. It is not fair that only one website can be listed. I think the decision is to either list 'all website' or to link to a 'directory'. 22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.100.250.58 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 January 2006.
Hi, you clearly haven't read Wikipedia policy very carefully. Wikipedia is not fair, there is a specific set of guidelines and rules as to what external links should be present. The only external link that should be present is behindbigbrother.com. Allowing a directory is being nice, making a compromise, trying to build consensus. Thanks - FrancisTyers 23:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

From the policy

End of the dispute

Hi, I've added the link to the directory as that seems the most consensus option for now. If anyone is significantly against this, please respond below. If there are no responses within a few days then I will close the case. Many thanks for your help and patience, I know this kind of stuff can be pretty drawn out and testing. I really appreciate your perseverance! :) - FrancisTyers 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i am happy with having a link to the directory also. WikiDave not signed in!. 203.208.88.138 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Francis. Barrylb 06:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem guys :) - FrancisTyers 15:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_(Australian_TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=851590080"