User talk:Brokerblogger
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
External links to your own blog
[edit]- I just noticed that someone from an anon IP [1] (presumably you) seems to have added multiple links to your site on numerous Wikipedia articles. Please do not continue to do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Jamie, I promise I will "not continue to do so". However, I gathered from the Wikipedia guideline that I posted on your talk page that if I believe a future "page is relevant and informative (I will be very selective), mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." I didn't get a response to what I posted below on your talk page yet, so I'll copy and paste it here:
"I would be glad to do the same kind of lengthy justification for each one of my other links as I did for the one we just discussed. From your #3 answer it says in "Links normally to be avoided: "A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." It would take me some time to do properly, as my above "Comment and Question in response" on FiOS did, but if I have to, I will do it in each "Talk Page". As I said previously, I do my best to be "fair and balanced" in the presentation of my POV in order to be a good advocate for consumers. This addresses the valid "neutrality" issue Wikipedia is justifiably concerned with. However, I vaigly remember reading something in Wikipedia about how almost all content (reliable sources included) have a POV. It is unavoidable for all human beings. The key is the effort put into the neutrality, validity, credibility and fairness/balance of the presentation of POV, in my opinion.
Signing your name
[edit]To sign your name after a talk post, just type four tildes: ~~~~. The Wiki software will autmatically convert it to a signature and timestamp for you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC) By the way, the "Links normally to be avoided" page says: "Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked." Could you point me to the page that has that information. Thanks. (Whoops, I guess it means this page = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_to_link , or is there another page?)"
I truly hope that you believe me when I say that my motives for placing links to some of my blog posts are "selfless" and not "selfish". Again, my blog has no advertising on it, and I do not sell anything except the free education of sometimes ignorant (no shame) consumers. "Buyer Beware" rules on the Internet just like it does off-line. As for my own ego (pride), I realize that I am nothing without God, but everything with Him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brokerblogger (talk • contribs) .
Discussion moved
[edit]I've moved the recent Brokerblogger spam discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Spam to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Brokerblogger.com. That page is much more active in discussing spam issues and policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Shorter Version of my initial discussion before I posted a better quality discussion on Jamie's talk page
[edit]This shorter version was originally posted by me under T-rex's great comment: "External link spam, wihout bots This is a topic that really isn't covered by this policy, but should be. Rather then spam all pages just looking for google ranks, many spamers look for somewhat related articles and then just add their site to the list of external links at the bottom. Granted, about 5% of the time these links are probably appropriate, but the vast majority of the time they are not. Obvouslly the defacto policy is against this, but it would be easier to deal with spammers if we had a section of this page that delt more directly with this situation. any thoughts? --T-rex 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)" My comment was:
"Forgive me for not knowing how to start a new topic, but I'm leaving my comments here as they are potentially appropriate for where they are being placed. I feel that my blog post come under the 5% catagory of "appropriate" external links. I do not have any advertising on my blog, and I'm not selling anything except the free "education" of consumers.
The "Self Published Sources" section of Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Self-published_sources ) under the definition of "Reliable Sources" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_sources ) says: "However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so;..".
I recently had a blog post of mine (FiOS Does Inconspicuous "No Turning Back To DSL" Disclosure Brokerblogger blog post (7/19/06 Updated)" under the "External Links" section of "Verizon FiOS" deleted by someone (would like to know if it can be anyone or has to be an administrator)who evidently did not think it appropriate for some reason. Before I post it again, I want to make sure my thinking on this is not totally biased, because that deleted post was "really worth reporting", since someone else DID so. The someone else is the well know OM Malik (Om was a senior writer for Business 2.0 magazine covering telecom and broadband stories) on his blog "GigaOM". His article is entitled "GigaOM " Verizon FIOS insures future monoply".
Besides OM Malik, right on the Wikipedia "External Links" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Fios#External_links ) part of "Verizon Fios" are 3 links to "Broadband Reports FiOS" which is a very well known forum for discussion, and someone posted a topic for discussion with a link to my blog post on FiOS ( http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/76326 ) which has two long pages of opinions attached to it.
I have done extensive research on the FTC's mandates on "Disclosure", and I am fair and balanced with Verizon in that post of mine that was deleted. As a consumer advocate, I feel it important that other people know that once they agree to FiOS installation, they can't go back to their Verizon DSL service even if they get their money back within the 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee.
Before I repost it, I wanted someone to give me their opinion of my point of view. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brokerblogger (talk • contribs) .
- Brokerblogger, it sounds like you've put a lot of effort into trying to build a good resource for folks in an area where you have a lot of professional experience. But I don't think it's enough for your site to be considered appropriate for Wikipedia. In general we point (or should, we're not as consistent as we might like to be) to sites that already have a significant reputation that lends some authority to the content that's presented. Once your site has more of that I'm sure other editors will add it to appropriate articles. Since your site is currently being removed by editors, it's clear they don't think it has that sort of reputation yet. When the only editors trying to add a link to an article are ones connected with it, the argument that it is considered an authoritative and useful enough source within a particular field is not very compelling.
- It would be great if you would consider using your expertise to help us build up the articles by adding good content to them. We can always use good editors and our goal of building a GFDL encyclopedia is much better served by more content than by more external links. --Siobhan Hansa 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
11/16/06 - Hi, Siobhan Hansa. Thank you for the implied complimentary POV's of "professional experience" and "expertise". As I find the time, I will "build up the articles by adding good content to them.". I will also request a decision from an Administrator on the relevant Wikipedia talk page first, before posting an external link to one of my blog posts. I know that Wikipedia can't be a true "democracy" for many good reasons, but in my buyer-seller-consumer advocate experience, I sometimes can't find the exact same "consumer advocate" POV that I use in my blog posts. I do, however, try to link within my posts to what I consider to be "reliable sources". For example, in my "Seals (device)" link that used to be in the "Metaphorical Use" section (maybe that was the wrong section?), my now deleted link = http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/10/do_you_trust_ce.html has a link within to Ben Edleman's ( http://www.benedelman.org/bio/ ) "Certifications and Site Trustworthiness " which says: "Some sites that are widely regarded as extremely trustworthy present such seals. But those same seals feature prominently on sites that seek to scam users -- whether through spyware infections, spam, or other unsavory practices." Ben's "Adverse Selection in Online "Trust" Certificates" has many valid points." I guess I was hoping that my utilization of Ben's "significant reputation" ( http://www.benedelman.org/media/ ) by linking to him would be enough "authority" to have my post allowed. When I get the time, I will post that POV along with other of my points on the Seals (device) talk page for final judgement by the appropriate Administrator.
I want you to know, though, that I DO agree with your general statement "When the only editors trying to add a link to an article are ones connected with it, the argument that it is considered an authoritative and useful enough source within a particular field is not very compelling." The key words there are "the only editors". I also agree that "more good content" is more important than "more external links", but both can add "substantive value" (depending upon each unique, specific external link). The challenge, as I see it, is for all Administrators to have enough of their great volunteered time to properly evaluate all new External Links. Or (as an alternative), as T-rex said "Granted, about 5% of the time these links are probably appropriate, but the vast majority of the time they are not. Obvouslly the defacto policy is against this, but it would be easier to deal with spammers if we had a section of this page that delt more directly with this situation. any thoughts?" Having a clear, conspicuous, complete, and easily comprehendable "section" on what constitutes an External Link situation that does "provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page", and therefore brings substantive value to Wikipedia, would be helpful and time saving for all, IMO. Brokerblogger 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Spam warning
[edit]You have been made aware of the requirement you not add links to your own sites to Wikipedia articles. And despite the fact you have posted voluminous text to talk pages asking people consider your link appropriate for inclusion, no on did so. to add the link back in without support is spamming. Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. --Siobhan Hansa 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My respose from the "talk:Verizon Fios" page:
"11/22/06 Brokerblogger Comment - Please tell me something I don't already know, and please don't be upset if I quote from the guidelines in Wikipedia. I had already agreed to accept your decision against the external link to my blog post. Besides, I'm not doing all this for me, remember. The only reason that I rehashed it all was your comment about the "Restrictions on linking" being very clear. I disagree, and think it needs a lot of work along with a better section on "Links to be considered". We will have to agree to disagree about that, for sure. One person's POV about "Clearness" can easily differ from another's. But, you probably will disagree with me on that, too. My final points are that just because the "Restrictions on linking" are made more "strongly worded" in their "prohibition" certainly doesn't mean that they are made more "clear". Finally, I thought Jimbo's instructions to his Administrators included the directive to NOT make it "personal". When you say "Turn your energies to something more constructive.", you are implying that my time and effort here to try to help ignorant consumers and improve the content and guidelines of Wikipedia is NOT constructive. For Wikipedia's sake please don't make it "personal" with your responses to anybody. Happy Thanksgiving. Brokerblogger 18:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)"
Brokerblogger and external links to brokerblogger.com
[edit]I just posted this on Talk:Common ethanol fuel mixtures, and I wanted to both make sure that you saw it and that it was available to other editors who reviewed your talk page.
Summary: I think that you are acting in good faith to help Wikipedia, and that you have a lot to add, but there is a definite conflict of interest, and as a result you must be very careful with external links. —Trevyn 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I came here to delete what appeared to be an obvious self-link, but after reviewing Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest, I've decided to let it stand, with minor formatting changes. This is primarily due to the addition of relevant text to the article, and the use of the link as a reference only. I am impressed with both the level of discourse in talk pages shown by Brokerblogger, and his willingness to abide by Wikipedia guidelines — both far above the norm for self-linkers, who typically spray a barely-relevant link in the "External Links" section. To avoid trouble in the future, I suggest that you consider your primary goal when performing an edit to be improving Wikipedia. You and I both know that your real goal is to add a link to your site, and it should be obvious how that can upset other Wikipedians. However, if you add actual content to articles, especially with the same high level of detail you apply to talk pages and following Wikipedia policy, it is clear you are also acting in a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. After you add content, it is only natural to cite it, and indeed, this is correct procedure. However, because it is a self-link (again, see WP:COI), I would suggest that the most proper course of action would be to open an entry on the article's talk page, discuss the content edit you just made, and post the citation link on the talk page only. If another editor believes the cite and text you added are relevant, they will cite your page in the main article. The idea here is to put the onus on other people to add your link to the article, as opposed to putting the onus on other people to remove your link. So, you see, with appropriate checks and balances, we can benefit each other. Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia:Administrators are not "final arbiters" of editing decisions, or even all that powerful. Administrators primarily keep order in specific circumstances, and editing decisions essentially come down to the views of individual editors and the community-driven Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which most editors follow. Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a rich and fulfilling experience with Wikipedia! —Trevyn 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
12/1/06 Brokerblogger response - First, Trevyn, thank you for taking the time to evaluate a unique situation in Wikipedia. I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia, right now, is being overloaded with real spam that hurts vs. helps Wikipedia. That situation is very time consuming to deal with, so I've realized that the 1% to 5% (guess estimate) of substantive, "added value" content that understandably appears to be "self-promotion" (solely on the basis of the editor contributing his owned material; "self-link") may have to be a matter of a few "babies being thrown out with the bath water". Second, thank you for providing a link to the "Conflict of intrest" page which cuts right to the heart of this matter. I can't believe I had never researched, or been pointed to, that page before! I'm sure that is my fault, as I "skimmed and scanned" the "External Links" section, but omitted close scrutiny of "Advertising and conflicts of interest", because I have no advertising on my blog, so that kind of "COI" is not relevant to me. However, if I may make a humble, constructive suggestion, someone with authority to do so should add a link (in the #1 position, IMO) to that "WP:COI" page in the "Links normally to be avoided" section. That, and the four topic headings above that, are where I focused my attention. In fact, the more you make "WP:COI" conspicuous on any page that can relate to spam the better, IMO.
Here's what I like about "WP:COI". Besides being well done in 3 sections, it says right at the top "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", and "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." ("notability" is subject to POV IMO, though). The best part, for me, is "There is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest. In most cases, the intention of the writer can be deduced from the tone and content of the article." True "intent" is very difficult to determine. Just ask any search engine that wants to improve their search "one box" function by knowing the "intent" of every user for every keyword string, so as to provide the most relevant results, first.
This brings me to my "third" thank you for saying in a civil/diplomatic way "To avoid trouble in the future, I suggest that you consider your primary goal when performing an edit to be improving Wikipedia. You and I both know that your real goal is to add a link to your site, and it should be obvious how that can upset other Wikipedians." You are right about my primary goal (up until now with Wikipedia) not being to improve Wikipedia, as it really was to help ignorant consumers (believe it or not). You are right again in an indirect sort of way that my real goal was to add a link to my site/blog. In order to accomplish my "reason behind the reason" real goal of helping ignorant consumers, I had to add a link to my site/blog. But, I certainly can see how that could upset other Wikipedians, as it definitely provides the appearance of "self-promotion" vs. "help of others".
Fourth, thanks again, for having/using good common sense (and the implied compliment) of saying "..if you add actual content to articles, especially with the same high level of detail you apply to talk pages and following Wikipedia policy, it is clear you are also acting in a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia." I was always acting in good faith to help ignorant consumers, and I will now put Wikipedia first (and justifiably so) when contributing to it in the future by taking your good suggestion about how to add content. I wish I had the time, right now, to do that with my Verizon FiOS content, but other things have to take precedent for now.
So, for now, I just want to say that communication of any kind is an art, as is diplomacy, and you, Trevyn, have mastered both (at least in my situation - big smiley face). Your pointing out that "..Wikipedia:Administrators are not "final arbiters" of editing decisions, or even all that powerful. Administrators primarily keep order in specific circumstances, and editing decisions essentially come down to the views of individual editors and the community-driven Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which most editors follow." really helps me and other new contributors avoid the possible mispercetion of Abuse of power, as the reality of that "negative side" of human nature can create "a potential for alienation of contributors". Cheers. Brokerblogger 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Concerns about your addition to Ethanol fuel
[edit]Hi Brokerblogger,
I am concerned about your recent addition of an external link to your blog on the page Ethanol fuel. This link appears to violate both WP:COI and WP:EL which I see from this talk page you are familiar with. I also see that above you told User:SiobhanHansa that "I will also request a decision from an Administrator on the relevant Wikipedia talk page first, before posting an external link to one of my blog posts." which you haven't done in this case, despite that fact that there's a clear conflict of interest. I am going to remove that link and ask that you be more careful in the future in adding links to your blog. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting your blog.
The problem with your link is it violates at least two of the rules in the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and "Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy". I am concerned that it may also violate "Links mainly intended to promote a website."
I would ask that you follow the procedure that you proposed above to discuss links on talk pages before adding them to an article. Thanks, Gwernol 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
12/6/06 response - Hi Gwernol,
I made the wrong assumption that if a link was allowed on one page that it was OK on another relevant page. It won't happen again. Also, I see that the "(1)"link that Trevyn put on the "Common Ethanol fuel mixtures" page has been changed to "citation needed". I've scanned that "citation" page, and I would appreciate help in knowing what kind of citation would be necessary to put the link back in. The bottom line for me proving that my sentence is correct and authoritative is the many hours of research from many contradictory articles that I found that led me to the conclusion that "..not enough scientific tests have been done to determine if E10 is harmful to older cars' fuel systems."
Also, I would appreciate your opinion of my humble suggestion in my "12/1/06 Brokerblogger response" above to Trevyn: "Second, thank you for providing a link to the "Conflict of intrest" page which cuts right to the heart of this matter. I can't believe I had never researched, or been pointed to, that page before! I'm sure that is my fault, as I "skimmed and scanned" the "External Links" section, but omitted close scrutiny of "Advertising and conflicts of interest", because I have no advertising on my blog, so that kind of "COI" is not relevant to me. However, if I may make a humble, constructive suggestion, someone with authority to do so should add a link (in the #1 position, IMO) to that "WP:COI" page in the "Links normally to be avoided" section. That, and the four topic headings above that, are where I focused my attention. In fact, the more you make "WP:COI" conspicuous on any page that can relate to spam the better, IMO.
Thanks. Brokerblogger 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, you should read our policy on original research. What is boils down to is this: an encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge that has been reviewed or vetted. We report what other reliable sources have concluded about a subject and never come to our own conclusions. You wrote that your blog is the result of "the many hours of research from many contradictory articles that I found that led me to the conclusion..." which means it is original research and cannot be included in Wikipedia either directly or as a citation for a sentence in an article. If, for example, the New York Times came to the same conclusion, it could be used as a citation to support the addition. The crucial difference is the NYT is a reliable source and you, for the purposes of Wikipedia, are not.
- The reason why the conflict of interest link is not more prominent in the external links guideline is because it is not the primary objection to external links to be avoided. If you are adding a lot of external links to articles, it would be a good idea to read the entire guideline article rather than just "skimming" it. Its worth noting that as long ago as November 11th. Jamie pointed you to both WP:EL and [{WP:SPAM]], both of which prominently feature links to and descriptions of WP:COI. If you believe these should be even more prominently featured, you can propose a change at Wikipedia_talk:Spam and/or Wikipedia_talk:External_links although these current layout is the result of a long process that has achieved some level of consensus and you may find people who take a contrary view of your porposals. Gwernol 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
1/2/07 = My Final Post on both of my Ethanol Related External Links in Wikipedia
I've been super busy, so forgive my tardy response to your Point Of View above, Gwernol. I decided a while ago that my opinion is that many of Wikipedia's guidelines need to be more specific, clear, complete, and more easily comprehendable. That would provide for less individual and conflicting interpretation by both contributors and administrators. Right now, some "babies" (valid content or external links) have to be thrown out with the "bathwater" (content or external links that are very obvious to ALL to be very harmful to Wikipedia based on more definitive and clearly communicated guidelines). So, since my two main goals were to help people be warned about the fact that more Federal Gov't research/bulletins need to be published about E-10 Ethanol for older (or any year) vehicles, and to help Wikipedia, I've decided not to spend any more of my time trying to justify external links to my Ethanol blog post, or debating my POV with many different, INDIVIDUAL administrators.
I will say quickly, though, that many "reliable sources" think that the N.Y. Times is very biased and therefore "unreliable" as a valid source compared to the Federal Gov't (some could debate how reliable a source the Federal Gov't is!). My "original research" in my blog post brought me to the "conclusion" that there is no definitive and "reliable source, valid conclusion" until the Federal Gov't publishes its findings on the matter. I am, however, not offended at your POV about my blog not being a "reliable source" compared to the N.Y. Times. In fact, I defend your right to have that opinion. It will now be interesting, though, to see if some administrators feel that two external Federal Gov't links that I intend to put on Ethanol related Wikipedia pages that prove, IMO, that there are some dangers to E-10 gasoline, are not "reliable sources" and delete them.
I must say that my feelings on all this agree with Trevyn's when he said above "...editing decisions essentially come down to the views of INDIVIDUAL editors and the community-driven Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which most editors follow." But, how can ALL agree to follow, in the same way, ambiguous (in some cases, IMO) guidelines? I do take intense comfort, though, in the fact that the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, is on record as saying in his 9/06 "Toward a New Compedium of Knowledge (shorter version)" that "...some problems with Wikipedia--problems that continue to this day--emerged." He goes on to say "The community does not enforce its own rules effectively or consistently. Consequently, administrators and ordinary participants alike are able essentially to act abusively with impunity, which begets a never-ending cycle of abuse." It is my opinion that most, if not all, of non-enforcement of "its own rules effectively or consistently" by contributors or administrators could be eliminated with more clear, conspicuous, complete, and comprehendable (to the point of elimination of INDIVIDUAL interpretation) guidelines.
I really do believe that all Wikipedia administrators are well intentioned, and donate a lot of their time to improving Wikipedia. I also believe that all of Larry Sanger's criticism can be effectively dealt with, if the right people put their minds to it. However, I am concerned that Jimmy Whales is spending a lot of his time now on Search Wikia aka "Wikiasari" and Jimmy's new Openserving as noted in ZDNet's "Wikipedia founder shakes up web ad revenue". Happy New Year to all, Brokerblogger. 71.252.232.181 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)