User talk:Jdevalk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] RE: external links

Hi Joost,

When you run into sketchy looking links, there's several ways you can handle them. First, you can compare them against the criteria for inclusion/exclusion at WP:EL (Wikipedia's external links guidelines). If you're still uncertain, you can mention the link on the article's talk page and wait for other editors to take a look and make an evaluation. Be aware that if an article is being frequented solely by those who have a vested interest in a topic, you may only get one point of view. You can also list the link and the article containing the link on the talk page of WikiProject Spam as many of us do. There you can get opinions on links from those of us who are dedicated to sifting out the spam links from the legit ones. Lastly, you can simply leave a message for one of us directly.

It's not very difficult to get the hang of which types of links are inappropriate. Generally we want links that contain specific information that pertains to the article topic - information that for one reason or another cannot be incorporated into the article. We try to avoid general site links. For example, an article about bubblegum should not try to list all bubblegum manufacturers (unless it is specifically a list article). However if say the original manufacturer of bubblegum has a lengthy and informative history of bubblegum on their site, then that might be an appropriate link. Even then, however, most times this sort of information should be used as a citation rather than a "bare link". A good article requires few or even no bare links, but rather cites its content from reliable sources. I think of bare external links as the top portion of the food pyramid - sometimes they're nice to have, but almost never required. The question I generally ask myself when evaluating links is "does this link add specific information to the article, or is it the beginning of a link directory?"

I hope this long rant is helpful. Let me know if you have any further questions or need any guidance. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to look them over (as time permits, of course). If there's any particular edit you'd like me to look at just leave me another message. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup those can go (at least the ones in articles - talk pages are less important as they're usually talking about the link there). Good start! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WT:WPSPAM

Joost, I very much appreciate your participation and viewpoints, given your professional background in SEO

SEO is not necessarily a "bad thing" -- I've read some of the books and try to apply many of the techniques to my own company's web site and blog. I'm also fascinated by the cleverness of some of the black hat stuff, although I find it parasitic at best from an ethical viewpoint.

I hope you'll keep chiming in despite being surrounded by so many of us "link-nazis". If you have a reading list that would help us do a better job on spamming, I think some of us would be very interested.

A. B.