Talk:Put-in-Bay, Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am wondering wether the detailed census data makes sense for a population of 128 (!) people. For example, the 0.78% of the population that are not white, but of two or more races, are made up of one person. Let's hope he has not died yet (or worse, accidentaly made his cross in the wrong place of the census form).

As another example, there are of course not 116 adult males for every 100 adult females, as (tada!) there are no 116 males (adult or not) in the population (and neither are there 100 females).

I strongly suggest to rewrite this in more qualitative terms - any volunteers or anybody strongly opposed? --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Population

As a resident of the island perhaps I may comment on these statistics. On the Island there are 2 separate and distinct areas where the census is taken. We have the village where there are about 128 residents and the township where there are approximately 400.

Each of these areas have their own form of government and tax base. Further adding to the questionable statistics, many residents here are only "part time" residents with summer homes here on the island. The island also has many part time workers who are here only during season and may or may not have been included.

Therefore, it will always be difficult to get an exact count.

[edit] Revert Wars

What is going on with reverting back and forth on this page? I don't see a problem with the external links that he put at the bottom. And guys, be careful or you might get blocked from Wikipedia for violating the Three-revert rule. Cheesycow5 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This has been going on for awhile. The external links that keep getting added and deleted are kind of commercial, but then Put-In-Bay is a touristy place. I could argue for either side, but the strict rules guidelines probably favor the deletionists. I guess it all comes down to a judgement call, and we know how harmonious those can be. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
One of the oft-deleted-and-replaced links has always appeared to be dead to me. After looking at it, it's just broken. I'm fixing it and the misspelled one, too. I'm not joining the inclusionist side, but the links at the center of the issue should be technically correct. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Note that the links that keep spamming are thrown out in several other articles too. See the history and my cleanups of Port Clinton, Ohio, Ottawa County, Ohio, Sandusky, Ohio, Ferry. User masked as several anon ips as well. Edits just to insert/promote links seems the sole motive of the author. These websites (including the pibinfo.com) are not encyclopedic collection nor necessary to provide any info that the article mentions. Further, WP is not a directory of links. And WikiTravel is for folks getting travel information. But, I am new here and respect the judgement of the more senior contributors.RC 23:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hee, hee, don't be too respectful of the seniors around here. Too many bullets - I'm going back to the left margin. Seriously, here's my current thinking.

The three external links:

  1. "Offical (sic) Site" - I don't know what makes it official or offical, but it's very close to completely commercial. It isn't the official Chamber of Commerce site, which is at www.put-in-bay.com, and it isn't a .gov site either. It does have a nice picture of PIB and the Perry monument, though. Still, to me, it's a definite "delete".
  2. "Island History" - a (broken) link from the page above. It's actually a pretty fair history. If it's not a copyvio, I'd say keep it. As a bonus, it links to the page above, so our commercial buddies might be willing to accept keeping only it as a compromise. Or maybe not.
  3. "Tourist travel information" - pretty much what the title says, mostly but not exclusively commercial. It's not as commercial as the first page, but not as non-commercial as the second. It would be helpful to a potential tourist, but as you pointed out that's what WikiTravel is for. I'd say it should go, too.

It really is hard to separate Put-in-Bay from the commerce, since it is a tourist-driven place. It's much the same for Port Clinton, Sandusky and Ottawa County. However, I wasn't aware of the "Ferry" article being subjected to the same treatment. That one's over the line - the world doesn't revolve around South Bass Island, after all.

My straw man for Put-in-Bay would be to leave a fixed "Island History" link, and scratch the other two. I'm interested in your thoughts about such a compromise. If you are favorable, then we can try to sell it to the commercial interests. If you won't buy it, or if they won't, we'll have to pursue something else. Perhaps develop a solid policy about commercial links, rather than a "guideline". Do avoid violating the three-revert rule, though. That one is a solid policy and violations attracts negative attention.

I appreciate your stand here. If we can compromise our way out of this, fine. If not, something will have to be done. I just don't know what and I don't think any of the other "seniors" do either. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and I am going to change it now as per your above comments. Note that the article edits are now repeatedly abused by anonymous ips. Maybe the best bet is to block out the annoying websites from being the ability to be added or linked. RC 17:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we can block links to specific websites with our current software. I think, however, that if the revert war keeps up, we should probably pursue blocking the article or articles. I think by Wikipedia definitions, I'm an involved party, since awhile back I edited the article, and I tried to edit it a few days ago and got reverted. So I can't do it. If we need to, we'll make our case and see if we can lock up the articles for a time. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not just block the specific users that are doing the editing? And make sure they know that what they are doing isn't being liked very much by the Wikipedian population. Cheesycow5 02:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That might be where this is going, but we've got to sell a non-involved admin or a group of admins on what we think needs to be done. That's why I plan to document the whole situation. It's possible that we might not have one person and sockpuppets on the commercial side, but multiple people (including some using anon IP) who are associated with the commercial entity "Putinbay.com LLC". It is also possible that they think they are in the right on this issue, so we shouldn't just label them as vandals and ban them without some justification. There are some "irregularities" in the way they've done things that can be used to make a case against their restoration of the commercial links, I think. But if we can't make a good case, we're stuck with the current situation. Not a pleasant idea.
  • Documenting this will take a little work. I've already got the edit histories from Put-in-Bay and Put-in-Bay, Ohio into Excel worksheets and I'm looking at how the edits have progressed. This is a holiday weekend, and I'm getting over a bad cold, so it might be a few days in coming.
  • This will all become moot if a non-involved admin drops in having done his or her own research on the situation, but that hasn't happened yet and I don't think it's too likely, so I think we'll need to make a case. I'm getting tired watching the reverts, so I know that those making them are getting tired of doing them. I'm hoping we'll get some sort of resolution, soon. Sorry for no easy answers. Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting the Edit War

Ok, this isn't going to end. I'm going to document the 'war' and we'll see how it looks once it's all written down. Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is my take.

The major issue throughout all of this edit war has been commercial link supporters versus those who oppose commercial links in the article.

Major controversial links

www.put-in-bay.com - the official site of the Put-in-Bay Chamber of Commerce, often replaced by other sites. Basically a commercial site, but it's an official commercial site.

www.putinbay.com - a site apparently controlled by an entity called "Putinbay.com LLC". Often substituted for the Chamber of Commerce official site. Little other than commercial information. This is the site that much of the fighting is all about.

www.putinbay.com/history.htm - a sub page of the page above, and part of the commercial "suite" that keeps getting added and deleted, it actually features a pretty good history of Put-in-Bay. Personally, I think it might deserve a link. This link has been broken for much of the edit war and even when fixed, gets reverted to the broken version.

www.pibinfo.com - substituted for some of the www.putinbay.com links in late April, 2005, which were soon reverted. Later part of the commercial "suite" that keeps getting added and deleted. Apparently represents different commercial interests. A commercial booster website.

In a nutshell

The commercial folks want their links displayed. Here's what I think: there are multiple commercial boosters involved, rather than one person with sock puppets. Early on, they appeared to struggle with each other, but now cooperate. They don't always watch carefully what editing has been done, sometimes reverting away fixes to the broken history link they are promoting.

The other side of this issue opposes what they call "link spam". The encyclopedic information to advertising content ratio of the two commercial links is about zero, so this side is motivated to oppose these links.

The positioning within Wikipedia would really help the commercial interests, so they are very motivated. Most Wikipedians would oppose them, so they are rather heavily outnumbered, although Put-in-Bay, Ohio is not a heavily accessed page. This leads to the rather active edit war we've seen in the last few weeks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

As there doesn't seem to be any ongoing dialog here I've unprotected the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Restored to writers orginal content"

To paraphrase Decumanus from a recent revert, "Restored to writers original content" as a justification for a reversion is very unWikilike. He intends to revert these on sight, and I think I'm going to lean in that direction too. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was bold, and added our problem user to Vandalism in Progress, FYI Silas Snider (talk) 00:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
At the very least, it's a 3rr violation. I'm curious if his "auto bot" edit summaries are suggesting that we are bots, or that he is using a bot. (As his summaries aren't exactly consistent, I doubt he is, but if it was, wouldn't that be a violation of WP:BOTS?) -- Norvy (talk) 00:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added him to WP:AN/3RR for the 3RR violation. Hopefully that will help. Silas Snider (talk) 02:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alas, that editor is coming in as an anon from an AOL dialup, so blocking is not much help - they will be using a different address the next time they come in. I have protected the page again instead - since it has had no content changes since the last round of edit wars, I don't see any reason to unprotect it any time soon. If there are any content changes needed, note them here and call for an admin to insert them. Noel (talk) 16:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but that's not the way it should work. If you cannot block someone who should rightfully be blocked, then revert them till doomsday instead. Protecting a page affects all users by raising the bar for edits to a very high standard (compared to regular wiki editing) and should be used as a very last resort. That few changes are expected mitigates it, but is not justification. Administrators can be required to waste a lot more time on Wikipedia than editors. JRM · Talk 09:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

[edit] Islander Point of View

Hi Guys/Gals, Id like to chime in on this discussion. I am the owner/creator of the Put-in-Bay Visitors Guide (www.pibinfo.com) a fairly new website. I understand some of the issues at hand, and that there is a "Wikedia community" that has some standards and guidelines that are pretty much followed to keep Wikedia from being a directory of Links, and I understand why. The situation at hand however may be a little different than some others in that Put-in-Bay is a small community/Island with only a handful of competing websites that provide valuable information for visitors to the island. Speaking from the perspective of an islander, there are several websites that (in my opinion) provide very valuable iformation about Put-in-Bay. The first is the Chamber website, this site was the first website created for Put-in-Bay back in 1996. I actually created it as a class project while finishing my degree at BG, and subsiquentlly passed it onto the Chamber in 1997. Since then it has been one of the top sources of information for visitors to the Island, and I feel should be the Official website. Putinbay.com since its restructuring several years ago, has now become probably the best Put-in-Bay website out there though, and although it is a commercial site and competes with the Chamber site, I feel it should definitely be on your External links list as it provides invaluable information for islanders and visitors alike.(and this is coming from a competitor) The third site, which you already have listed is the Putinbayphotos.com website which really speaks for itself. No where will you find a compilation of photos of the island that is more comprehensive than the one John Rees provides in his Put-in-Bay Photo magazine. The fourth and fifth is the LEIHS site, and Perry Monument site, and the last one I would like to mention is the site I created this past winter - The Put-in-Bay Visitors Guide (www.pibinfo.com) I created the site myself, with the help of an islander friend of mine whos family history goes back to the 1800s. Our main goal with the website is provide another source of information to visitors, with a slant toward family attractions, art and island history - we are not there yet but that is our intention and we will be continually updating the site with that goal in mind. All the sites I've just mentioned, have been created by islanders for visitors, other islanders and the public in general and truley provide valuable information to anyone interested or visting the island. Ive seen the development history of all the sites I've mentioned, and in my opinion these are the sites that best represent Put-in-Bay and if there are any sites that should be listed in the External Links section, these would be the ones I would list. DK

[edit] Blacklist?

Reproduced from above for reference:

Maybe the best bet is to block out the annoying websites from being the ability to be added or linked. RC 17:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can block links to specific websites with our current software.Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears that there is indeed the capability to blacklist spam sites. I'm wondering if this is a big enough problem to request blacklisting the offending urls. I would argue that it is, as the page has been protected twice over the matter. Would there be any downsides to this request? -- Norvy (talk) 18:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Link for Put-in-Bay Photos

A good source for Put-in-Bay features and activities are the 1500+ photos on the web page, <spam link removed>

I removed the spam link from the above comment. The spammers can't even keep from adding their links to each other's comments. Rhobite 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Due to the sterile edit war between competing linkspammers, I have protected this article from editing by new and anonymous users. I have also removed all commercial links from the article. We're not a travel guide. Removing a couple marginally-useful links is a small price to pay to rid the site of this edit war, which has been going on for about a year. Rhobite 05:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I made it full protect just now. Semi protection is not for edit wars nor is it intended to silence anons. It is just to protect vandalism. Besides, their isn't enough for SP anyway. Honestly, it's barely enough for full but I'll leave it be for now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
They're spammers. They're not trying to improve the article, they're trying to make money. I am not "silencing" legitimate contributors. Spam is vandalism. If you'll bother to look through the history you'll see that people have been spamming this article for a year now. Rhobite 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Edits

The person(s) editing/changing discussion comments and doing the real spamming are not the same as ones posting websites in external links section. Changes,spamming and other comments are obviously being made by others just trying to stir things up and create some kind of percieved edit war between the previously mentioned PIB websites and/or Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.83.142 (talk • contribs) .

Do you think we're really stupid here? You posted that comment from 4.159.83.142, which is in the same IP block as the address which altered URLs on this talk page, and spammed the article. You are one of the people modifying comments and spamming links to pibinfo. Rhobite 21:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

as for altering any URLs, I think Putinbayphotos.com is one of the best/most informative PIB websites out there, why would I change it to "www.putinbay.com ? Ive never altered anyones URL in the discussion page or external links section. I have added links to the External links section because I do not see them as spam. - as for altering the discussion comments: below is what I took off the discussion page because it was spam/trash talking: (whatever my IP was) (im the one that wrote "to funny ..." at the end because it amazes me how childish the banter was, and not even worth a response.)

discussion text taken off ----

- Could you please define "islander"? You seem to be trying to send a message that since you are an "islander" you are more qualified to place your sites in this area of wikipedia. Sounds more like a desperate plea to promote your site(s) of preference. Do you live on the island year round, or do you flee after your money has been made like 99.9% of all the other "islanders"? - - Mainlander - - I'm a part time islander. THE MAN SPEAKING ABOVE IS NOT. Islanders have the rights and not you little tourists. You have no word in our island. -

[edit] Spam blacklist

The Wikimedia spam blacklist has been updated to block putinbay, pibinfo, putinbayphotos, and put-in-bayonline. I am very disappointed that this was necessary. The spam blacklist is an absolute last resort. Rhobite 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/t/Talk%7EPut-in-Bay%2C_Ohio_2c69.html"