Talk:Temecula, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

i live here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.110.146.8 (talk • contribs) 03:20, May 24, 2006.

[edit] Link

I have restored the "localwineevents.com" link. I might ordinarily have removed it as a spamlink, but it is specifically about an important part of the valley's economy/culture. What tipped in its favor was the website's listing in Wine & Spirits magazine's "Best Websites" section in its Fall 2006 Special Issue (page 16, you can look it up). --Calton | Talk 01:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But that commercial site was added by 66.56.31.46 (talk • contribs) in an apparent attempt to promote it. Wikipedia:External links clearly says that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion, and of course it does not make any exception for websites that get listed in a magazine. Wmahan. 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Note your use of the word "apparent", and also note that I, who re-added the link and am therefore now taking responsibility for it, am not pomoting a damn thing.

...it does not make any exception for websites that get listed in a magazine Nor does it say, "there will be no exceptions to this rule". Which is moot, since the actual guideline says that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content.

• The site is a listing service. Arguably, it's therefore promoting the events listed, but that's stretching the definition into zero-tolerance purity territory.
• The site's advertising is all (or nearly all: maybe there's some corner I missed) Google Ads. Again, unless you're proposing a zero-tolerance purity standard for "objectionable amounts of advertising", in my opinion it's well within guidelines.

Defending against spamlinks is a Good Thing, but let's not get all Fundamentalist against any and all links. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the "apparent" was apt because in my experience, it's not possible to prove any editor's intent on Wikipedia. But I haven't been wrong yet about an editor's intent to promote a website, judging from the emails I've received from website owners after removing their linkspam.

I never accused you of promoting anything, and I don't question your motives. If you had initially added the link, I would have no objection. I take your word for it that the site did appear in the magazine, and that you consider it a good resource. I did not mean to imply that the advertising on the site is the key issue; it has ads but arguably not "objectionable amounts".

My only concern was and is that there is a clear consensus on Wikipedia that promotional addition of links of any kind is off-limits, as reflected at WP:EL. And yes, that's "zero-tolerance purity", as you put it. Suppose we said that it is off-limits to promote your own website on Wikipedia, unless it is really useful or listed in magazine X, Y, or Z. I think that would change the rule from a clear-cut, objective one to a content dispute that linkspammers could quibble over endlessly. And more importantly, I think the quality of Wikipedia articles would suffer significantly. Wmahan. 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I never accused you of promoting anything, Yes you did. The purpose of the links is promotion, you say. I added them and have taken responsibility for them. Connect the dots.

My only concern was and is that there is a clear consensus on Wikipedia that promotional addition of links of any kind is off-limits

So which is it, commercial links or promotional links? Quit moving goalposts. And again, it isn't a promotional link because I'm not promoting a damned thing, your word games aside, and I'm adding the damned things because they are, in fact, useful for the readers of the specific articles.

Perhaps you're unclear on the meaning of the word "promotional"/"promoting". Using your mind-reading skills, you've determined to your satisfaction tht the anon was promoting (i.e.; drumming up business for) the site. Debatable -- maybe they're just really enthusiastic -- but let's grant that. I, who am completely unaffiliated with site except for having once removed one of their links, have examined the links and determined -- I, me, myself -- that some of them have direct application and value to the articles in question and have re-added them because as near as I can judge they do not violate the External Links policies -- a policy which you cite but apparently have not read, since you overlooked the prohibition's explicit wording of sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. In short, I am not promoting a damned thing.

Suppose we said that it is off-limits to promote your own website on Wikipedia, unless it is really useful Yes, let's delete links that are really useful. Free clue: "zero-tolerance" is exactly the same as "zero-intelligence" or "zero-judgment", a way to avoid the hard work of actually have to make a decision about whether something is right or wrong. Fine for middle managers and vice principals looking to avoid responsibility, not so fine for most everything else requiring non-black-and-white choices or things without Bright-line rules. Writing an encyclopedia requires judgment -- of the reliability of data, of the importance of sources, of the ranking of facts -- not the mechanical application of tests, tests which don't seem to have much foundation in the rules and guidelines to begin with. But then, since I'm not promoting a damned thing, I'm arguing against something utterly irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 22:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was clear, from my repeated mention of the policy against promotion, and my stipulation that the site does not contain an objectionable amount of advertising, that the issue is promotion, not commercialism per se. You mention the "exist to sell products or services" and "objectionable amounts of advertising" restrictions, but those are not at issue. A link need not violate every guideline in the "Links to be avoided" section to be objectionable. I think it clearly violates one guideline in particular: Links that are added to promote a site.

It's not as if your readdition of the links was completely unrelated to User:66.56.31.46's spamming; you added the links to the very same articles from which they were removed. My concern, again, is that by allowing some promotional links to remain, you encourage further use of Wikipedia for promotion. From the point of view of someone wanting to promote a website, there is nothing to lose by spamming, and perhaps an editor will deem some of the promotional links relevant enough to remain. In my view, this leads to increasing amounts of spamming in the hope that some of it will stick.

This is a logical argument; reasonable people can disagree about whether it is correct, but calling it "zero-intelligence" or "zero-judgment" is unfair. Your point about using judgment rather than following rules mechanically is well taken. Wmahan. 00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was clear, from my repeated mention of the policy against promotion... Uh huh, which is why you began by saying "But that commercial site..." and have completely ignored my statement of intent.

It's not as if your readdition of the links was completely unrelated to User:66.56.31.46's spamming; you added the links to the very same articles from which they were removed. I would really like to know where you got your nuclear-powered hair-splitter: of course they were readded to the very same articles: that's what "re-add" means. Was there the slightest point to this, as I -- and I'm repeating this for the umpteenth time and hoping it sinks in -- made a judgment, all by myself, all by by my lonesome, completely on my own that they belonged, period/full stop/EOF. I, who added them, am not -- have not, am not intending, am not doing for the purpose of, have no intention of doing, am not doing with malice aforethought -- of promoting a damned thing. Whether the links were added or re-added is completely immaterial, your bizarre worst-case scenario notwithstanding, because I -- me, myself, moi -- am adding them because I -- me, myself, moi -- have judged them relevant. If you're going to continue to call them "promotional" -- as in intent -- you're going to have to do so in the full knowledge that I -- me, myself, moi -- have explicitly declared, avowed, and sworn that my intent -- the intent that counts -- is NOT promotional. If you want, I'll sign a damned notarized statement to that effect, though God knows I'd probably have to make a trip to the US Embassy downtown to do so.

Are we clear on this? When I added them, they no longer were promotional, unless you plan to swap definitions in mid-argument. Or do you have further hair-splitting?

calling it "zero-intelligence" or "zero-judgment" is unfair No, it's completely accurate, since it is PRECISELY the point of having "zero-tolerance" policies, to remove the human factor and make the prohibitions purely mechanical, without having to take personal responsibilty for their implementation. Hence their popularity with school administrators, since it allows (in my opinion) implementation of policies with iron-clad bureaucratic stonewalling built in. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)