User talk:65.162.78.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Could you provide us a reason why are you deleting all the Ars Technica links? --Krystyn Dominik 7 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikibofh 7 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Response:

Quite a few articles have 4 or 5 Ars Technica links. [See Link Spam ] Often, link is irrelevant. It's obvious they're link spamming to drive traffic to their site and improve Google rank. Removing spam is not "vandalism". you'll note there was no change to the actual page about Ars.

  • I think they often have relevant links, so they might be appropriate. Part of the problem is you've gone through so fast we can't actually try to figure out if they are or not. I think, generally, they are a good resource (as example, their prevalence on Slashdot) but perhaps not in all cases. Can you do the following:
  1. Hold off a few so we can go through the edits and figure if they are in fact link spam
  2. Add comments to your edits (ie edit summary) explaining for each edit why you think that's true.
I welcome dialogue on this.
Wikibofh 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
    • (Oh, and by hold off, if you can hold off until Saturday, I'll try to go through them all in the next 1.5 days and go through them. No reason to hold off forever. Oh, and if you can create an account it will be a bit easier for us  :) Wikibofh 8 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)



  • I think Slashdot is a very good example for you to use; I'm glad you brought it up. Slashdot doesn't abuse Wiki by spamming links to their site under every tech-related topic (like Ars appears to be doing).

In many cases, a link to the Wiki-page about Ars would be more appropriate than a link to their site. (and 4 or 5 links on a page is certainly overkill and is obvious search-engine manipulation, i.e. the OS X pages)

[edit] Examination of ARS links:

  • Mac OS X v10.4 - single link to a review of 10.4. Looks good to me
  • Branch predictor - single link to an article about Branch prediction on the pentium 4. Looks good to me.
  • Netflix - single link to the source of the quote. Excellent idea.
  • PlayStation_3 - single link to an explanation of the processor in the PS3.
  • Paper paradigm - two links. I agree with 65.* that the top one should just have the name since it's linked in the bottom.
  • IPod - one link, sourcing the quote. Excellent idea.
  • SCO_v._IBM - one link, in the correct location (Humor) pointing to something humorous.
  • Knoppix - one link to a review of a book about Knoppix hacks. Agree with 65.*
  • REAL ID Act - one link to a discussion. I'd prefer something like ACLU, but this still seems fine.
  • Hybrid_vehicle - one link to article. I have to admit this seems gratituous. Agree with 65.*
  • History_of_the_graphical_user_interface - one external link that looks good. (other internal wikilinks, that I don't think are necessary, but aren't offensive).
  • Thread (computer science) - one external link. Seems fine. I think this whole section could be pared down, but nothing against ARS.

Ok, now I'm kind of tired of this. Here is my summary:

I think that some of the ARS links could go, but I see them generally as well used and relevant to the article they are in. Please try to be more judicious when you remove them from articles.

Wikibofh 8 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)


Here's the page that really "stuck in my craw", so to speak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_history

There are eleven links to Ars on that page. If that's not link spam, I don't know what is.

I added a number of Ars links, perhaps the majority. If you know somewhere that runs such in-depth reviews/articles of things like Mac OS X then please enlighten us. I have no link to Ars except as a reader, you can use Google to check up on me or ask them, if you don't believe me or it really pisses you off that much. AlistairMcMillan 00:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/5/2E/User_talk%7E65.162.78.194.html"