Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Canyoning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-23 Canyoning 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion 1.7 Closure notice

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-23 Canyoning

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Adagio 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Canyoning

Who's involved?

Adagio, 216.66.233.10, 71.118.162.113, possibly others

What's going on?

The two IP addressed users want to add an external link to a company called Alpine Training Services. Others believe their web site contains little relevant information beyond product services and is too focused on a narrow geography. They add a link, someone else removes it, and this repeats several times per day. 216.66.233.10 has even edited other links, sending those to invalid addresses, apparently as part of some sort of rivalry between several external sites. Talk:Canyoning contains additional information if needed.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like an independent mediator to advise if the ATS link is appropriate or not.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Talk:Canyoning is fine

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Perhaps in the future

[edit] Mediator response

I am Geo.plrd. I will be mediating this case.

The link to ATS seems suspicious, exspecially because editor is anon Geo.plrd 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary Assessment

After reviewing the statements made by Adagio, I believe that a compromise is 

needed.

Findings

1- The ATS link seems to be spam

2- There is a external links war in progress

Status: Awaiting Response from anon editors, and response from all parties on compromise. Geo.plrd 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

Compromise Offer 1  1/1 FAILED ( Disagreement by major party )

The ATS link will stay provided that the editing war stops.

Should the editing war continue, the ATS link shall be removed as spam.

All parties type Agree or Disagree, and sign, to indicate your acceptance Geo.plrd 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the editing war should stop. Should the editing war continue, both the ACA and the ATS sites should be removed. I agree to the inclusion of the ATS link. Catamaran4 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Catamaran4

Disagree, see my comments in 'Comments By Others' section.Adagio 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Offer 2 1/0/0

 The ATS and ACA link will stay on two conditions.

1 The editing war stops immediately

2 The ATS and ACA websites have content of value ( This will be determined by the Mediator )

All parties type AGREE or DISAGREE , and sign. Geo.plrd 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE to this offer and your judgement as to the content value of the ATS and ACA sites.Catamaran4 20:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, let's let the RfC continue a little longer to gather more input, though we can revisit this compromise at that time Adagio 15:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

I believe as I have stated at length in the canyoning discussion page,[RE: ATS and ACA site links] that either BOTH the ACA site and the ATS site remain as links or that they are BOTH removed. The issue is the same for both parties. They both have commercial interests, and they both disseminate information. The extent of each of these areas of interest seems to be the bottom line issue. My vote would be that both sites remain listed as links on the canyoneering page. Let the user decide whose site suits their needs.

Catamaran4 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)catamaran4

I agree the link war should stop, but I can not agree to include the ATS link, as it contains very little relevant information beyond selling services/products. I've asked about it in Talk:Canyoning several times, and have seen no response - the ATS link simply doesn't have much info beyond selling services. The ACA link, as I have shown in Talk:Canyoning, includes a wealth of free information helpful to users, such that it doesn't fall under the category of "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" listed in WP:EL. If the ATS link were to add a significant amount of free information, such that it too fell under a different category, I would fully support its inclusion. But the sad fact is that it lacks this information and is simply spam. Additionally, the removal of the ACA link seems to be the work of a single anonymous user, not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Adagio 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The ATS site does have a discussion board and links to canyons and other sources of information. it is there for the taking and the discussion. it may not be as extensive as the ACA site, but that is hardly the issue. I sense that you are arguing that only the most comprehensive site should be allowed, this is not now, nor should it become a discussion of or comparison to the ACA site. The ATS site has many merits and I for one have found it helpful. All of the information contained on both sites can be readily accessed on Google, with the exception of the discussion boards. Do not ignore the fact that the ACA site is there primarily to sell you something. Get your membership money and maybe sell a training course first, then with some navigation you can get public information. Catamaran4 22:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Catamaran4

-- DISAGREE with the compromise

What follows is my POV, which is very external to the whole ATS/ACA conflict. I had no idea that such a conflict was even going on before reading the discussion on the canyoning article. Prior to this discussion, I had never heard of ATS. I have heard a lot about ACA although I'm not a member or in any way affiliated with them, and am personally opposed to ever joining their association or taking a course from them.

After reading the discussion page for several days, browsing through the ATS site, and even noticing that they had done the wiki-world the honor of adding themselves as a seperate entry in wikipedia (Alpine training services soon to be removed as an obvious violation/self-promotion). I am of the opinion that ATS's interest is only in self-promotion and marketing, and their webpage would be of little value to someone not interested in taking a course from them, and of little value to the english speaking world outside of California. On the other hand, I and many other non-ACA members use the ACA's website frequently-- the forums, canyon databases, photo galleries, and intstruction primer. Of course they need revenue to continue operating, and they do want to sell courses, but their WEBSITE provides a lot of free services and information to a large canyoneering audience including those of us who have no intention of ever taking a course from them. In fact, the website itself, immediately draws the user to the aforementioned free forums, galleries, etc. and the services for sale are linked to in a side column. In contrast, basically everything on alpinets.com's home page is about their guide services and training programs. Even the gallery is clearly aimed to sell. If asked by a novice for one useful link about american canyoneering, ACA would likely be it.

The original issue was "should ATS be linked to on the website." Now they're trying to make it "Either link to ATS, or no ACA link or ATS link". What about ACA and no ATS? If we are going to add ATS, why not add canyoneeringusa.com? It is clearly a site meant to sell gear, but offers a valuable online guidebook, free of charge, and lots of links and photo albums that would be considerably useful and interesting to people interested in American canyoneering. Such a site (and there are various others) would be a more comparable situation than ACA vs. ATS.

I would suggest that the moderator look at ACA, and see if it qualifies as a linkable site and not spam. I'm guessing it qualifies, because it provides a variety of valuable services and data for free, and addresses a vast audience (all of North America). The mod has already stated that linking to alpinets.com, as it is currently presented, would be spam, and the compromise would be to merely "make an exception to the rule for ATS, if no one has a problem with it." If ACA qualifies as spam, like canyoneeringusa or ATS or a wide variety of other sites out would would qualify to, then it seems fair that we remove the link to it as well. If it is agreed that it provides numerous informational benefits to the canyoneering public as a whole, leave it, but don't give into using the wiki as another forum for advertising just because very few people in the canyoneering community are actually paying attention to this discussion. I would have trouble believing that someone who seriously is pushing this "ATS or no ACA" thing doesn't either a)have some connection to ATS or b) have something against ACA. - KÆN

Perhaps we should ask for a Request For Comment, to see the opinions of people not part of the canyoning community. Geo.plrd, is this a possibility, or should we wait and see what others add to this discussion first? Adagio 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Well then. Since beginning this discussion my IP address has been banned from the ACA site. hardly the work of a site with intent upon discussion and a free exchange of information. But maybe Adagio will weigh in on that one in a bit. I guess the lesson is, don't mess with the ACA site link or else... So, I am, by default in this discussion, in the ATS corner, not mind you by design, I am not affiliated with them in any way. There is a whole lot more to the ATS site than you give credit for, and a means to an end for people who might want to get involved in some manner. Environmental Action Days, a Film Festival, numerous programs for children and communities. Now, I know that this is not a list of canyons or resources etc...but it is a valuable resource for canyoneers. The website encourages you to contact them and get involved, be proactive. It is, admittedly, not a web-surfers information station. You can interact with ATS commercially, you can buy courses etc...but you are NOT limited to this interaction with ATS. I have found them to be helpful when I called them and asked questions, and I am going to attend their film festival this weekend. My argument is that ATS is a resource for canyoneers in the SW USA and for this reason I would find it continually helpful for them to be listed on the links page. Your argument is that ACA has more stuff on their site therefore we can overlook the fact that they exist to make money. Additionally you imply that ATS has less information on their site therfore we cannot overlook the fact that they exist to make money. Isn't it better to have some options on the links pages rather than limit it? I would never suggest that we link Sports Chalet, or REI or "Your Outdoor Retailer" on the site. Back to you...

I am fine to wait for other discussions before continuing on...

Catamaran4 23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Catamaran4

Catamaran4, I'd rather not continue this discussion if it is your intention to slam me and make incorrect insinuations. I'm not affiliated with the ACA or their web site. If your IP really is banned from that site, I had absolutely nothing to do with it, and I ask that you kindly refrain from your accusation that I am somehow connected to this 'consiparacy'. I'm not even sure the ACA is aware that this discussion is going on, let alone that they banned you because of your part in it. I have not been in communication with any ACA member or affiliate in months, if not longer, that I am aware of.

I recommend a Request For Comment. I don't believe that Catamaran4 is being reasonable in a constructive way. It appears he'd rather slam me and act like this is all a conspiracy against him and the ATS. All I want is a useful list of links on the canyoning page, not spam. I'd rather see this discussion handled by those who aren't affiliated with or customers of ATS from this point on, hence my recommendation. If non-biased wikipedians (preferably non-canyoners) can resolve the situation, I will be ok with their decision. Is this a good idea, Geo.plrd, or do you have another suggestion? I think we're at a stalemate here. Adagio 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there Adagio, that is certainly ramping up the tension a bit. Lets remember to not escalate this into a fight, rather talk this into a resolution. You have some strong accusations based on your assumptions of my opinions. So here are my opinions so that we can return to a civil discussion. There is no conspiracy. I had a plausible correlation to your responses and activity on the ACA site. You deny involvement, that is enough for me. I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to slam you. Not my intention, I wanted you to comment on it not feel threatened by it. You have stated that you want to see this discussion handled by those who are not affiliated with or customers of ATS...well, I fit that bill nicely, being neither affiliated with nor a customer of ATS. I am trying to make a point as to why we should keep ATS (and others like it if they are out there) linked to the Wiki site, because I feel it makes a contribution despite being a commercial site. Users can vote with their fingers and click thru or not. With that said, I feel like we would all benefit from some commentary by other wikipedians and to agree with Adagio, non-canyoneers if possible. Catamaran4 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi there,

I'm the president of ATS and for the last seven years, I have had to bear witness to an ongoing dispute between ATS and the ACA. ATS has been under constant attack by the ACA since the inception of our canyoneering programs in 1999. I would like to take a quick moment to apologize to the canyoneering community for a challenged relationship that has spilled into the cooperative free-content website that is Wikipedia.

ATS has never removed the ACA's listings from any website including Wikipedia. We have however, engaged in a campaign of re-instating our claims to the issue.

The success of our company is not dependant upon our Wikipedia listing.

Our website is and will continue to be a valuable resource of both free and pay type services internationally.

In light of this fact, we wish the topic of canyoneering well on this site and believe that not only does ATS deserve the right to have a presence here but the inclusion of ATS on Wikipedia will create a valuable addition to available reading material regarding the history of canyoneering in the United States. This fact will do nothing but reinforce the successful and honorable design of Wikipedia's ability to serve the public!

For the record, within the last twenty-four hours, the ACA administrator has banned the ATS IP addresses from the ACA website - a professional canyon association claiming to have the power to accredit and certify has banned a commercial canyon school from access to their site.

We trust the right decision will be made and appreciate the time and energy that everyone has devoted to the topic thus far. Regardless of the decision by the mediator, we know ATS will continue to grow and be successful. Thanks.

Retracting earlier comments, because it is not worth it to discuss this anymore. Any ACA/ATS feud is immaterial in this situation, what is important here is the quality of the canyoning article. I have created a request for comments from the wikipedia community regarding this issue, and I will happily follow their consensus. If none is reached, I will create a survey and consider those results. Until that time, my part of this discussion is finished. My thanks to User:Geo.plrd, and I apologize if we have wasted your time. Adagio 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Under guides ACA recomends guides and schools but not ATS. Several months ago I wanted to take a canyoneering course in Zion and search found ATS and Zion Adventure Company. I wrote to ACA to ask for recomendation they said Zion Adventure Company and I took that course. SEarch on ACA forum and you find rude posts from Darren Jeffries. Not a genius to know the ACA has concerns about ATS for safety. They recomend other guides but not ATS. If they banned them they may have other good reasons like the rudeness. Seems odd for ATS to view ACA as competitor. Why dont they apply for acreditation and prove theyre safe or hire a public relations company because this fight on wiki makes them look bad.

-What the anonymous commentor above has stated is misleading. Whereas the ACA has a self-defined 'accreditation' system, that system is by no means recognized as a 'standard'. In fact there is NO STANDARD for canyoneerng anywhere, in any country, period. It is not enough for the ACA to define themselves as the standard accreditation system, can anyone say conflict of interest. OF COURSE they say they have the standard, why would anyone pay that much money to become a member otherwise? I seem to be the only one who has had any experience of ATS directly...(see previous posts), and I was left with an overwhelmingly positive feeling. I admit that it is just one experience but it's the one I had. As for the rude posts from Darren to ACA...what was the other side of that conversation? I find it hard to believe that it was an unprovoked incident, that does not make sense for any business. Did you read Darren's post above??? Seems pretty cordial considering the venom some have been putting forth, especially this last post..."concerns about ATS for safety", not only is this an assumption of what the ACA thinks, you don't even have a context for making this statement except to postulate a guess as to what someone else might think. Your point of view is speculative and is hardly something that should bear any weight in this discussion. This is, after all, a talk about a link being put on an information site. The commentators have all said pretty similar things. That ATS is probably not right for this site and notably that the ACA site is 'only barely' more appropriate and 'not "quite" as commercial'. That in itself is rather telling. Note: In all of my postings, i have not once slandered the ACA nor questioned their safety or method of doing business. I have only stated that they are primarily a business and want to sell services to the public and I questioned if that is appropriate for WP in light of the fact that ATS has been marked as 'spam'.Catamaran4 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, well; Dare I comment. Well, here I am so I guess so. I am a canyoneer and a Wikipedia contributor. I am also an ACA member, and have a commercial canyoneering site CanyoneeringUSA.com which offers a large amount of free information. I have had little interaction with ATS other than a few brief conversations with Darren, the desire to have them as a customer (so far fruitless), and unflatterring-to-Darren emails forwarded to me by friends who have tangled with him.

But allow me to comment as a Wikipedia contributor because that is the valid viewpoint AND, ignoring the blather, rather a clear case. ATS is a business with a website that offers a tiny amount of free information. It does not qualify for inclusion as a link in the Wiki, because it is SPAM. The ACA is a CLUB that, among other things, provides instruction. It is international in scope and is more of an educational institution than a business. From a wiki POV, I consider it a clear YES link, as it is not primarily a commercial enterprise and has a wide-ranging appeal.

I could go on, endlessly, but I think it is of note, that the ATS link is ONLY supported by Catamaran4 and Darren himself; and smacks of self-promotion. Seems like Catamaran4 is holding the Wiki hostage, seeking an exception to the Spam rule (advisement, suggestion); by claiming equivalence to a Club that is quite a different entity. This I consider a violation of the spirit of the Wiki.

Hey, IF ATS wins and their link stays in, can I add some of my business links too? Maybe work an ad or two into the text? (ahem, not serious) Ratagonia 00:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

---

It's surprising to see this dialogue is even taking place. Should the ATS external link be in the canyoneering article? Absolutely not. The link is SPAM; blatant self-promotion posted by the principals of ATS. The controversy didn't start with the external link. Check the article discussion history. It started when ATS principal, Darren Jeffrey, added the following text to the article:

"In the late 1990's, a new method for Canyoning arose along the Western United States. This method incorporated the best elements from the European, South African, Colorado Plateau, and Australian design for canyoning. After improving on the model and originating new technique within the sport, especially focusing on the pyschology associated with a canyon trip, the West Coast Canyoneering Method was born. Originally pioneered by the founder of Alpine Training Services, Darren Jeffrey, the West Coast Canyoneering Method, or WCCM as it is commonly known, has become the preferred method for canyoneering throughout California, Oregon, Arizona, and Hawaii."

He called it "adding to the young history of this new and exciting sport". It's nothing more than BS. Check the Wayback Machine on archive.org. The most recent archive of alpinets.com is February 10, 2005. This so-called West Coast Canyoneering Method didn't even exist on the ATS website (there wasn't much there about canyoneering at all). In fact, they didn't mention WCCM on their site until a couple months ago. One of their arguments for the inclusion of their link has been the unique content provided on their site, especially in reference to WCCM. Yet no one has ever heard of this "preferred method". I've been part of the canyoneering community for nearly 15 years and know many canyoneers throughout the west. The first time anyone mentioned WCCM was when the text above was sent to me by email sometime in April; once from a friend in California and once from someone in Arizona. It is making the rounds among the canyoneering community and the comments about ATS it is generating are not flattering. If WCCM was commonly known anywhere in the U.S., it would have been discussed, dissected and critiqued on the ACA's forums by now.

I don't know all of the details regarding the friction between ATS and the ACA. I do know there was talk a while back about a letter writing campaign to the Forest Service and Sports Chalet to complain about safety and ethics issues specifically related to some bolts placed by ATS. It was the ACA that asked people not to write the letters. They said they were in contact with ATS and confident they could educate and influence the ATS staff to make corrections. It doesn't sound like they were successful, but it seems unlikely that Darren has been under "constant attack" from the ACA. It's more plausable that the ACA expressed concerns about safety and ethics issues and Darren's ego would not allow him to accept any of the input constructively.

Catamaran4 and other ATS principals need to rethink their opinions about standards. There are standards in every discipline and canyoneering is no exception. Standards are normally established by a group of enthusiasts, often through a formal association like the American Mountain Guides Association, American Canyoneering Association, etc. The ACA has done a very good job communicating with other canyoneering associations in Mexico, Europe and Australia to ensure their standards are in line with standards around the world. They have also put together a very experienced, competent staff that add even more credibility to their standards.

I would hate to be an ATS guide in court trying to defend against a liability claim and arguing that there are no standards. The plaintiff's attorney will likely seek someone from the ACA to testify that there are standards and ATS did not adhere to those standards. Especially damaging if the standards were communicated to ATS by the ACA and ATS chose to ignore their advice. It certainly seems that ATS should be doing whatever it can to befriend the ACA, not alienate themselves from it.

---

Thanks 209.33.212.123 for making me a 'principal' of ATS, I'm sure Darren might like an email to that effect if you don't mind. But seriously folks, I am NOT a principal of ATS, related to ATS, working for ATS, neither have I paid ATS one cent for any training or other services. I hope that makes it clearer.

Now, back to the issue. I have heard the feedback from the commentators who are outside of the canyoneering community and from those of you who have posted here and my point remains the same: BOTH ATS AND ACA ARE COMMERCIAL SITES. Why is one banned and one is not. Now the sensible side of this discussion, things that are known:

ACA has free canyoneering information on their site. ATS has little free information on their site. ACA has a forum, ATS has a forum. ACA's forum is much more active. ATS wants to sell you guided trips and other services, ACA wants to sell you memberships and potentially guided services etc. also. ACA is a CORPORATION not a club as one anonymous poster has incorrectly stated. I do not know the status of ATS's business model. Most of the postings here have been attacking the credibility of ATS. It is not evident that any of the people posting has had any direct relations with ATS. If that is true, then the 'going to court' argument is moot as these opinions of ATS are heresay. There are NO set in stone STANDARDS for how to negotiate a canyon (or for that matter a climbing wall, mountain etc) there are only accepted guidelines from many decades of experience. Each problem has a set of 'acceptable' solutions. The ACA is hoping to define standards for their members (and the whole community) based on what they feel is 'the best' way to rig a canyon. The conflict between the ACA and ATS is that ATS espouses a canyoneering method that is equally safe, but outside what the ACA defines as THEIR method. The ACA method is nothing more than an opinion as to what is best. Like picking "Blue Water" ropes as opposed to "Sterling" ropes. This is NOT to say that the ACA method is lacking. This IS to say that the ATS method is also NOT lacking. The ACA has many more members and a seemingly unified voice, however this does not make their opinion correct for everyone. (think about the Y2K elections...) ATS has a right to their opinion and their method. ACA members have a right to their opinion and their method. Regulation is the domain of state and local agencies. NOT not-for-profit corporations. This regulation will be handled by litigation, not by opinion. (ie: Bolts will never be outlawed on the whole, but their use in canyons may be restricted by regulation, but not by the opinion of either the ACA or ATS, though the opinions of ATS/ACA may help decide the regulation.)

So, there are probably many more things to say here, and I am sure that you other posters will have volumes to say about the list above. Let's keep it polite if we can. No more ATS/Darren bashing, no ACA bashing. Opinions vary we all know. I am in the ATS court by default because I asked the original question: If the ACA's commercial site is allowed to stay why not ATS's site? I believe that the ACA is behind the ATS bashing, they have a clear motive. But, this is only my opinion.

Keep it clean boys. Who knows, maybe it'll be me on your brake line sometime in the future.

Catamaran4 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This has really gotten out of hand. Catamaran4 and other ATS principals are doing their best to create a smokescreen to disguise the real issue. This isn't about any real or imagined problems between ATS and the ACA. It is about the appropriateness of a commercial link on Wikipedia. ATS is a FOR-PROFIT COMMERCIAL GUIDE SERVICE, out to make a profit and providing a little bit of information on their website to encourage more visitors so they can sell more courses. They seem to think that if they say the ACA is COMMERCIAL enough times someone will believe it. The ACA is a NON-PROFIT MEMBERSHIP-BASED ASSOCIATION, established to promote safety and ethics in American canyoneering. They disseminate a wealth of free information on their website because educating the public is a substantial part of their mission. Like all organizations, they have bills to pay and like other non-profit organizations, they do things like conduct courses and workshops, sell t-shirts and calendars, accept donations, etc. so they can pay their bills. Nobody faults them for that except the people at ATS.

If Catamaran4 and the other ATS principals care at all about canyoneering, the canyoneering community and Wikipedia, they will set aside their own selfish profit motives and play by the rules.

---

Once again, the smokescreen lies with you my friend. No matter how many times you try and avoid the word CORPORATION you will inevitably get back to the truth of the matter. The ACA is a corporation. The ACA is selling services too. No matter how many times you say Club or Association, it will not change the fact of the matter that the ACA is a commercial entity. Your line about the ACA 'conducting' courses and selling t-shirts only reveals your motive to cloud the issue. The ACA SELLS courses and conducts business in order to further its mission statement. Which, by the way, does not mention education at all, but what it does mention is this: "The primary focus of the ACA is training. We offer technical canyoneering courses for recreational canyoneers to help them become safer and more efficient; certification programs designed to raise the technical and professional standards of canyoneering guides in the U.S. to an international standard..." READ IT CLEARLY, THEY EXIST TO SELL YOU THINGS. What I dont get is why a site that offers information imbedded in a commercial shell is ok. Whether or not that shell is a 501c3 or not, it still has commercial inclinations. Nevermind the ACA site compared to ATS. That discussion is NOT the point. If you wish to offer such sagacious advice then why not name yourself and reveal your connections to the ACA?

Wikipedia should cut off the ACA site until such time that it has an exclusive information-only site that is not imbedded in a commercial shell. Really, quite a lot of the site info on the ACA site could be linked to say...Chris Brennans site: http://www.dankat.com/advents/content.htm, and others like it.

I am disappointed in the volatile nature of the dialog surrounding this issue. No need to get into attack mode on anyone, ACA or ATS. I am unsure about your last statement regarding 'playing by the rules'? What does that mean exactly? I am trying to get a ruling here, and the question is a fair one.

And for the last time, I am not affiliated with ATS. Your false accusations are an attempt to make this look like a guide service war. This is about a link on a free encyclopedia that will do precious little for anyone's business I dare say.

So, 209.33.212.123, can you address the question in a constructive manner and not attack me or any other party whilst doing so? The question is, why should the ACA's site be allowed to stay on WP, given that it has a commercial content, and is not exclusively a free information source? (Now play nice. I am not trying to start a war about the necessity of paying the bills, no one, including me, faults the ACA for running their business). How about a few positive remarks as to why you feel that they should be included.

back to you...

Catamaran4 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Was COMMERCIAL, now CORPORATION. Okay. So what's your point? Virtually every non-profit organization in the U.S. is a corporation. American Mountain Guides Association, American Alpine Club, Access Fund, Mountain Rescue Association, The Mountaineers, American Hiking Society, American Canoe Association, etc. All CORPORATIONS. They all "conduct business" in order to further their mission statements. Check their websites. Many of them sell memberships, solicit donations, conduct courses and workshops. Some have online stores that sell t-shirts, coffee mugs, calendars, books, etc. People buy these things to show their support and help the organizations "conduct business" in order to further their mission statements. Browse through other articles on Wikipedia. Several of the non-profit CORPORATIONS listed above are included in the external links in articles related to their fields.

ATS also offers climbing, backpacking, mountaineering, canoeing and kayaking. Why don't you post external links in some of those articles in Wiki? It would be interesting to see what kind of response you'd get. Post an external link under Canoeing, then argue that the American Canoe Association shouldn't be linked. After all, they offer courses and "conduct business" in order to further their mission statement. Post an article under Mountain Rescue, then argue that the Mountain Rescue Association shouldn't be linked. After all, they offer courses and "conduct business" in order to further their mission statement.

The American Canoe Association and the American Alpine Club each have their very own Wikipedia articles. Everyone knows they are CORPORATIONS that "conduct business" in order to further their mission statements. Go start a protest like this one against those two CORPORATIONS.

You can have the last word, Catamaran4. You're doing a fine job representing ATS. I just want my Wiki back. Pre March 23rd. Pre Darren Jeffrey's grand-standing. Pre ATS spam and self-promotion. Pre ATS vandalism. Pre all this crap.

---

You make good points about the American Canoe Assoc., the American Alpine Club, Mountain guides etc...to tell you the truth I don't know the answer. Maybe the question/issue applies to all of them. I dont know. This may be a place to review the wikipedia rules, maybe there is need of some ammendments that take into consideration the inherent commercial aspects of any site that also provides 'community' service. Or a 'community' site that also does some business? Whatever, hopefully you get the point.

So if there is precedent on WP with these other sites (I have not checked, btw), what does that say about the rules regarding links posting on WP? And presuming there is a 'greater good' being served by a site posting with some commercial content, how does that threshold get determined? Mind you, this is not to confuse the issue, quite possibly the ACA site is in line with these other sites and WP pages. I am not the one to determine that, but it is an interesting question. Catamaran4 17:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closure notice

This article is declared CLOSED due to inactivity. Geo.plrd 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)