Talk:Abstract management/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Mediator 1.1 response from geni 2 criteria for links 2.1 Response from Andy 2.2 response from geni

Mediator

I'm the mediator from the mediation cabal responding to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Abstract management

OK lets get started. Generally on these things I like to establish neutrality first.

• I don't work in academia
• I'm not in the conference business in any way shape or form
• I don't ever have to manage abstracts for papers
• I do however know what abstracts are

Andy -

1. Andy you don't have any contributions. I'd like you to identify on this history which IPs are you. I'm assuming 81.138.210.67 is you. However for example there is Kgibson whose only interest is this stuff as well. Is that another account of yours?
2. I'd like you indicate why you think those links are justified in terms of WP:EL.
3. Do you have an objection to creating an external list of abstract management companies (say on open directory) and then linking to that?

Geni -

1. Are you OK with me as a mediator and the mediation process?
2. Are your interests here as an admin or an editor (i.e. enforcing policy or do you have content issues). Do you have subject matter knowledge of abstract management?
3. Is the objection to the links their commercial nature or is there another objection?

jbolden1517^Talk 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi from Andy

1. No, I'm only that IP address

2. I reckon the list fits in with the guidlelines. Is it external link spamming? No: there are lots of links to different sites. Do the sites linked to exist primarily to sell products? Well, yes - but that doesn't mean they aren't examples of what the article is talking about nor that they don't flesh out the article. In fact these links represent about half the major companies in this particular market niche - I'll add some more when I have the time. There are plenty of other pages like this - Convention center for example. Articles on commercial bodies such as MacDonalds almost always link to the official corporate site.

3. It seems to me that links should be placed where they're most likely to be needed. Also, creating a separate list could generate spam. There are many articles in wikipedia with links to commercial entities - where relevant. The test is surely whether a reader wishing to explore this subject would want to follow some of the links or not.

---

I've closed this case out. Andy hasn't been back since the 2nd day of mediation. jbolden1517^Talk 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

response from geni

1.I will work with anyone except small children and animals

2.Edit (I'm not exactly useing admin abilities). I have no subject specific knowage here.

3.I accept that sometimes comercial links can be useful however in this case none of the lnks appear to provide any useful information. With the posible exception of borbala none of them provide any information about abstract management other than where to buy it.Geni 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

criteria for links

OK good this is progress. Basically we don't have any objections to the links in principle.

Andy -

I think you may have misunderstood my point about lists of links. What I was proposing is you pick a listing service like http://dmoz.org/about.html and create the list there. Then you create just one link from here to dmoz.org. I don't think Geni would have any problem with that. If you would prefer the links reside here then could you provide some context as to what makes there various services different or useful. For example why the redirect on Borbola? Can you explain how Event Pro was really related.

Geni -

Do either of the above solutions address your concerns? Also any other way you prefer to handle the "and here is where to buy this service" type listing?

jbolden1517^Talk 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Response from Andy

I'm going to respond. The goal of a mediator is to find some common ground. You have to work with me a little. Geni outranks you. Ultimately if you just stand your ground, then you two deadlock in mediation and you lose. I need you to reach a point where you accomplish your goals and she accomplishes her goals. Now her goal is that the links have some informational content. Your goal is that people looking to buy abstract management services find lists on wikipedia. Those are very complementary goals they barely conflict at all. A little bit of give from you and this gets solved and you get what you want. I can think of about 10 solutions but all of them involve some compromise. So you tell me should I just close this out or do you want to try and find something that is still acceptable to you while accomplishing her goal?

I think what I really need is what you are willing to do to either

1. reduce the number of links on wikipedia
2. increase the information content of those links

Now I'll respond to the specifics

The problem with dmoz is that it's not an easy place to create and edit a set of links

Andy take a look at your contributions. You are pretty focused on the issue of academic conferences. My guess is that you know a lot about them. DMOZ doesn't have anyone else, you would get approved. Or heck send a good collection of links to yahoo they might put the collection together. Now if you aren't willing to we can move on from there; but can't just isn't true.

and it's also not within wikipedia - if the links are relevant they should be inside wikipedia.

We don't maintain lists of "where to buy stuff" for example Suburu doesn't have a list of dealerships. We link off to the main Suburu page and let them do it. What I'm suggesting is you setup a main page.

Why are they relevant? Simple: they are real world examples of abstract management which is both an academic and a commercial activity. If you want to know what it's all about just explore what these companies have to offer, look at their client lists and their reference sites.

Geni did that and felt that only one company in the list had any information at all.

The alternative is a long and learned study of the various different techniques on offer, cost benefits, user satisfaction, ROI, etc but I don't have the time or energy to write such a long and boring article.

Come on no one is asking for that. We are asking for a little information about these sites. Something more than you get from google.

It's a philosophical issue. Do you see these as "and here is where to buy this service" or as "and this is the sort of thing I mean"? I go for the latter. Otherwise any link whatever on wikipedia to any commercial organisation is unacceptable.

No look at my suburu example. No one objects to a link to their main website for Suburu. And Geni has agreed to one link to a webdirectory. You were the one who refused that.

That said, a friend who's a very senior academic has offered to do a review. In the meantime I suggest that the links remain.

Cool when do we get the review?

jbolden1517^Talk 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

response from geni

There is no place for "and this is where to buy this service" type links in wikipedia. We are not google. We are not a links directory. The content of the sites can be boiled down to "we belive our company is very good at abstract management. Please buy our survice. Not helpful.Geni 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.