Talk:Art.Net

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Art.Net article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Notability

We get more than 14,000 unique visitors per day, and this is the first time anyone has suggested that we have a "heavy point of view." I respectfully suggest that even if we did exhibit a heavy point of view, Art.Net would still be notable. --Art.net 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my suggestion would be to rewrite the article as if you are a third party and not involved in the site itself. Phrases like Art.Net is currently accepting new artists who are encouraged to come and explore the site and join artists sharing art from the source... the artists themselves. Please see: Join Art.Net and and is always open to new artists and new areas. make the article read like an advertisement or solitation for new artists. Also my suggestion is remove all the external links excluding one to the main page. It is very hard to write non POV (point of view) articles about subjects you are personally involved in so we normally suggest getting a 3rd party to write them. Hope this helps. §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 06:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

i agree with above -- the wording needs to be reworked so that it seems less like a solicitation to either join or even, for that matter, visit. some significance and relavance should be a focus of the article. certainly the age of the site is important, but userbase and traffic alone are not as relative. i might suggest focusing on some specific historical milestones or such. i would like to see the article stick around in such a revised state. Jon Lon Sito 08:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

An Alexa rank of 78,000 isn't that bad. 800 backlinks could be better, but there are good articles on things with fewer hits, let alone backlinks. Existing in 1994 is interesting, and this looks like it could be the first widely cooperative attempt at an online artists' web space. The site seems to share much philosophy with wikis, if not as much software engineering. This site deserves to have an article, and the version proposed for deletion is source-supported. --71.141.167.242 18:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (websites)#Criteria for web content item number 2, and compare to http://www.art.net/about/awards.html --208.54.15.1 07:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Art.net's philosophy talks about freedom from censorship - and they have been censored. I can currently access them from work, but a year or two ago I couldn't, because the corporate firewall used some censorware that blocked fine art sites that included pictures of nudes. (Hmmm - do statements about the past meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements?) Bill Stewart

[edit] Site contents

I agree that it would be better to have the site contents linked in-line from the text instead of in the table format in the external links section, but if you don't like the table, then it would be better to put the links in the article text instead of deleting them. --208.54.15.1 07:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put most of the important ones in the article text. --208.54.15.1 08:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
When you put multiple links to the website it turns the article into an advertisement. Please, simillar articles on Wikipedia have only one link, that is more than sufficient. I originally had some doubt about this article's notability, but I am assuming good faith. If it keeps on turning into an advertisement with all these links, I will nominate it for deletion and let the community decide. --Hetar 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no policy or guideline suggesting that there should only be one external link. The site meets and exceeds criteria #2 for notability above. Deleting the other external links which illustrate the site's operations is overly deletionist. I'm not sure if "Official Site" is a good target name as compared to the domain name. --208.54.15.1 08:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to come and participate at the AfD. --Hetar 08:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, with regard to the Official Site description, WP:MOS#External links states that external links "should not appear as their native URLs, but should be formatted to describe the website and the topic." --Hetar 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This dispute was listed at third opinion, so I've taken a look at the guidelines and this article. Please see the relevant guidelines at WP:EL's How To Link section. This style guide suggests two types of external link:

  1. Citations, and
  2. the External Links section

Citations are for "...sentences or paragraphs that require specific references." These should take the form of a footnote link. That is, they are made with the single brackets containing a URL only, and appear like a numbered footnote in the resulting text. [1]

According to WP:EL, external links belong in the article body when they're in citation form, and in a closing section when not in citation form. This suggests that if the body was to have links to art.net, the footnote form is the form they should take.

Except we don't need those forms, because citations are used to provide a specific reference to a fact that needs it. The links in the article aren't there to back up some surprising or hard-to-research point. They're just there to provide extra links to art.net. This really isn't the Wikipedia way. The article does feel spammy with them.

The external links provided in the "External Links" section of articles are the only other external links recommended by WP:EL. This is the section for non-citation-style links, and that's what an art.com link is.

In light of this, I've reverted the article back to a style supported by WP:EL. Please share any concerns with me here, and I will follow up. Vslashg (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • During the call to Delete the Art.Net article from wikipedia.org.

several of the external links within the article were added to answer the questions being raised about Art.Net's notability as a web site and the request for supporting facts and proof that what was stated was true... for instance, if Art.Net was truly a teaching site. Two links were made as footnotes to actual artist spaces ( 1 studio and 1 gallery room) where the artists share teaching sessions on how their art is created. I don't think that this makes the article POV or overly linked externally or commercial. These links actially helped make the subject matter being discussed, more understandable and interesting too.

Now that the decision has been made to keep the article for Art.Net as apart of wikipedia.org, I have no problem with some of the external links being removed from the article... though I did just receive a call from an artist's manager who was looking for the "How to Join" page... :)

It does seem to me that the wikipedia.org community is being abit self-serving itself by requesting that external links not be in the main part of the articles... most links refer to other articles within wikipedia.org itself. This is not a *bad* thing per say... though it does seem strange that the community that so dislikes supposedly POV links, has so many of them on the wikipedia.org site itself especally within the articles. :) It seems to me it would make the article more alive and enjoyable if you could go goto exactly where or what the particular point, example, or note refers to... I mean, isn't this what the WWWeb is all about? and why it was created? and what has made it so successful???

Here on Art.Net we allow artist to make external links in their spaces to where ever they like. All we ask is that they include a link to the home site, Art.Net, on their home page so that folks will know that their studio is apart of Art.Net and that the artist is a member of the site. While it might seem promotional, it is more to help people find their way about the site, while bringing a sense of one-placeness and community to the Art.Net site.

Thanks again to all who voted to " Keep " the article for Art.Net on wikipedia.org. I think it really is a big win for all... and the continuing stuggle to keep Freedom of Speech alive and well on the Internet. Sincerely, -lile --Art.net 20:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New artists

This phrase, "Art.Net is open to new artists and new areas, inviting new artists to join and submit work for display." in its current form is nothing more than a blatant advertisement. I thought an effective compromise would be, "Art.Net is open to new artists and new areas." There really is no need to link users directly to the join page, it smacks of an advertisement. Really, I like the site, but I would think that it could respect itself enough that its whole article doesn't have to scream click here or join here, or look at this. An informed article with 1 simple link will still draw traffic, and makes itself look more respectable. --Hetar 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not "advertising" unless there's an exchange of money, and in this case, there isn't. The site doesn't charge artists, and there are no strings attached to joining it. --Lynn Gold, News Anchor/Reporter, KLIV-AM, San Jose, CA

  • To Lynn: Your first sentence is just plain false -- advertising does not necessarily imply any exchange of money, or even a business or service which makes money. Not only can non-profits advertise, it is very common. You can advertise something you give away for free. I think the distinction trying to be made here in the context of Wikipedia is to establish whether the article is providing information about a notable subject, or announcing a website to the public in a way to draw attention and traffic to itself (aka "advertising"). Sure, it is a spectrum, but the point of this discussion is to move the article away from the latter, and make it more like the former. Jon Lon Sito 07:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd -- whether it is or is not your personal opinion that the links constitute "advertising" the following facts remain:

  • Q: Is Art.Net open to new artists and new areas, inviting new artists to join? A: Yes. Q: What is the source for that information? A: [2]
  • Q: Does Art.Net invite new artists to submit work for display? A: Yes. Q: What is the source for that information? A: [3].

Whether that does or does not constitute advertising is a matter of personal opinion, but the source-supported facts are undeniable. Reverting. --James S. 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't a matter of personal opinion. Take any comparable article for an online service and you will see that they don't provide an absurd number of links to their site. Why? Because they didn't create the article to drive traffic to their website. Hotmail for example, doesn't need to state that they are always accepting new users and then link you to their join page right there in the article. Instead, it is a well written article with only two links to their site, one in the infobox, and one in the external links section. --Hetar 18:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the comparison to Hotmail is valid -- it's a purely commercial (free for basic service, but ad-supported) offering from a multinational conglomerate. The purpose isn't to "drive people" to the website -- Art.Net has been around for much longer than Wikipedia, and most of its artists learn about it from word-of-mouth. The purpose of the in-line links is to illustrate the exposition about the site. Again, the fact is that the links are the primary sources supporting the exposition. Taking them out removes not just the links, but the information about the site conveyed in their anchors, leaving a less encyclopedic article. Reverting. --James S. 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Lynn and all

Art.Net is a non-commercial site offering a place where artists can show their work in a non-commercial setting. No prices are posted on the site and we ask that all member artists respect this and not post prices in their spaces or create a commercial setting there. The reason for this is simple... to separate the art from monitary systems, enabling the viewer to see the art without thinking of the monitary value. Thinking about $ (pounds, euros, etc) while looking at art can cause the art to loose it's meaning and cause distraction to the viewer. Art, after all, is the sharing of one's soul and this is truly priceless.

While all artists need to make a living (which comes for the selling of their works unless they have another form of work to support their art), there needs to be a place where the art can be shown so that the viewer can see the art and not be destracted by money and the monitary value. So much of our lives is tied to monies and instead of being a tool (which is all it really is), the monitary value preceeds the work itself.

Also, please note that Art.Net is not a middle man/woman or person in the scheme of things. People who are interested in buying works from the artist who made them are incuraged to contact the artist directly. We also allow artists to link to their commercial sites where their works of art can be purchased.

We do however, have to support the Art.Net site. This is done by the member artists themselves by way of paying small and hopefully affordable yearly membership dues. Some artists donate memberships for others who can not afford to join but would like to. These one-time scholarships are offered to artists in need. Artists also agree to donate one of their works of art to our site while they are a member. This also helps to support the operations of our site. Some of these works are shown in our private collections gallery. And we have sometimes traded this art for services and equipment needed to run our own machine which we built and operate with the help of friends. It has always been important to be a self-supporting site so that we would not be censored by others. We manage and operate the machine for the same reasons. It has always been this way. As for our net connection, we are co-located in a place that only colo's non-comercial and non-profit sites.

Since we are a "not-for-profit" site, all funds received via memberships and donations, are used to support the site. No dividends are payed to anyone and there are no share holders. The member artists own and operate the site as it should be. I manage the actual site pages and the artists manage their individual spaces. We all help each other when needed.

Each artist also determines and publishes how they would like their work to be shared. Some artists request only screen viewing while others offer their art as "share art", enabling the work to be used in any way (except for commercial purposes). The control lays in the hands of the artists' themselves. Art is shared from the source, the artists themselves. In this way, copyrights are honored. For we all should be able to enjoy success and be able to prosper by doing the things we love to do.

I know that this may seem strange, sharing art for the sake of sharing... this was how the Internet used to be before it went commercial. Sites are still around though, where this type of virtual space exists. And they can be successful!

Finally, another reason that we are a non-commercial site is that this enables us to accept all artists, young and old, successful and those just starting out. Artists are not judged on the monitary value of their works. Instead they are allowed to just be who they are, artists sharing art from the source, the artists' themselves. And all artists can be seen together, without the concern of what it will do to the value of their works.

Artists who join need to be: 1) Alive! 2) be an adult and 3) and be an artist. The studios are rooms that are curated by the artist's themselves, sharing their personal works. The gallery rooms are places where groups of artists can display their works together. It is also a place where others can curate, showing the works of one or many artists. We have [one gallery room that is curated by the artist's son as the artist himself prefers to just paint and not bother with computers at all. We also have another [gallery room where a group of sculptures show their works together.

We just recently started a new section on the Art.Net site which is the Private Collections section. The purpose of this space is to allow works created by youth to be displayed by their parents who are responsible for the artists and their works shared there. It is also a place where poeple can show their private collections of art (with the artists' permission) that are hanging on the walls of their personal homes.

So much of art is hidden and stored away with no place to show it except maybe on a kitchen frigerator door... and it would be great to see this art and be able to share it! Art is an expression of our dreams, hopes and life experiences and it helps guide us to where we would like to be. It also helps us to share the past and present and enables great healing. Many children are some of our brightest artists today and need a place where their work can be seen and appreciated for what it is, a true gift of love.

So Art.Net is a non-commercial site and a not-for-prfit site. These are two separate designations and should not be confused. If you would like more details on how Art.Net runs, please see our site manifesto and the About pages. And if you have any questions, please feel free to send them to us via info @ art . net. Feedback is appreciated! :) We also have a guestbook that visitors can sign to show that they were there and to share their thoughts and feelings on what they saw while they were on Art.Net. This also enables visitors to share what they would like to see come into being on our site, Art.Net (Art on the Net).

We also offer a place where artists can submit their website links to Art.Net for linkage. We now request a voluntary donation for this service and that the artist include a link on their site pointing back to ours. This can be just a written link or it can be a link with an image and words.

Am hoping that the above helps to alleviate the confusion. And I am thankful for the reverting of the article from just saying we are a not-for-profit to instead state that we are a non-commercial site. I truly feel the the latter is the most important! though it wouldn't hurt to have both terms in the article.

Also, I noticed an error on the wiki page about "not-for-profits". You don't have to be a non-profit to be a not-for-profit.

And finally, I just want to say that I would like to see honor, grace and compassion being practiced here on wikipedia.org. I know that we all have good intentions and are really just trying to help one another. Some of us are really new to the community here, such as myself and are just learning the ropes. Like the artists on Art.Net, we are all from different countries and communities around this world and sometimes this can cause us to misunderstand one another while working together. Patience is so helpful and I ask for this now from all of us.

I also truly believe that more talk is better than none! Discussing issues helps us to find ourselves, each other and what is truth. Please, let us not have a war here... there is too much fighting already going on in our world. Let us instead, choose to be here for peace. -lile --Art.net 08:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Published testimony

Declaration of Lile Elam in ALA v. Pataki (3/19/1997) In this published testimony, an explaination is given as to why Art.Net was concerned about being prosecuted by New York's CDA law. --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Art.Net Statement in ACLU v. Johnson: The Challenge to New Mexico's Online Censorship Law (June 1998) --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Art.Net's Complaint in ACLU v. Johnson Concerning Online Censorship in New Mexico (4/22/1998) --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Testimony of Rudolf Kinsky (note: poorly formated and dificult to read; easier at /Testimony) An artist member of Art.Net, Kinsky was living in New York City when the NY-CDA law was passed. Kinsky removed art from his Art.Net studio because of fear of persecution. He said he had come to America from Europe because freedom of speech was protected here and he could create and share his art without fear. In his homeland, such freedoms do not always exist. Because of the passage of this law, Kinsky felt that this freedom no lnoger existed for him in NY.--Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Artists Exhibit of Art Subject to Censorship when Internet censorship laws are enacted. While this exhibit is hosted on Art.Net, it contains personal works of art that were voluntarilly contributed by member artists of Art.Net who thought that these works might be censored by such laws. --Art.net 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of requested citations to artists teaching on the site

Okay, during AfD, there was a question about {{citation needed}} for the member artists who teach art on Art.net, and two such citations were provided. So why are those being deleted? There seems to be a double standard here -- if there are unsupported claims, some think the article should be deleted, but when the claims are supported with links to the site, then those are "advertising"?!?

This stituation is absurd, and I will continue to revert as vandalism any further deletion of links in the exposition of the article into sources on the Art.net site supporting that exposition, as well as deletion of the requested sources provided without textual anchors, without any further explanation here on talk. --James S. 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem. Last time I cleaned up the article, removing external links from the body, I acidentally removed the two citation links you have referred to. This was accidental, and I apologize.
I have once again removed most of the external links, in line with WP:EL, but leaving the two citation links you refer to in place. Sorry about the confusion.
If you are still unhappy with my edit, please address them here. We need to reach a consensus, but if we just revert each others' changes, that won't solve anything, and might lead to a violation of (WP:3RR). Vslashg (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's understandable. I see what happened now. I replaced two of what I hope you agree are the most important primary sources which had been linked inline from the article: the studios and galleries. As above, I will without further notice revert any deletion of those links as vandalism. Wikipedia is supposed to be source-supported research, not exposition without cited sources. That is a far more important priciple than something in a guideline which says external sources should be cited only once. I'm taking this to WP:EL. --James S. 08:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good, except since this post you have added more and more citation links. My current concern is that some of these citations aren't actually citing anything. They're citation links in form only. As an example: the very first part of the article currently reads Art.Net [4]. The article hasn't even reached its first verb yet; nothing has been asserted yet, so why do we need a citation here?
I hope we can come to an agreement on this talk page. For now I will leave the article alone, awaiting your response. I'd really like your thoughts on the matter, and would like to reach an amicable agreement. Compare to Google.com and Yahoo.com, pages for huge sites without nearly so many links to the subject website. Vslashg (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think this article shoulbe be modeled after huge commercial website offerings from international conglomerates with which readers are likely to be more familiar than they are with Wikipedia? And, frankly, I think the Google#Products and services section could do with several more links into the site describing various aspects. --James S. 19:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it has nothing to do with large sites, there are also plenty of small sites on Wikipedia that have far fewer links to their site. Again, was this article created to inform users about Art.net or to drive more traffic to the site? --Hetar 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The links are primary sources, added for the purpose of informing readers, not driving traffic. Any assertion to the contrary is an assumption of bad faith. If the purpose were to drive traffic, then the links to the manifesto, resources, awards, etc. would all be omitted. --James S. 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I have added the neutrality template to this page, since User:Nrcprm2026 continues to add back in spammy external links despite their removal by myself, User:Vslashg, and User:Mumonkan. This tag should remain on the page until the dispute is resolved. --Hetar 03:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is absurd. Is there any reason that your claim that the links to the primary sources supporting the exposition are "spammy" is not an assumption of bad faith? --James S. 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The links are right there in the article, I'm not assuming anything. Also, while I might have been assuming bad faith were I to assert that the links were spammy several weeks ago, now, after the links have been removed by 3 separate users, and constantly reinstated by 1 user, the time for assuming good faith has ended. WP:FAITH specifically says, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." --Hetar 03:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
What evidence to the contrary? I have repeatedly said that the links support the article ars primary sources. Do you have any reason to believe that they do not? If so, please state it. If not, please stop this silly deletionism. --James S. 06:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think some perspective might help. I'll make you a deal: If you patrol Special:Newpages a few times a day for a full week, cleaning up and {{prod}}ing articles which really deserve it, and after that, if you still think that the links here are inappropriate, I will no longer object to the removal of any four from the first eight that you feel are the most inappropriate. Deal? --James S. 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I already have been doing New Pages patrol for several weeks. If you check out WP:AFD you will notice that I am a regular nominator and contributor over there. I also regularly tag appropriate articles and images for speedy deletion or prod, depending on the criteria. I will continue to do this, but its already very apparent to me that no other article on Wikipedia "cites" its primary sources like this. Going one step further WP:RS states, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." --Hetar 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you brough that up: The description of the site, including the detail about how it operates reflected in the links, appears in official documents in high-profile court cases, as well as in published books on internet art. Again I ask, what evidence do you have that the sources have not been cited in good faith? Simply because other articles do a much poorer job of supporting their exposition with primary sources is not a reason to pull this article down to their level. --James S. 17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Hetar's reference to WP:RS: WP:V does state
Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources.
So my concern is not so much that art.net is an unreliable source, but rather that an excessive amount of low-value citation links are being used to make an end-run around the external linking policy. Some may be genuine citations and deserve to stay (the one citing awards comes to mind), but most are spammy. For example, from the history section:
June, 1996 - new links submission form [5] was added on the site.
This is, IMO, a quite transparent spam link. That a page was added to a website in 1996 is wholly unencyclopedic. Even if it were encyclopedic, the linked-to page does nothing to verify the page was added in June 1996. My stance is this link doesn't serve to cite anything, and should therefore be viewed as spam and removed. The majority of links to art.com are of this form. Vslashg (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I added that link to the Art.Net links form as it is a very important milestone for our site. Before June of 1996, we were receiving so many requests on a daily basis for linkage to other sites that it was difficult and time consuming to add the link requests because they were sometimes missing important information, like site description. With the form, the links submitted were able to be processed quickly. So for Art.Net, this was an important milestone. Links really are what make the web what it is today and Art.Net has always considered them to be important. I am sorry that you think it is a spam attempt. It is not meant to be. It is instead an important milestone for the Art.Net site and has really made a difference. And having this link to the link form shows that the link form is there on Art.Net. -lile Art.net 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)----

  • I also want to add that I think it's interesting that the only

folks who seem to be having problems with the Art.Net article content continue to be the ones who put it up for deletion twice. Am wondering why this is so? It seems to me that these folks have a hard time accepting the fact that their delete was voted down by many and because of this, they continue to harrass the article for Art.Net. We have tried to work to resolve the issues, changing inline links to footnotes (which really help to support the article). And from what I can tell, there should not be a problem with footnotes. The article is not spammy. Please stop the harrassment. -lile Art.net 21:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)----

  • I concur, please stop the harrassment!

PLEASE also remove the neutrality tag.

thanks -len --Lentower 20:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Hetar added back the NPOV flag/tag on the Art.Net article page. It had been removed by someone who stated that the NPOV was not valid as the Footnote links supported the text of the document.

The NPOV tag that was added says to look to the talk pages of this article to see the discussion but then there is no comment by Hetar here. Should there be a comment as to what his problem is? If I don't see anything posted shortly, I will just remove the NPOV tag and consider that Hectar's actions were just an act of vandelism. --lile 22:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that Hetar still claimes that neutrality has not been established yet he still does not explain his position here on the talk page. No one else seems to have a problem with the foot notes in the artical for art.net at this time. Even though he has made comments in the past, I ask him to come forward and defend his position for maintinating the NPOV position in the present. If this can not be provided, his insistance of maintianing the NPOV tag on this article will be considered as vandelism and will be removed. Am hoping that Hector will stop "hector'ing" this art.net article! --lile 07:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made plenty of comments about why I think this article has neutrality problems above. All of my previous concerns still exist. I am willing to compromise and let some of the external links remain, yet apparently the contributors from Art.net aren't interested in a compromise, they want as many links to their website as possible. I have said it before, and I will say it again, no other Wikipedia article "references" its sources like this. Nor do they feel the need to drive traffic to their site in this matter. That other contributors aren't actively watching the page, doesn't mean that they don't have concerns (for example User:Vslashg and User:Mumonkan). --Hetar 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
no other Wikipedia article "references" its sources like this
Not true at all: look at Slashdot or Livejournal for example. They both have dozens of external links into the sites, including to users and other deep links to support the articles' claims. The assumption that the links are "spammy" and designed to "drive traffic to their site" is bad faith and newbie biting. 71.132.146.15 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not a fair comparison, as Slashdot and Livejournal cite significant facts (which some of the citations here do as well). However, the citations that I take issue with are simple statements that don't need to be backed up, and that are obviously apparent by glancing at the website. For example, "Art.Net is open to new artists and new areas, inviting new artists to join and submit work for display." is cited by linking right to the Join page, that is not a citation, but rather an attempt to get users to join. I don't see Slashdot or Livejourn linking directly to their join page... As to your allegations of assuming bad faith, I'm not assuming anything, but making clear statements based on the number and style of external links in this article. Its pretty obvious, and I'm not the only user who has stated these concerns. Also, WP:BITE does not prevent me from discussing legitimate concerns with new editors. --Hetar 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Slashdot and Livejournal are obviously open, because they invite people to contribute ("reply") on every page. Art.net isn't obviously open. Why do you imply that Art.net being an open site is not a significant fact? How would you prefer that fact be presented? 71.132.142.164 08:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, Art.net is every bit as obviously open. Its an online web-based artist collective and you invite people to contribute on your main page. What's next, citations to prove that you let people sign your guestbook? --Hetar 22:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"You?" It's not my site; I'm not even an artist or a user, I just know about the site because I've known Lile for about ten years. And unlike Slashdot and Livejournal, there is only that one invitation, on the main page, which would be missed by anyone following any of the other links. Again I ask, how would you prefer that the fact Art.net is open be presented? 71.132.150.37 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
i have not checked in on this discussion in quite some time, and i see that a lot of discussion has gone on here. i will address only a couple things, cuz i am pressed for time, but understand that i think the article/subject has merit, but just needs to be tweaked a little. to this end, my 2 points: (1) regarding the link to joining (e.g. "how would you prefer that the fact Art.net is open be presented?") -- i would suggest, in the gentler version, to edit the text Art.Net is open to new artists and new areas, inviting new artists to join and submit work for display. [3] to not have the footnote/link at the end to the page about joining. simple. the more strict edit would be to shorten this text to Art.Net is open to new artists and new areas., if you want to be really safe. (2) i am by no means an expert on wiki style or guidelines or rules, but most articles i read (about websites) have a much smaller percentage of links into the site than this one. almost all of the linked words are just to elsewhere in wikipedia. the External Links section is where links to the article's site seem to go. this makes sense to me -- it is an article about the website, so its implicit that you go there to find out more about it -- it neednt be peppered throughout the article. the external links part is there to give you a little help at the end. the links within the article are either cross-references to other articles or sites other than the article's subject. thats my thoughts anyway.... i think the article should stay, it just needs some tweaking to sound a bit more ... um... encyclopedic? Jon Lon Sito 06:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If you check the edit history, the external links used to be in the External Links section, but someone objected to that, so they were made inline. Then someone asked for proof that people were teaching art on the site, and shortly after the additional links showing that were added, they were removed. Some articles about websites have a whole lot more inline external links into the subject website than this one does (e.g., Livejournal, Slashdot) Why is it unencyclopedic to say that artists are invited to join? Would it be unencyclopedic to describe how to join Slashdot or Livejournal? I don't understand this argument at all. I will try to re-write the offending passage in the passive voice to see if people think that reads more encyclopedic. 71.132.152.193 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed today that the Neutrality Tag is back on the Art.Net Article page

and it seems that this dispute over the inlined article links to the site will never be settled. As I sit here and look at the article, I am starting to think that prehaps this is not such a bad thing in the end. With the tag in place, people are more likely to check out the talk page which gives alot more info about the site. That the Art.Net article was put up for deletion twice is very telling as well, not to mention being a good read.

Also, as an artist myself, I have come to the realization that "art" is not a neutral subject. So it's understandable that Art.Net, a site hosting art/artists and linking to many other art sites... like a hub in a spoked wheel, is considered "non-neutral". It would be nice if we could change the look of the tag though... it's pretty tacky really and could use the help of an artist's touch. --lile 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I substed out the code, and tried to make it look less tacky, with a more harmonious background color and icons which I think are probably more evocative of a dispute, and I made the explanatory text smaller because it makes the box larger than the usual tag. Please add the still-very-much-needed artist's touch! 71.132.128.168 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like it was created as the intention of an ad. One external link is all that should be needed and not throughout the entire article.--Harry 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Almost all of the large website articles (other than those on search engines, which offer little original content) have several links. Please see above. 71.132.138.237 14:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that SITO has included several external links illustrating that site since before the creation of this article (in much the same fashion as they were first added to this article) and has remained undisturbed. Becuase almost all articles about web sites other than commerce and search engine sites have several such links, I will remove the dispute box unless someone can think of a good reason to leave it here in, say, 30 days. 71.132.138.237 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if the SITO article is comparable, as all the links you make reference to are in the External links section, unlike sprinkled throughout the article as in Art.net. (As full disclosure, I wrote a lot of the SITO article and help run SITO.) I have grown pretty tired of even looking at this page, and always have been generally for this article staying -- I had just hoped to see it tightened up a little bit. So I don't particularly care about this difference, I just wanted to point out that there still seems to be something different going on in this article; but personally, I am fine to just let it all go. But thats just me. (For the record, part of how I wrote the SITO article was to do everything I could to tiptoe around and not even really mention that you COULD sign up at all! I think I did okay, because it is pretty vague, I think. I have no desire to drive people to the site; I just wanted to chronicle the history. I even think there is one level too many links in the external links section, but a cohort added the further expansion of our collaborative projects there.) Jon Lon Sito 09:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The links in this article were originally in the External Links section but were repeatedly removed. 71.132.129.39 13:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research / Unverified Claims

  • Am adding this section to the talk page as someone has tagged the article

with claims that this article lacks origional research and has unverified claims.

Can you be specific as to what areas and sections are lacking the above?

thanks! --lile 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have removed the original research box until someone posts an explicit list of exactly what claims need to be verified.

Adding this box without also posting an expicit list here on the Talk page, is in itself an unverified claim.

best -Lentower 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not sure what this person who posted the tag for Original Research/unvarified claims

is looking for. I did notice that he has put these tags on many art pages on this site recently. No other information is offered by the person as to what is the problem. So I am removing the tag. If he puts it back, I request that he post here on the talk page what the issue is and what part of the article needs attention in this area. -lile 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Citing sources for WHAT? Please be specific and add your comments to this

talk page. If no comments are added, your tag will be removed. -lile 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed the References header, because it's an empty section. Useless to the reader. The existing links are probably reference enough. Without a special section. -Lentower 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The existing links are not references at all. This article cites zero sources and expects readers to perform the original research of directly reading and analysing the subject web site in order to verify it. That is unacceptable. Requests for references will be re-added indefinitely until you actually add some. This is insisting upon sources. The References section is there to be filled. Please note that if you do not add references, then unsourced content can be removed by any editor. Currently, that includes the whole article. The notices linked to our content policies, which already explained all this. Please read the notices and adhere to the policies. Refusing to cite sources, and actively removing references sections, is not what we do here. Uncle G 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well finally we get some more details from the UncleG fellow who has

decided to hound this article about Art.Net. I was unaware that links within articles had to be referenced. It seems abit redundent but I am willing to work on this. Now my question is, "Do all the external links need to be referenced? Or is it just some of them?" If so, which ones are causing UncleG concern?

Also, the threat to remove the article and it's content is abit extream. UncleG's tag would not have been removed if he had just given more info in the beginning and written the actual concerns here instead of just adding a tag to the article. -lile 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • As I have pointed out once already, the notices linked to our content policies, which already explained all this. And no, the removal of content is not extreme. Please read our verifiability policy, as I've asked you to do, and linked to from edit summaries, several times already, and which is linked to beneath the text entry field on every edit page that you've seen here. Uncle G 11:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article does not read like an advertisement

This article does not read like an advertisement.

If you still feel it does, please either submit some edits to the article - that you believe improves it, or give some detailed comments here. Lentower 05:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement. It's got way too many in-text external links, including one encouraging joining the website, and it has a very positive tone throughout the article. It also claims to have won "several awards", but none are listed, and the citation is to a part of the website that does not list awards.-Wafulz 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This article does not read like an advertisement. It's tone is neutral. One bad link is not a reason to add the ((advert box. Go and fix it, rather then wasting your time complaining. Lentower 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
A link needing fixing, needs a box other then the one you have chosen to use. Lentower 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)