Talk:Intelliflix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey, Saxifrage, I don't mind the removal of some of my External Links. But the link to DVDRR.com within the article is not the same as the one at the bottom. The one inside the paragraph links to a specific page that deals with Intelliflix. The other is a link to the site's homepage. It is not a "double-link" anymore than linking an article on C|NET, and then linking their homepage for the convenience of the Wikipedia reader.
Why should they have to manually determine the location of that homepage? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to aid the reader in their quest to find information? People coming to the Intelliflix (or Blockbuster, or Netflix) Wiki page are more than likely doing research to determine if they should do business with that company...
Moreover, I have to take some umbrage at your removal of what you refer to as a "non-encyclopedic tone" regarding the DVDRR customer reviews vs. the "WNBC Report" situation:
This is not a dictionary; it's an encyclopedia. To me, a dictionary needs to be absolutely dry in its definitions. There's very little room for editorializing, although one could certainly argue that even in a dictionary, there are "usage notes" which call attention to some real-world situation that would affect the definition of the word.
Encyclopedias on the other hand, do have a long history of non-dictionary tones. Otherwise, they wouldn't be much use to an actual human doing actual research in the actual world. Go read that absolutely glowing WNBC article, then try to reckon its incongruity with the more than 600(!!!) 1-star-average reviews on DVDRR.com. When I see a dichotomy, a disparity, a contradiction that is as striking as this one, I feel it deserves being called out in clear relief. It's not editorializing; it is simply taking reality into account and drawing attention to it.
Out of respect, I'm not reverting anything until either I hear a convincing argument from you, or enough time has gone by without you contesting what I just wrote. Fragman 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- We already have editorial guidelines and policy about tone, so we don't need to and shouldn't draw from historical examples.
- About the tone, the core policy Neutral point of view instructs editors to not call out disparities like that beyond saying that one says one thing, and the other says the other. If we spoon-feed the reader the conclusion, we are inherently taking sides. Further to that, drawing conclusions between sources is a synthesis of the sources, which would also go against No original research.
- On the point of the links, DVDRR isn't related to the company except that we are linking to them as a source. Consider how strange it would be to go to an article on whales and have a link to the homepage of MSNBC in the links. Essentially, links are only justified when they are directly related and offer something that Wikipedia can't ever include, such as the homepage of the subject of the article. The guideline for external links is at External links. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] trouble ticket sample
Image:Http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e191/GregMoney/intellitrouble.jpg
