Talk:Static pressure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
 Archives |
|
[edit] Talk Page Archive
Archive 1 has been created with a link at above right. It is an exact copy of the talk page as it was before this edit. Archive 2, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Static pressure/Archive 2" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. See also User:5Q5 for the used archiving procedure. Thank you. Crowsnest (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Incidental advertising
On 20 April Wiki-editor Djhnsn added links to the following two sites:
On 22 April Wiki-editor Giuliopp removed the two links, commenting that a “sneaky advertisement” was being removed.
These sites contain valuable and relevant reports produced by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However, these web-sites are operated by a commercial organisation (SpaceAge Control, Inc.) and each of the two web-sites contains one page of promotional material supporting the commercial organisation.
The above actions raise the question of how much advertising is tolerable at a site linked to Wikipedia? Wiki advice given here says:
If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.
In the spirit of this advice, I am mentioning this matter on this Talk page. I believe these two NASA reports are highly valuable and relevant to the concept of static pressure. The reports were written when William Gracey was head of NASA’s Langley Research Center. Gracey subsequently incorporated this material in his book, and that book is quoted and cited in Static pressure. The reports are therefore particularly relevant because they give all Wiki readers access to information that was previously only accessible to those few readers who have access to Gracey's book. I also believe that one page of corporate promotional material is well within the bounds of what can be tolerated. What do other Wiki-editors think? If there is no suitably-substantiated objection to restoring these two links within a week or so I will be inclined to restore them.
If there is a rule that might prevent these two valuable NASA reports from being accessible via Wikipedia I consider that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is relevant – “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” It is true that each of the links to the two NASA reports contains a page of corporate promotional material but, on balance, I believe these two links improved Wikipedia (until they were deleted.) Dolphin51 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I find it a bit naive to think that the advertising in question was 'incidental'. User Djhnsn has clearly a much bigger interest in promoting SpaceAge Control Inc. than he has in improving Wikipedia, given that all of his twelve contributions have consisted simply in disseminating links to that company, even if they contain also some relevant information.
- I question the authoritativeness of a commercial website that offers to download US governmental documents – even altered with the insertion of advertising pages – in exchange for user's registration, also claiming that such documents have a market value, when they are in fact publicly available, free of charge.
- If Djhnsn – who didn't post any explanation on the talk page, as required by WP guidelines – had cared about improving this article, he would have added links to the original documents: 1, 2, which can be located in just a few minutes using Google or the NTRS search engine. There's no question in my mind that these mean attempts to exploit WP for commercial gain should be deleted without hesitation. Giuliopp (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, his motives don't matter. But if the direct gov links have all the info and present it clearly, then I'd go ahead and delete the commercial ones. Voice-of-All 01:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
