Wikipedia: Are they truly neutral? Kurt Sasso News 7 Comments Over the past three years I have had over four hundred interviews in both audio and video. I have prided myself in searching for new creative minds and those that have been veterans in their respective fields. Thus, the main problem I have had is marketing and showcasing this talent. So, for 2012 I wanted to make a difference and start being more proactive with sharing these interviews. I thought, why not go to the largest website that is readily searched on and for next to Google. I choose to attempt (attempt being the operative word) to link these interviews onto the various creators wikipages. It was met with less than favourable responses as you will see below. I edited 22 pages, adding in interview links to TGT Media website. They were taken down. So, I researched on making references. They to were taken down. Here is the discussion with one editor from Wikipedia. Any and all comments are truly welcome. If there is a way I can, by there terms, not be in conflict of interest, I would be happy to follow those guidelines. This is in no way an attack on Wikipedia, or it’s tireless editors that do a great job. This is just my experience. User talk:KurtSasso From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Contents 1 Spam 2 Conflict of interest 4 Blocked 31 hours Spam Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article’s talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Conflict of interest Hello KurtSasso. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems: Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors. Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam). Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia’s content policies. Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Seeing this I contacted this editor to open dialog. Here is the below conversation in it’s entirity. Towards the end on January 1, 2011, I attempted to add in just references, following their guidelines, and was subsequently blocked for 31 hours. External Links and interviews these creators have done I understand that wikipedia has a nofollow policy in place. The External links that I provided are interviews with these creators that I have taken the time to interview. It is in the interest of their fans (or anyone for that matter) to hear what these creators have to say. These creators have taken the time to do these interviews and I have taken the time to interview them and get this content posted, for free, onto the internet. There are other resources like ComixTalk and Newsrama that have posted interviews they have had from creators on for instance, Multiplex wiki article. Why shouldn’t the interviews that I have with Gordon be in that same section? While these interviews do not have any text based transcriptions, they will very soon. I’ve seen MP3s links in Phil Foglio’s Girl Genius articles as well from TalkShoe, are you saying that those are of neutral nature as well? Any content that is provided by the creators, for all purposes, should be made available to all. That is what I do and what TGT Media is. I wanted to showcase, as I have for the past 3 years, these creative and talented people. If I have overstepped in any way, then I apologize. How can this be resolved? KurtSasso (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker) The problem, Kurt, is that you have a severe conflict of interest, since it’s to your advantage to have TGT linked to in as many places as possible, nofollow or no nofollowl. —Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC) As Orangemike explained, the problem is that you are putting up multiple links to your own site. If the links are useful, someone else will add them; if you put up many links to your own site it looks like spamming. I haven’t had the time myself to look closely at the links and determine whether or not they’re useful additions to the articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I wouldn’t take the time to interview these people, only to not put up useful content. Similar to the volunteers for this website you are taking the time to make sure the content is as accurate as it can be. Creative people are giving their knowledge and experiences on TGT. If I was physically editing the articles to state false or fraudulent claims I could understand the need to edit. I have over 400 interviews in both Audio and Video. RE: conflict of interest: Orange Mike, then any website that has media, news or otherwise (see: ComixTalk, Newsrama) would be also in violation of that. However, because they are a brand that has built up a reputation for solid content and articles, those conflicts are overlooked. It would seem like this comes back to an ‘all or nothing’ approach using your own guidelines and documentation. Either any website that has created text-based, or audio based or video based interviews, should not post any external links or be used as references since there is a conflict of interest. KurtSasso (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I think you’ve misunderstood the concern. Those other websites weren’t added to Wikipedia by the same people who create the website. The problem arises when you add links to your own website. That’s what conflict of interest means on Wikipedia. I understand it’s a shame when people don’t know about a site which would be useful for them. But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for spreading awareness of your site, no matter how good the site may be. Links can only be added to an article in order to improve the article (within Wikipedia’s guidelines), not to get more people to know about a site. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC) In using your words, “Links can only be added to an article in order to improve the article (within WIkipedia’s guidelines)” Yet, Wikipedia’s guidelines are conflicting in that sense. When a person has a focus to showcase, not the site, but the content (for which content is what Wikipedia is built upon), about a creator(s) that’s considered spam/conflict. This was and has never been about linking to the TGT site. With all of this patient explaining you have given me, for which I appreciate it; You have yet to actually listen to the content to determine if/when these external links are truly able to improve the quality of these articles. For now, I am just going to go and read through your guidelines and make sure that I’m following the code of Wikipedia. Thank you again for all your help. KurtSasso (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC) To be perfectly honest I’m not interested in listening to hundreds of hours’ worth of interviews, especially during my vacation. Having transcripts of the interviews on your site would be helpful. Anyway, that doesn’t change the bottom line of what Orangemike and I have both told you: regardless of how good you think the content is, do not post links to your own site on Wikipedia (or get a friend to do it either). If editors believe the content improves the article, they will add it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, so it’s not the general community of internet users that can add content, but the editors. How then can editors be neutral in their assessments of data then? Everyone has an opinion, no one can sit on the fence and thus, no one can be truly neutral. This isn’t about how good, I think the content is, I’m just go by numbers. With over 32,000 downloads for the video interviews and over 25,000 for the audio interviews, there are more than enough people showcasing that the content is relevant. You seem to be focusing still, yet again, on me as the user, rather than the content that I am presenting.: KurtSasso (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC) For the last time: no one is saying you can’t add content, just that Wikipedia has rules against adding links to your own site. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer to you, and I do not want to repeat myself anymore. No further response from you is necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC) As I have stated before, any suggestions, comments (good or bad), in finding a way to promote these interviews, would be greatly appreciated. 7 Responses VertigoX January 8, 2012 Kurt Sasso – Poor choice of words with Marketing on my part. Marketing to me is branching out and getting the masses the content I have. No misunderstanding at all. Marketing in the general sense would be to pay for advertising, etc. I’m not quite at that part of the business plan. VertigoX January 8, 2012 Mike DeSimone – Not irony. Motive. I’m much less inclined to trust any reference source, Wikipedia included, if they’re presenting as “neutral” something authored by those with potential ulterior motives. Not necessarily actual ulterior motives, mind you; just the appearance of impropriety would be enough to damage trust. Thus they want people whose first and foremost loyalty is to the accuracy of the information, regardless positive or negative spin on the subject. They aren’t hiring people to write articles for them, like a normal encyclopedia like Britannica, so they have to make sure it doesn’t even look like someone else is hiring people to write their articles. P.S. I couldn’t tell you weren’t consciously trying to market given that the very first line of this post said that’s what you were doing. Sorry for the misunderstanding. VertigoX January 8, 2012 Kurt Sasso – Mike D #1 comment – In this case I wasn’t consciously trying to market TGT, just to get the content of the interviews to a larger audience. I guess subconsciously, I was in a way. Kurt Sasso – Mike DeSimone #2 comment – That’s the plan making TGT better as I go. This was one of those attempts to just get the word out more. I have other ideas. Tried this one, didn’t work. Time to move on. I’ve never heard of arXiv, or Google Scholar for that matter, but I will look into them. Thanks for the insight, it was helpful. VertigoX January 8, 2012 From Google+ Mike DeSimone – Wikipedia, by design, will react pretty negatively to anyone using them for marketing. Best thing to do is just leave them alone, and take some solace in the fact that they’re doing this to everyone else, too. Stef Marcinkowski – Hey Kurt! Sorry, I think I gotta side with Wiki on this one. However, what if you put the call out to TGT listeners to help find someone who can add the links for you? Mike DeSimone – Better: Keep making TGT better so it becomes notable enough to be added. Encyclopedias just aren’t great places for marketing. Personally, I never go to Wikipedia to find interviews (or interesting people or companies to throw money at). If there are any, they’ll be dated. As it should be; like other encyclopedias, Wikipedia is reactive not proactive, as evidenced by their “no original research” rule. Over here in the research end of the world, you want to get published somewhere like arXiv and let things show up on Wikipedia whenever. Google Scholar is also where it’s at. I’m sure that Google and WP can’t be the only games in town for you guys. VertigoX January 8, 2012 Lezley D: So… what do you do? CBR, Newsarama, Comic Foundry, Comics Bulletin, IGN – all regularly have links to interviews posted on creator entries. Wikipedia doesn’t want you or your ‘friends’ posting links back to your site. So, fair enough – they want to avoid spammy irrelevant links and douchie mcdouchebags using the wiki traffic to push people to their porn sites (or whatever). How does wikipedia know who is a ‘friend’ of yours posting links? Any number of your readers would post links to your interview content. You should ask them to. Would that suffice? I think your desire and your point is legit, but I can see how you adding the links yourself is dodgy. Ask your readers to do it. How would that be a conflict? VertigoX January 8, 2012 Riley M: They don’t like info on comics tried to correct something once and was told I was not allowed to do so and the correction was removed. Kurt S: Yup that’s exactly what I was doing, and yet they have ‘dedicated’ people working specifically on comics/webcomics… and also, many of them are trying to remove comics/webcomics that have made an impact, but no one is updating the pages… Riley M: Yo some extent I think one has to be part of the web comic universe to know much about the subject.. its fringe art..its overlooked.. and devalued..mocked..wikipedia’s view seems to be if there has been no published in print copy its not worth noting..ignore it maybe it will go away.. VertigoX January 8, 2012 Here are some comments from Facebook and Google+ that should be shared here
VertigoX January 8, 2012 Kurt Sasso – Poor choice of words with Marketing on my part. Marketing to me is branching out and getting the masses the content I have. No misunderstanding at all. Marketing in the general sense would be to pay for advertising, etc. I’m not quite at that part of the business plan.
VertigoX January 8, 2012 Mike DeSimone – Not irony. Motive. I’m much less inclined to trust any reference source, Wikipedia included, if they’re presenting as “neutral” something authored by those with potential ulterior motives. Not necessarily actual ulterior motives, mind you; just the appearance of impropriety would be enough to damage trust. Thus they want people whose first and foremost loyalty is to the accuracy of the information, regardless positive or negative spin on the subject. They aren’t hiring people to write articles for them, like a normal encyclopedia like Britannica, so they have to make sure it doesn’t even look like someone else is hiring people to write their articles. P.S. I couldn’t tell you weren’t consciously trying to market given that the very first line of this post said that’s what you were doing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
VertigoX January 8, 2012 Kurt Sasso – Mike D #1 comment – In this case I wasn’t consciously trying to market TGT, just to get the content of the interviews to a larger audience. I guess subconsciously, I was in a way. Kurt Sasso – Mike DeSimone #2 comment – That’s the plan making TGT better as I go. This was one of those attempts to just get the word out more. I have other ideas. Tried this one, didn’t work. Time to move on. I’ve never heard of arXiv, or Google Scholar for that matter, but I will look into them. Thanks for the insight, it was helpful.
VertigoX January 8, 2012 From Google+ Mike DeSimone – Wikipedia, by design, will react pretty negatively to anyone using them for marketing. Best thing to do is just leave them alone, and take some solace in the fact that they’re doing this to everyone else, too. Stef Marcinkowski – Hey Kurt! Sorry, I think I gotta side with Wiki on this one. However, what if you put the call out to TGT listeners to help find someone who can add the links for you? Mike DeSimone – Better: Keep making TGT better so it becomes notable enough to be added. Encyclopedias just aren’t great places for marketing. Personally, I never go to Wikipedia to find interviews (or interesting people or companies to throw money at). If there are any, they’ll be dated. As it should be; like other encyclopedias, Wikipedia is reactive not proactive, as evidenced by their “no original research” rule. Over here in the research end of the world, you want to get published somewhere like arXiv and let things show up on Wikipedia whenever. Google Scholar is also where it’s at. I’m sure that Google and WP can’t be the only games in town for you guys.
VertigoX January 8, 2012 Lezley D: So… what do you do? CBR, Newsarama, Comic Foundry, Comics Bulletin, IGN – all regularly have links to interviews posted on creator entries. Wikipedia doesn’t want you or your ‘friends’ posting links back to your site. So, fair enough – they want to avoid spammy irrelevant links and douchie mcdouchebags using the wiki traffic to push people to their porn sites (or whatever). How does wikipedia know who is a ‘friend’ of yours posting links? Any number of your readers would post links to your interview content. You should ask them to. Would that suffice? I think your desire and your point is legit, but I can see how you adding the links yourself is dodgy. Ask your readers to do it. How would that be a conflict?
VertigoX January 8, 2012 Riley M: They don’t like info on comics tried to correct something once and was told I was not allowed to do so and the correction was removed. Kurt S: Yup that’s exactly what I was doing, and yet they have ‘dedicated’ people working specifically on comics/webcomics… and also, many of them are trying to remove comics/webcomics that have made an impact, but no one is updating the pages… Riley M: Yo some extent I think one has to be part of the web comic universe to know much about the subject.. its fringe art..its overlooked.. and devalued..mocked..wikipedia’s view seems to be if there has been no published in print copy its not worth noting..ignore it maybe it will go away..
