CZ Talk:Policy on Self-Promotion: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger mNo edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
First, let's consider existing links "grandfathered in." After all, I myself placed a link that violates the new policy on [[John Doherty (fiddler)]]. :-) Note though that while no one should remove previously-added links purely on grounds of this policy, they might still be reviewable and removable simply because other sources are better. No offense, but surely it's an open question whether you really have the best Web pages about the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, we want to link to the best of the Web on every topic. | First, let's consider existing links "grandfathered in." After all, I myself placed a link that violates the new policy on [[John Doherty (fiddler)]]. :-) Note though that while no one should remove previously-added links purely on grounds of this policy, they might still be reviewable and removable simply because other sources are better. No offense, but surely it's an open question whether you really have the best Web pages about the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, we want to link to the best of the Web on every topic. | ||
I think we need a series of operational "request"-type pages, such as [[CZ:Requests for link review]], or perhaps something less specialized, like [[CZ:Requests for oversight]]. This way, if no one is coming to your assistance, you can ask for help. | I think we need a series of operational "request"-type pages, such as [[CZ:Requests for link review]], or perhaps something less specialized, like [[CZ:Requests for oversight]]. This way, if no one is coming to your assistance, you can ask for help. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 13:29, 3 April 2007
Regarding links to author-maintained websites
"You may not add links to articles with which you are associated. Instead, you must request that others do this for you (e.g., on the article's talk page). Adding such links will not count as a request; anyone who notices that you are associated with a website that you have linked from an article should remove the link to the talk page."
On a series of articles about the U.S. Constitution and related topics, I have added links to my site, to pages on my site with related information or, for example, full text of historical documents. In light of the above, is this not kosher? I did not add the links lightly - the information is truly related and backs up the article. If I add these links to the talk page, what guarantee is there (especially once there are tens of thousands of articles) that the links will ever be added? If they are added, should I never edit them? I think this policy works for some cases, but may be too restricting in others. steve802 14:00, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
First, let's consider existing links "grandfathered in." After all, I myself placed a link that violates the new policy on John Doherty (fiddler). :-) Note though that while no one should remove previously-added links purely on grounds of this policy, they might still be reviewable and removable simply because other sources are better. No offense, but surely it's an open question whether you really have the best Web pages about the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, we want to link to the best of the Web on every topic.
I think we need a series of operational "request"-type pages, such as CZ:Requests for link review, or perhaps something less specialized, like CZ:Requests for oversight. This way, if no one is coming to your assistance, you can ask for help. --Larry Sanger 14:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT)