Wikipedia Help

Postby **VideoGameCritic** » June 28th, 2007, 9:46 pm

Maybe some of you could help me out. Recently I got an account on Wikipedia, and attempted to add my site to some of the console system pages. I would add entries like these under the External Links sections:
The Video Game Critic: More than 80 reviews of Intellivision games.

However, when I tried to add it under the high-profile Atari 2600 section, one of the editors told me that adding a series of links to my own site constituted "spamming". I believe the links were appropriate, but rules are rules. I noticed that many of my links were deleted, although the Intellivision one is still there.

Perhaps some of you could add these links for me individually. We wouldn't want to draw attention to it, but if different people added the links to different sections, it shouldn't be too obvious. If you manage to get one up let me know. These links won't improve my google rankings (they are filtered out), but I'm always trying to increase the exposure of the site.

Koopa W. · Postby **Koopa W.** » June 28th, 2007, 10:51 pm

Hey Dave,

Go to the External Links at the bottom of the Atari 2600 page. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Glad to help,
Koopa W.

Postby **VideoGameCritic** » June 29th, 2007, 5:34 pm

Thanks for trying, but it looks like the link was already removed. For some reason they keep a close eye on that 2600 page so it's probably not worth the effort.

feilong801 · Postby **feilong801** » June 29th, 2007, 10:09 pm

Yeah, probably a good idea. Wiki editors are usually losers living in their parents basement, and do not take kindly to their precious articles being changed in any way.

-Rob

QF · Postby QF » June 29th, 2007, 10:17 pm

They seem to consider almost any changes spam.

m0zart1 · Postby **m0zart1** » June 30th, 2007, 2:42 am

[QUOTE=feilong80]Yeah, probably a good idea. Wiki editors are usually losers living in their parents basement, and do not take kindly to their precious articles being changed in any way.[/QUOTE]

LOL I have a good friend who is an editor with moderation privileges at Wikipedia. I'll have to pass along your evaluation of him.

Seriously though, I asked him in an AIM conversation about this, without mentioning the name of the site. This is what I got in response:

AtlasShrugg3d: A guy who runs a well-known video game site I peruse regularly, for now we'll call him "Dave", keeps linking his site to some gaming pages on Wikipedia, and they keep getting removed as spam.

phil: Yeah.

AtlasShrugg3d: The problem is that other sites are listed, which are really in the same league as his site, and they aren't removed.

phil: If you go to Wikipedia and add links to your own site, they're going to be removed.

AtlasShrugg3d: Well it's not just him doing so. Others have added them too, and they were removed.

phil: Yeah well, we're pretty anti-self-promotion, and if someone's going to add links they should be as unbiased as possible while doing so, and if there's a history of certain links being added self-promotingly there's going to be a suspicion.

AtlasShrugg3d: That seems problematic. Liking someone's site and thinking it has good information on games is about as unbiased as you can get on a site like Wikipedia, which is supposed to be about the spreading of information over a free channel.

phil: Yeah. I'm just saying that because "Dave" went and added those links, he created a prejudice against those links being added again later.

AtlasShrugg3d: Can I be honest? That policy sucks ***.

phil: Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a link directory. If there's links to other sites that are just as worthy, maybe all the links should go

AtlasShrugg3d: Agreed. It doesn't matter if it's a link directory, it does have links, particularly to push information about specific games -- which is what this site does. If it can be a link directory to Moby Games, another private site, I don't see why it can't be to his. But I'll just have to live with whomever's cousin's sister made those links legitimate, I guess.

phil: It's just too easy for people to try and use Wikipedia for self-promotion that we had to have pretty stringent policies against it.

So it looks like we're SOL for a good long while, until these imperfect memories forget the details at the very least.

Astrosmasher1 · Postby **Astrosmasher1** » June 30th, 2007, 6:15 am

I think the idea they are trying to get is that the links to other sites do not contain opinions. The thing that is good about "Dave's" reviews are that he has lived through those years and provides some context to the games. The chopper command review/ defender reviews being a good example. I was older at the time so no one wanted to play defender with me or chopper command. So they give a better historical basis as opposed to a purely factual one. If anyone want to argue the point with the wiki game nerds I would use that an argue. Plus the name of the link could be called historical context thoughts.....

feilong801 · Postby **feilong801** » June 30th, 2007, 9:32 am

Heh, well, I was referring to that situation where they had some editor writing about religion that claimed to be a PhD and turned out to be just "some dude."

I mean, I use the Wiki like anyone else, but I also take it with a fifty pound bag of salt. Basically my rule with it is: the more controversial the topic, the less trustworthy the Wiki is.

-Rob

a1 · Postby a1 » June 30th, 2007, 2:36 pm

[QUOTE=feilong80]

I mean, I use the Wiki like anyone else, but I also take it with a fifty pound bag of salt. Basically my rule with it is: the more controversial the topic, the less trustworthy the Wiki is.

[/QUOTE]

Good rule. Wikipedia is good for settling factual arguments, or if you forget the name of an actor in a certain movie, but I would certainly never source it in a paper.