Wikipedia already keeps a full tracking history of user contributions to the site, complete with username of the person who did the work. How hard would it be to give a url linkout to anyone who contributed work that was still available on the page? Answer: not hard at all. It's one thing to stop spammers, but I would wager that wikipedia contributions go way down as a result of this decision. It's nice to have a site that relies on a community to make it better, but to never give anything back in return is pretty poor form.
Nope. Click the link I provided, then in the table of contents, go to discussion # 23. I think I was pretty reasonable, now they can't even agree amongst themselves as to what to do.
German Wikipedia has had no follow forever. Doesn't appear to have hurt it. Quality is often thought to be higher as well.
Like I said, not all contributors are webmasters. There are still people out there who believe in the cause and will continue contributing. I would wager against you that Wikipedia contributions will not go down. There are people who believe in philanthropy or giving without expecting anything in return. Might be silly for those who are obsessed about making money but without these people, the obsessed would have no money to make. (imagine if everyone owns adsense and doesn't wanna click on someone else's ads, no one will be clicking on ads).
AZHitman, Nposs seems to have hit the nail on the head. He pointed to one of the links that he removed from your articles, basically a link to your main home page. And true enough, there was no content on your main page. However, you say that the content can be found on your static pages, and so why not link to your static page? If you link to a page of content which you referenced from to write your article, I'm sure they would allow it. In my opinion, the referencing works basically like any other academic material. When writing about a particular idea found in the book, you reference to that particular page and chapter. Referencing to the whole book is a big no no. It's not just about giving credit, but about giving your readers security and making sure they do not have to flip the whole book just to find out where you got your information from.
Apparently you do need their links or you wouldnt be pissed off. So they deleted your links.. big deal.. anyone can edit wikipedia. Try your links again later. Doing well? I'm happy for you... but to say that a site as useful to education as Wikipedia should wither and die is one sided / skewed. Its not a personal attack, just an observation. End of story.
Well I can see where AZhitman is coming from. As a general rule you should never forget those who helped you rise to power.
There's a one-sided statement as well. fi5h - Yes, I was glad to see Nposs respond. So far, he's the only one who's made any sense (including "Miss Wiki Mouthpiece" on DP Forums)... I can live with his explanation. At present, we're going to let this entire issue rest. We're no longer going to contribute over there, as the entire handling of the matter has left me soured on the experience. There's quite a bit of misinformation, but then again, I have to remind myself that if you're educating yourself on a topic SOLELY via Wikipedia, you probably don't deserve to be completely well-informed anyway.
And you will be happy to know that no one relies SOLELY on Wikipedia. So I guess everyone does deserve to be completely well-informed.
If you missed it, see Azhitman's follow-ups on the NICO Club vs. Wikipedia issue: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=250381 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Disagreement_as_to_Wikipedia.27s_treatment_of_External_Links_.28in_this_instance.29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#NICO_Club.27s_additions_to_Wikipedia:_the_record
You'd need to have moderators pre-approve postings on sites like that, to protect against violations.