This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cybercobra (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 28 September 2009 (→Assessment for Erlang: my bad there; duly noted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:37, 28 September 2009 by Cybercobra (talk | contribs) (→Assessment for Erlang: my bad there; duly noted)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
|
 | Note: In order to keep this page from becoming cluttered with outdated posts, I clear comment sections from my talkpage on a regular basis after I have responded to them. So, just don't be surprised if you're responding to my response and your original post is no longer here. |
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybercobra. |
Why are you adding links to OCLC to book articles?
I notice that you are adding links from articles about books to the site of Online Computer Library Center? For instance, I have noticed you recently added such a link to the article Dragons of the Dwarven Depths. Why are you adding links to this company? Who is benefiting: you, OCLC or Misplaced Pages? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- It benefits Misplaced Pages (by making our articles more complete) and readers who want to easily find books at their local library; I suppose OCLC might see a traffic increase, but their a non-profit, so...; It's a standard field in the book infobox, I'm just filling it in in an automated fashion. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Surely library catalogues enable readers to find books at their local library? This website is not a library catalogue is it? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- (Note: By "this website", I assumed (in hindsight, probably incorrectly)that you were referring to Misplaced Pages)
Well, depends on your definition of library catalog I suppose. We do list books and metadata about them (title, author, kind of book, pub. date, etc). (Although I do agree there is a limit, which is why I disfavor our non-author-related bibliographies). I would say your issue is more about Template:Infobox Book having the |oclc= parameter in the first place than about CobraBot's task, which is entirely dependent/contingent upon said parameter. That said, we already link ISBNs to a page which itself helps people find a copy of the book, so I don't see this as much different. The links are useful and don't seem to violate the external links policy. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)- It does not depend on my definintion. OCLC is not a library catalogue. Right?
- OCLC operates WorldCat, which is a library catalog and is what the |oclc= parameter links to. It could just as well have been |worldcat=, except that conflicts with their website's nomenclature. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- It does not depend on my definintion. OCLC is not a library catalogue. Right?
- (Note: By "this website", I assumed (in hindsight, probably incorrectly)that you were referring to Misplaced Pages)
- Surely library catalogues enable readers to find books at their local library? This website is not a library catalogue is it? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I do benefit in that this gave me an excuse to write a bot :) --Cybercobra (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- What benefit is it to Misplaced Pages? None, as these links run contrary to WP:LINKSPAM What is the benefit to the reader? None, as the information in the links provides no new information that cannot be obtained by using the ISBN. I think you are being a bit naive. Yes, you benefit from enaging in your hobby. Yes, the proprietors of OCLC benefit from increased advertising revenue earned when readers click on the links you have provided. However, from the point of view of building a better encyclopedia, these links offer no benefit, as they don't provide any addtional context that is already provided by the ISBN. I suggest you stop CobraBot and create a new bot to remove all these links. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- (A) WorldCat does not run ads (from what I can tell) and is a non-profit (B) As I alluded to above, your complaint is about the template, not my bot per se; you're arguing with the wrong person/about the wrong thing. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- So why does it feature links to Amazon and Barnes & Noble? In my experience, a company that says its "not-for-profit" is usually paying a large salary to its proprietor. I think the issue here is that Online Computer Library Center is not a charity per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I suggest you stop postig links to OCLC until the issue of linkspamming is resolved. Could you kindly respond to my request? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your first "request" was more of a rather insensitive suggestion, but anyway... I continue to hold that you're arguing with the wrong person about the wrong thing. Your issue is with Template:Infobox book having the oclc= parameter and/or the documentation/guidance therein regarding its use. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are trying to sidestep the issue here. It is your bot that is creating all these links to Worldcat - it is not the fault with the template. Whether or not Worldcat is a legitimate reference to pepper Misplaced Pages with is debateable, and I admit that I may be mistaken as to the benefit such catalogue number. Personally I think it is of little or no benefit to readers, since the only use of the Worldcat number is to look up a book on the Worldcat site, which is as far as I can see is acting as an advertising billboard for Amazon and Barnes & Noble - its not a comprehensive cataloguing site per se.
However, setting that asside for a moment, I realise the real issue is still linkspamming, since it is your bot that is linking directly to the Worldcat site itself, which I am sure is not appropriate. Note that the link to ISDN is not made directly to the ISO site, but is made instead to Special:BookSources, where the reader can make their choice of what they do with this information. Forgive me if I seem abrasive or rude, but I have a particular dislike of spam, and I think what you are doing is to unwittingly add linkspam to Misplaced Pages by adding a direct link to this site, which in my view is not exempt from WP:LINKSPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are trying to sidestep the issue here. It is your bot that is creating all these links to Worldcat - it is not the fault with the template. Whether or not Worldcat is a legitimate reference to pepper Misplaced Pages with is debateable, and I admit that I may be mistaken as to the benefit such catalogue number. Personally I think it is of little or no benefit to readers, since the only use of the Worldcat number is to look up a book on the Worldcat site, which is as far as I can see is acting as an advertising billboard for Amazon and Barnes & Noble - its not a comprehensive cataloguing site per se.
- Your first "request" was more of a rather insensitive suggestion, but anyway... I continue to hold that you're arguing with the wrong person about the wrong thing. Your issue is with Template:Infobox book having the oclc= parameter and/or the documentation/guidance therein regarding its use. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I suggest you stop postig links to OCLC until the issue of linkspamming is resolved. Could you kindly respond to my request? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- So why does it feature links to Amazon and Barnes & Noble? In my experience, a company that says its "not-for-profit" is usually paying a large salary to its proprietor. I think the issue here is that Online Computer Library Center is not a charity per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- (A) WorldCat does not run ads (from what I can tell) and is a non-profit (B) As I alluded to above, your complaint is about the template, not my bot per se; you're arguing with the wrong person/about the wrong thing. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- What benefit is it to Misplaced Pages? None, as these links run contrary to WP:LINKSPAM What is the benefit to the reader? None, as the information in the links provides no new information that cannot be obtained by using the ISBN. I think you are being a bit naive. Yes, you benefit from enaging in your hobby. Yes, the proprietors of OCLC benefit from increased advertising revenue earned when readers click on the links you have provided. However, from the point of view of building a better encyclopedia, these links offer no benefit, as they don't provide any addtional context that is already provided by the ISBN. I suggest you stop CobraBot and create a new bot to remove all these links. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)