Talk:Aquaponics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Aquaponics is within the scope of WikiProject Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-Importance on the assessment scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
[edit] Aquaponics in Australia link
Some anon character keeps taking the link out because it is 'commercial in nature'. Given that nobody in their right mind would start an aquaponics business to make money and that all the other links seem to be selling something (or are trying to if the forms on the sites worked) deleting the link to aquaponics.com.au seems harsh. I would agree to the deletion if there was a proper aquaponics association site but there isn't and people using Wp should be able to get further info, Albatross2147 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just because there is not a better site to link to - it does not justify the link. Links should be judged according to the external link guidelines. There are 3 links on this page that currently do not meet this standard. One is a forum (no links to forums) and the other two are links to quasi-commercial regional groups/corporations/organizations/however you want to characterize them. Wikipedia is not a link depository nor a directory WP:NOT. External links should be symmetrically related to the content of the article. This is not an article about aquaponic groups in Australia or elsewhere. If someone prefers to change these links to direct readers to actual content about the subject in the article, then the links might pass WP:EL. Information from the websites might also be used as references in the articles. As external links, however, they do not work. Nposs 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the links and explaining the process --Muzza 08:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Two links were recently added: 1) Aquaponics Knowledge Base: is apparently a more specific link to a page on website that was formerly linked. This is an improvement over the previous link, but the amount of content on the page is really quite small. Is there a better resource available? There are only a few questions and the answers are quite brief. 2) Aquaponics information for Australia: is just a relink to website that was formerly linked. I see no need to link this website. The "information" it provides is very limited - a short faq and "Why aquaponics" page with just a few paragraphs. The rest of the site i devoted to selling books, products, and ciriculum. I'm sure for people in Australia who want to buy aquaponics supplies it is a very useful website, and I have no doubts that the owners are reputable. The content, however, does not justify an external link. Please join in the discussion. Nposs 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- All three links currently on the site do not appear to meeting the Wp standards for external links. Wp is not a search engine nor should it be used as a referral mechanism for commercial sites. I agree that, if there is a lack of non-commercial Aquaponics information websites then that does not, and should not, allow a circumvention of the rules. So, should the links be removed? (Aquaponics-martin 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Re links on Aquaponics Page:
I am new to this so I am not sure if I am posting in the right place, so excuse my ignorance if it is wrong. I feel that my link just removed is a valuable contribution to the overall store of knowledge on the subject. My website as a whole is very information rich but does contain a commercial element, however my link to my knowledge Base, is very “Hands on” information, and does not seek to sell anything. I feel is very valuable to those seeking further information re Aquaponics from a practical application approach.
This Knowledge Base is only two weeks old and will grow very rapidly in content. If the Wikipedia is designed to be a more academic type of information source then I agree that my suggested link would possibly not be appropriate. I know well by the traffic we have to our Knowledge Base that it is very much appreciated by those seeking information on the practical application of Aquaponics. I appreciate your work and leave the decision in your hands. The link is as follows http://www.aquaponics.net.au/absolutefm/afmmain.asp?topicid=&faqid= --124.148.91.170 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I neglected to log in before posting.--Muzza 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks of for posting (I just got your message on my talk page, which is a good place to leave such messages.) Placing the link back on the page is premature. It really needs to be discussed by other editors, which is why I moved it to this page (see above discussion.) Here are the issues with the link:
- 1) External links really need to be to fully developed, reliable sources of information. (Please read both WP:EL and WP:RS.) At some point in the future, this knowledge base may meet these guidelines, but in its current form, it does not. There are too few questions and too few answers. This is not a judgment on the quality of the website: there are lots of great websites that don't make good external links on articles.
- 2) "Conflict of interest" (please read WP:COI. Linking to your own website is strongly discouraged. I noticed that an anonymous IP has replaced the link without discussion (actually it appears to the IP address associated with your account). This type of linking, or linking by the site owner is inappropriate (even to good websites.) Its another reason for the link to be discussed here so that other editors can decide if it is a good external link or not.
- I won't remove the link for the time being, but it should be discussed further. There is an ongoing project to improve the external links on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam. (Spam both in the sense of commercial promotion and spam in the sense of excess material.) As a I said above, the knowledge base link is better than the less specific link to the website that was there previously, but for me it doesn't pass WP:EL. Nposs 17:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Nposs: That link that has been placed in there is NOT my link but that of a person who systematically interferes with other links on this site. (look at the IP address history you will see the regularity of his habits) The link that is there now is www.aquaponics.COM.au - my site is www.aquaponics.NET.au - We are not associated in any way whatsoever. We are both in Australia, that is about the only connection we have. I note that this time he has used someone else with a different IP to insert the link for him, just a little unethical I would have thought. I would not be so bold as to go right on past the directions given in your posting above and post a link that has been deemed to be of little value to the Wikipedia.I would hope that you do something about that link that is there now as it would be unfortunate that those of little or no ethics can march right past your attempts to keep the standard of the Wikipedia at the highest level.--Muzza 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see now. Sorry for the mistake. The .com.au editor is Special:Contributions/122.129.134.116. This type of disruptive editing could result in a block on that IP address. I'll leave a note on the IP's talk page. Like I said before, I think both sites are fine websites in their own right - the question is: do the they pass WP:EL? My answer is no, for the above reasons, but we need to have further discussion before anything is relinked. Nposs 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't having the links here on the Talk Page still give commercial in nature links a boost? I can still access the pages and they are still commercial in nature. Or am I missing the point? Azollafern 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been one of the editors and contributors to this page. I feel the ONLY allowable links at this point should be directed toward not-for-profit, educational institutions such as UVI, University of North Carolina, University of Arizona and others not yet known who are doing research in closed recirculating tank culture. Also auqaculture associations that disseminate academic research and publications in this subject area. Any "for profit" links should be eliminated. For the record, the New Alchemy Institute was a private school however has made its publications available for free online. This should be allowed.
The links were my only way of citing researched material and at one point an information forum (which is not allowed and I accept that). However, pictures from the editor's personal system should not be allowed. Pictures only from non-profit institutions and/or academia should be allowed. My two cents. Michael Ferrini
[edit] how cool i am
hey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.206.184 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
