NOTE: If link doesn't work, I've copied / pasted the discussion two posts down in this thread.
For those of you old enough to remember Encyclopedia Britannica, this is akin to their publishers burning down the Library of Congress (or at least demanding you trade in your library card for an Encyclopedia).
This has implications for forums, as well as any site that's comprised of experts on a given topic...
My god. Talk about red tape. They're so busy worrying about whether everything fits in their little box that they haven't realized there's a world outside their box.
I got pretty pissed off with Wikipedia a few weeks ago when I cleaned up (made accurate) a few parts of their Q45 article, only to see my changes removed. The stupid thing is that my changes were pure fact, while the article they reverted to after removing my changes is pure speculation and opinion (which also happens to be wrong).
Disagreement as to Wikipedia's treatment of External Links (in this instance).
I've been encouraged by Editor Nposs to take this matter up here, in the External Links Discussion page.
Here's my original post, which remains accurate:
I've recently been alerted to the existence of a quite lengthy list of alleged "spam" links placed in Wikipedia, either by myself or members of our forums... It appears a lot of discussion ensued, and I even came across a comment that "someone" was given "a second chance" and "blew it" (quotes from the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..._Spam).
I've just finished reading through some other user's comments and discussions with you on similar members. Needless to say, I'm impressed with your dedication and motivation.
However, for what it's worth, our motivations are purely innocent. We are aware that Wikipedia incorporates "nofollow" tags to any and all external links, thereby nullifying any link passing, so it's clear we're not after additional "ranking". Further, a post (by me) on DigitalPoint forums is brought up as "evidence" of ill-intentions. My post simply states that contributing content (which we have) is the best way to keep one's links on Wikipedia. As the largest and most active Nissan / Infiniti resource on the internet, we're certainly not chasing the minimal traffic Wikipedia provides (per Google Analytics).
Our members have contributed the vast majority of information present on Wikipedia for the vehicles listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..._Spam. For example, 240sx.org (in operation since July, 1997) organized the complete and total drafting of the Wikipedia page on the Nissan 240sx (which has since evolved into a book project, due for completion this Spring). My Q45 Moderator drafted the majority of the content on the Wikipedia Q45 page. These are just two examples.
Our intentions were simple and respectful - To provide additional resources to folks seeking more detailed information on the vehicles they've accessed on Wikipedia. It is of particular interest that links to other, lesser automotive forums remain, while ours have been deleted. We are neither selling anything, nor seeking "cheap hits". We are dedicated to reaching Nissan and Infiniti owners and providing them with the best resource on the web, because there's far too much misinformation out there.
Feel free to contact me (I'm not hard to find, I wish someone had done so earlier).
Best wishes -
Response from Editor NPoss:
Thanks for you note. I noticed your other note on the Nissan 240SX page, as well. I'm sorry if I have caused you any offense. It appears that you disagree with the removal of links to 240sx.org. I became aware of the links based on this notice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jan#NICO_Club_links. Persons associated with NICO club had been systematically adding the links to several articles. I removed your link not because the site itself is in anyway a form of spam, but because since it is fundamentally a forum, it violates the external link guidelines (WP:EL). Forums are non-encyclopedic and linking to them violates the guidelines. If you feel like this is unfair, I suggest taking it up on the discussion page for the external link guidelines. I am glad that you and your associates have been so generous in your contributions to several articles and I hope you continue to contribute in the future. Nposs 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Fast-forward to today - As it stands, I have reviewed the external link guidelines, and our sites are in compliance with ALL THIRTEEN numbered criteria, so I fail to see the violation.
Further, while there may be a prohibition against links to "forums", if you'll note, NONE of the URL's that were targeted by the Editors were direct forum links. Yes, we have forums - most sites do. But the information available to our readers is available ON STATIC pages. Therefore, I respectfully request that the determination of this Editor be reconsidered in light of our significant and long-term contributions to the Wiki project.
Let me restate: We are NOT interested in "link juice", as our pages are PR5. To expect ALL of the information we have gathered throughout the years to be contributed to the Wiki project would be absurd - there would then be no basis for our existence.
Therefore, it stands to reason that readers seeking ADDITIONAL information from a reliable and long-standing source would have the option of seeing from whence that contribution came, and to be linked to that additional information.
We fully support Wikipedia's decision to implement nofollow tags, and respect the amount of effort that must go into keeping the project free of spammers and link hounds. However, we fall into neither category. We are a respected authority on the topic of Nissan vehicles, and we have been in operation since July 1997 (TEN YEARS YAY!), so I think we've at least earned that measure of respect.
In that case use your link as a citation, providing that the site is a reliable source.(I'm assuming that everything that you have said is indeed true, that the link meets all of the criteria, and there was no intent to spam.) I will note that there does seem to be a conflict of interest here. Remember, nobody owns contributions to wikipedia, they are licensed under the GDFL. If you site is the reliable source parts of the information in the page, please do cite it. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, nobody should add links to their own site, and you shouldn't encourage your members to add links to your site on wikipedia articles, it's a Conflict of interest. If your pages are worthy links, suggest them on the talk pages of those articles and let other editors add them. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, clear WP:COI, beyond Links normally to be avoided this is addressed specifically Advertising and conflicts of interest per WP:EL.--Hu12 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears the staff can't even agree on a determination here... I'll check in later and see if there's a consensus to be arrived at, but at present, I feel like a "bait and switch" has been pulled.
If the criteria for citing a reference boils down to who cites the source, doesn't it stand to reason that the contributor would be an expert on the topic, and likely a contributor to another resource on that topic?
It appears that in the interest of eliminating "spammers", an unnecessarily wide net has been cast. Search "240sx" on Google, we're #1. No need for additional traffic, but a citation for my staff's hard work is a small concession for their contribution. [Unsigned]
Something is amiss here. I have a hard time believing that a person who has contributed so much to wikipedia doesn't understand that no one here is "staff". Seems like another tempest in a teapot. Wjhonson 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
And did I mention, doesn't know how to sign his posts? Wjhonson 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody gets to "earn" links to their site by working hard on wikipedia. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Johnson - Real professional of you: Snide comments on my semantics and making an unnecessary jab about signing a response? Sorry I'm not an expert at this "technological breakthrough". Sign my post for me, since you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Volunteers are still "staff". You reflect poorly on your peers, who have all been professional until now.
With the amount of effort put forth, simply removing citations to the contributor while keeping the information as your own is VERY unethical. Milo, if you'd have read more closely, you'd see we're not interested in "links". Relax - You're starting to see spammers under the bed. --AZhitman
Could you provide a diff or three showing an example of a citation you feel was inappropriately removed? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, checking the contribution log, I see a bunch of EL additions to articles. Those are all links, not "citations". --Milo H Minderbinder 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct - The links were all removed. See my previous posts, it's explained very clearly. Change them to citations, whatever. I don't care what they're called, but it appears you and Eagle 101 (above) can't agree on how this should be handled.
Bottom line: We contributed the content as a service, at a time when we could be cited as a source for additional information. Now that the information is here, removing citations under the guise of "preventing spammers" is pure red tape and bureaucracy run amok.
Not any more! Spartaz 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
AZhitman, it seems like you inquiry has not been answered in a way that you find satisfying. I'll try to be more clear about why I removed the link. Let's take for exmample the Nissan 240SX. Recently I was involved with removing several links (diff). Your website (240sx.org) was among these. It was a direct link to the homepage of the website and did not indicate that any information had come from it - just a link. On that home page, there are more links to a variety of forums, classifieds, and a shopping section. For the community it serves, I am positive it is a great resource and by all means it seems like a fine website. It isn't a good website to link to an article on Wikipedia, however. External links should provide content beyond what the article contains. The link to your website just provided links to a variety of other sources, none of which pass the guidelines about "reliable sources." If Wikipedia were a directory of links (which it is not (WP:NOT), your site should be at the top of the list. The external link section of an article is not a substitute for a Google search for people who are interested to learn more about a topic. It sounds like in such a search, your website would come out on top. I'll also point out that the link does not pass the "symmetrical relationship" guideline of WP:EL. This might sound somewhat strange, since the 240sx.org website is all about that very car. But the link does not lead directly to content about the article - it leads to discussions, shopping, etc. that might potentially be about the car. To me, that means that inclusion of the link is basically to promote the website. Contributing to an article provides no ownership of the content or right to be compensated through a linkback. It sounds like you are a really knowledgeable person and I hope you'll stay around and keep contributing, but it sounds as if this experience has soured you on the experience. I'm sorry for that. This is what I keep in mind (especially when I am tempted to include a link to a pet website of mine): external links tend to benefit the linked website more than Wikipedia. If you really want to help Wikipedia - contribute content to the article. That's the best thing you can do. Good luck. (P.S. The apparent lack of agreement between the editors is not a weakness - but actually a strength of Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to contribute your opinion to the fray.) Nposs 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary Azhitman, you come here making an appearance as if you and your "staff" have contributed massively to the articles. So I pointed out how your position appears to have subtle flaws. As has been pointed out above, perhaps if you actually quoted and cited using your links, they might be better received, and not appear spammy. Wjhonson 08:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Johnson - My staff WROTE and CONTRIBUTED nearly all of the Nissan-related information on Wikipedia. If you'd done your homework and actually read what was written, rather than jumping in uninformed, you'd have known that.
Not to worry, though. We've discussed this matter internally and decided it's not worth our time or effort. In fact, one of my staff popped in earlier this week to correct a glaring inaccuracy on the Q45 page in Wikipedia, which was immediately reversed by an Editor. In the interest of not linking to sites containing misinformation, all links to Wikipedia from our network have been removed.
NPoss, thank you for your professionalism and courtesy. 184.108.40.206 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC) AZhitman
I'm sorry you feel negatively about this AZhitman, and for what its worth we'd still love it if you could continue to contribute later if you change your mind. JoeSmack Talk 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
* So to sum up, the efforts to enforce the heck out of a tangential policy on external links have discouraged an entire community of knowledgeable contributors from participating in the Wikipedia project. Well done. --Dystopos 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It is too bad that these knowledgeable people have decided to withdraw their participation, but the initial reason for all of this is not quite so simple: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jan#NICO_Club_links. Nposs 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, we can't let editors "earn" the right to spam by creating articles. Editors need to be here because they want to create an encyclopedia, not because they want to want to write articles with strings attached. To be honest I'm a bit skeptical of his claims - while I found examples of spamming, he never showed a diff of those same editors making contributions to the articles. Even the Q45 article doesn't have any fixes of glaring errors in the last couple weeks, and none of the minor fixes were reverted. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any clear indication that links were added to promote a website or product, since they actually linked to informational pages. Though the strictest enforcement of "links normally to be avoided" might disrecommend them in favor of dmoz, treating the contributors as part of a conspiracy to undermine the encyclopedia is a few steps too harsh, and has led to the regrettable loss of knowledgeable editors, whether or not someone has satisfied your demands for proof. Treating people as spammers when their intent to do so is unclear is not in the spirit of assuming good faith. Better to go through the trouble of discussing and clarifying the relevant guidelines (which is why we're here at Talk:EL) than to make the issues personal. WP:COI is probably more relevant in this case than WP:EL anyway. --Dystopos 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Links were added by those affiliated with the website, in some cases AZhitman himself. And looking at his (IP) edit history, it's nothing but a long list of link additions. That's spam, no question about it. No conspiracy here, just some clear evidence. The evidence we've seen is clear spamming, whether they spammed in good faith isn't a reason to leave the spammed links in articles. I don't see anything "personal" about removing spam, nor do I see anything unclear about WP:EL, WP:SPAM, or WP:COI, all of which clearly apply. If there were editors other than AZhitman who added links in a non-spammy way, we haven't seen them and can't even discuss their situation - I asked him for examples of links being added as citations or links being added by editors who extensively edited an article, and he never gave any. We can't be faulted for failing to respond to a problem if nobody will even point us to an example of it happening or even let us know who the other editors from his site are. I'm not exactly sure what you think we should have done differently. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's imagine that someone was familiar with a web resource that contained a lot of information on a group of related topics and let's imagine they came across Wikipedia and thought highly of the project and wanted Wikipedia's users to have the benefit of the information on the other websource. The easiest thing to do is to create external links. Someone unfamiliar with the reams of instruction creep may only have looked at the Five pillars and been encouraged by the last one about how WIkipedia has no firm rules and that perfection isn't necessary and that contributors should be bold. Not knowing that an entire project is underway to eliminate links to sources of additional information except in very limited, sometimes arcane, circumstances -- and not realizing that "having an interest" is the same thing as "having a conflict of interest" that person might do precisely what AZhitman has done with the intent of improving Wikipedia rather than the intention of promoting his website. What I think we should have done differently is to withhold the judgment about whether the link was "spam" and instead use the talk page to discuss how to improve the article. Even if it is spam, it's better to limit broad-sweep enforcement to the most clear cut attempts -- those which actually remove information or introduce a POV. For other cases, it is better to tread lightly, to build consensus and to respect other contributors. --Dystopos 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Even spamming done in good faith should be removed. We can't leave stuff that doesn't belong in the articles just because fixing it might hurt someone's feelings. Spam is removed all the time, and good-faith contributors usually understand once it's explained (and discuss on the appropriate talk page(s), and in some cases their links end up getting added), and those interested in nothing more than linking to their own site usually ***** about COI, insist that they should be able to do it anyway, and leave in a huff. Sorry, but I just can't accept leaving in spam links or not asking people with a COI not to add links. WP fills up with unnecessary crap fast enough without going even easier on those who add irrelevant links. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the key policies of building consensus and assuming good faith should be given preference over matters of efficiency in removing spam. I am of the opinion that questionable external links should be debated with patience, leaving the deployed bots to handle those beyond question. The more good editors we keep and encourage, the more likely it is that articles will be watched and improved. The more editors we discourage along the way, the more Wikipedia becomes an arena for competing bureaucratic projects... which is what seems to be happening all over the place these days. --Dystopos 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE: "I asked him for examples of links being added as citations or links being added by editors who extensively edited an article, and he never gave any."
This much is true. I'm not in a position to justify my statements to your Editors. My mistake was operating under the assumption that a professional and honest approach to pointing out an issue with the "rules" would be sufficient justification to be taken seriously. However, since you've continually and persistently painted me and my staff with the broad brush of "spamming", I'm inclined to believe the blinders that come with the "New Wiki Editor Kit" are overly functional.
"Spamming", by definition, is NOT done, as you say, "in good faith". The two are mutually exclusive (look it up). You should probably quit while you're ahead.
So, as it stands, in the interest of deleting "crap" (your word), you've virtually guaranteed that no further useful information will be added. Milo, your labeling of anything I added as "irrelevent links" simply proves you've not done your homework (surprising, since that's one of the basic premises of the Wiki). 240sx.org is the official website of the 240sx Car Club of America, has been in operation longer than Wikipedia (10 years this July), and is the most reliable resource for information on that vehicle available.
Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned we have no need to "spam", we recieve an absurd amount of traffic and are the largest Nissan board on the Web.
In reading your rant, I'm inclined to wonder what might have happened if one of my staff had added those links. The fact of the matter is, those links were added AFTER the fact, once I was made aware of the extent of contributions made by members of my staff. You seem awfully hung up on discerning my motivations, a job best left to those who are qualified to make such determinations.
And I'll thank you to keep your curse words to yourself, they don't reflect well on the position of "Editor".
By the way, since you asked so nicely, here's a note from one of my staff regarding the edits on the Q45 Wiki page (apologies for the length):
QUOTE (by MinisterOfDOOM): "Their article used to end with a comment about how the Q45 was discontinued and the M45 would replace it as the flagship. Since the M45 is not the new "flagship" (which could very well be interperetation, but that's like saying axing the Maxima makes the Sentra the new flagship...there are certain criteria that must be met...the Q has a certain prestige that MAKES it the flagship). Anyway, I added that the Q concept was expected to debut at a particular autoshow (which I don't recall) which had a "Concept Q" from Infiniti listed in its "concepts appearing" lineup. I couldn't figure out their tags for external linking and didn't want to spend all day experimenting on a site that has no "preview changes" option, so I just left it unlinked. Later, someone edited in the link.
I was browsing it later and it had been reverted to the comments about the M45 replacing the Q and the Q being discontinued. I don't see why the one line (that the M is the new "flagship") that's LEAST accurate and mostly opinion and poor predition is the only part that's stayed. The rest was all fact, and got erased... Wasn't a huge error, per se, but my change was more correct, so I found it odd that they'd change it back... Now the mention of the Q returning is back.
I also added in some comments about WHY the Q was discontinued (poor sales numbers which were likely due to poor advertising on Infiniti's behalf). Those changes disappeared as well. Why? It was entirely correct. I even added in a "most likely" or something. Those comments are not there any longer. So I guess it wasn't a glaring error. But it was a correction and an addition of *correct* information. Both were removed. I find that odd." (end quote)
Dystopos, I appreciate your efforts. As a result, I spent quite a while perusing your page today, I'm an Alabamian myself (Ozark, 1970). AZhitman 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) AZhitman
I just can't find the edit you're talking about. Since we can't really fix a problem we can't find, I'd recommend reading Help:Diff. Specific links to edits would be more useful. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
NICO Club's additions to Wikipedia: the record
Edit histories for the accounts identified as adding NICO Club links:
* 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) (Qwest Broadband -- Phoenix area) o added NICO Club article o no other edits * 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) (Qwest Broadband -- Phoenix area) o 10 edits -- all link additions * 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) (Qwest Broadband -- Phoenix area) o 3 edits to Nisaan articles -- all link addtions * 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) (Qwest Broadband -- Phoenix area) o 20 edits + 19 link additions + one 6-paragraph copy and paste from http://www.azhitman.com/?p=42 [ # This was flagged by one editor later that day as reading like an advertisement then deleted within 2 hours by another editor  * 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) (Qwest Broadband -- location uncertain) o 2 edits -- both link additions * 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) (AOL) o 23 minutes worth of small but useful edits ... + a link addition * 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) (State of Arizona Dept. of Health Services) o 1 useful long sentence o 1 non-minor correction to an existing sentence o 10 link addition edits to Nissan-related articles * 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) (Insight Communications Company) o 2 edits -- both link additions * 240sxconvertible (talk • contribs) o created 240sx convertible (article history) which was tagged for speedy deletion, then saved but tagged as reading like an advertisement. After 10 days or so, it was replaced with a redirect to the main Nissan 240SX. o Also added links to Nissan 240SX
According to NICO Club's AZhitman (talk • contribs):
"My Q45 Moderator drafted the majority of the content on the Wikipedia Q45 page."
Let's look at the edit history for the Infiniti Q45 article. Major contributors don't appear to include any NICO Club people:
"Major contributors don't appear to include any NICOclub people:" Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. All NICO members and staff.
IP Addresses - User ID's 70.183.19 - Black Stallion 70.187.181 - turbotaiji & kdog01 166.68.134 - InfinQ4591 70.112.152 - mikizzle Elwesso (not sure what name he goes by on the Wiki) 22.214.171.124 05:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC) AZhitman
"All NICO members and staff":
1. Is 126.96.36.199 NICO Club's "InfinQ4591"? 1. 188.8.131.52 has 197 Wikipedia edits, only one is Nissan-related 2. NICO Club's InfinQ4591 has just 10 posts on NICO Club
3. NICO Club's InfinQ4591 says he lives in Baltimore in his NICO Club profile 1. 184.108.40.206 traceroutes to the NYC area 2. 220.127.116.11 is dynamically assigned by Verizon and appears to have been used on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet by many different people with different names based on a Google search, among others: a high volume Wikipedia editor, Jim.henderson; a female busrider on Staten Island; a disgruntled restaurant-goer in Forest Hills, New York; and a tourist from Reading, Massachusetts. 4. NICO Club's InfinQ4591 joined NICO Club in May 2006
18.104.22.168 edited Wikipedia's Infiniti Q45 article in November 2005
2. Is 22.214.171.124 NICO Club's "turbotaiji" & "kdog01"? 1. NICO Club's turbotaiji joined NICO Club in June 2006 and has 16 NICO posts to date:
2. NICO Club's turbotaiji joined NICO Club in June 2006
126.96.36.199 edited Wikipedia's Infiniti Q45 article in May 2005.
3. NICO Club's kdog01:
I could not find a "kdog01" on NICO Club's forums using NICO Club's built-in search feature
3. Is 188.8.131.52 NICO Club's "Black Stallion"? 1. 184.108.40.206 has only 4 Nissan-related edits on Wikipedia; tons more for other automakers; in fact I think he/she may be a semi-competitor of NICO Club's judging from the links he/she added in the past 2. 220.127.116.11 is registered to Cox Cable
The NICO Club profile for Black Stallion indicates he is also a Cox user:
"Something is amiss here. I have a hard time believing that a person who has contributed so much to wikipedia doesn't understand that no one here is "staff". Seems like another tempest in a teapot. Wjhonson 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)"
"And did I mention, doesn't know how to sign his posts? Wjhonson 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)"
Wow, what an ***hole. Comments on symantics and making a jab about signing a response? Volunteers are still "staff".
Honestly, with the amount of effort put forth, simply removing our links while keeping the information as their own is VERY unethical. At this point, I would simply let them know that we will keep our documentation and not add to their environment. On the back-end, we can create static pages that actually dispel their "rumors". Throw some egg on their face. If they update to mimic our doc then they are breaking the law.
I've said it before, **** them.
2008 G37s Coupe | Invidia Gemini CBE + HFC's | Cobb Tune | GTspec FSTB | BC Coilovers | Hotchkis Sways | Eibach Camber kits | R2C Intakes | StopTech PowerSlots | TBW engine cover | 20" ForgeStar F14's 2014 Q50 AWD Sport with 19" G37 sport wheels
audtatious wrote:Honestly, with the amount of effort put forth, simply removing our links while keeping the information as their own is VERY unethical. At this point, I would simply let them know that we will keep our documentation and not add to their environment. On the back-end, we can create static pages that actually dispel their "rumors". Throw some egg on their face. If they update to mimic our doc then they are breaking the law.
I've said it before, f*** them.
No kidding. I'm serious, let's make some dough off copyright infringement.
2002 Infiniti Q45, Black Obsidian\Graphite 2005 Infiniti QX56, Jade\Willow
that really sucks. i dont understand how people who claim to be so progressive in their way of thinking actually have it backwards. they are self-serving and pretentious for what is supposed to be a free information resource.
this reeks of their distaste for "coporations" and capitalism.
dammit we scratched their backs, and we scratched them good and hard, theyre just content to **** in our cereal and pretend to be enlightened about it the whole time.
I have always found that site gay. Mainly because every time I find myself arguing with some jackass he builds his arguments on wik links. I laugh at such FisherPrice BS. Do you know or do you just have wik as your homepage and preach it as gosphel on faith. They are gay, lets hurt them as bad as we possibly can, their very existence offends me.
For the most part, yes. Greg pointed out a toyota info page that had forum links on it. They immediately deleted them and stated "Not any more!"
The bottom line is that Wiki is taking content that has and is maintained by others and removing all generic links. If we had a static page with the information and the "links" were direct to that page only, then it is possible that they would leave the link. BUT, if the link also contained other links to our other forums or portals, then that could give the the "right" to remove it, thus making the info theirs and theirs alone.
So, in general, people who created and maintained Wiki pages instead of creating their own content are now being punished for not having proof in the form of static information.
Could we configure it so any time a wiki link is put in a post a link to the discussion Greg posted comes up instead? Every time a Nico member tries to click a wiki link they are confronted with what those tools are trying to pull. I assume anybody can post there right?