I've never seen an entry on a wiki where someone asks others not to edit (a.k.a., contribute). Since discovering this website, I enjoy using it quite frequently. However, the more I use it the more I come across entries that reek of blatant self-promotion (a.k.a., advertising). You know the ol' saying, if it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk....
- I completely agree. A lot of articles include content that is self-promotional or one sided. My hope is we can move away from that. When building the earlier articles information was used by permission from other sources, many of which had a commercial interest in the subject. Others were written from opinionated points of view by one author with particular interest in that brand. We need to re-write those articles without loosing them entirely. If you have expertise in an area and would like to re-write an article or otherwise start a more collaborative effort in that area, that would be great! Perhaps we can keep relevant content by keeping it in quotes or moving it into a separate article and quoting from it. My concern is editing within the quoted material. That happened recently in a Q&A area of the Tobacco section. GL Pease answered some questions. His answers were edited. Better as a result, I think, but now they are not "his" answers. That should all be re-written to take it out of that format, but that will be a huge undertaking, and no one seems interested in taking that on.
- So yes, it's a bit of a mess--I'm very interested in getting it straightened out. Glad you find at least some of the articles useful. Thanks for your input. --sethile 08:57, 9 January 2012 (CST)
PR, POV, Wikis and non-wikis
I'm all in favor of a well-written and informative article, and getting permission to reprint such an article from smokingpipes.com is all very well, but this defeats the purpose of a wiki. Essentially we now have an article that represents probably no more than one writer's point of view, and seems very likely to have come from the Stanwell PR Department in the first place.
Even if it means losing the pictures in favour of contributors' own (and I'd be happy to start), I think this should be re-written from multiple sources. It would benefit from an impartial tone, cross-references to information about other brands and styles, and, above all, the ability for anyone with an extra nugget of information to add it.
126.96.36.199 15:03, 31 January 2009 (CST)
- I agree on all this. But let's not loose this information and format until we have a decent article. Instead I'd suggest we simply move it, and link to it from the more typical open source article. You will find many articles here on Pipedia are like this. It was a good way to start the project. We also have permission to use the Smoking pipes images in a collaborative article as long as we credit them, so that's not a problem. --sethile 20:13, 31 January 2009 (CST)
- I agree; the article as it stands is pure marketing materials. Will take some doing to re-write; I have a little info not included here which I could contribute. If I had to do a complete re-write, that would take some time, really. Mind you, I believe the smokingpipes.com article should be linked to by all means. Just maybe not used as the meat and bones of this article. Also, structuring is weak, with the entire thing in one block--I'll put in a headline or two for the time being. --Stizzleswick (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)