Benutzer Diskussion:Dr Zimbu
Letzter Kommentar: vor 2 Jahren von Special Circumstances
Hallo Dr Zimbu,
möchtest Du bitte kurz erläutern, warum Du serienweise links zu Volltextversionen auf academia.edu als „crosswiki spam“ aus Literaturlisten löschst? --Special Circumstances (Diskussion) 22:00, 27. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- @Special Circumstances: Forgive me if I write in English.
- I'm not eliminating all links to Academia.edu, just the ones inserted by Paco las Heras (global contributions): the only edits made by the user have been to add links to writings on academia.edu, all written by the same author, without adding any content, in an enormous number of languages--Dr Zimbu (Diskussion) 22:28, 27. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- In de:WP, I find 23 contributions in five years from this user which is not exorbitant. Even if this is a SPA spreading the same links in different language versions, it doesn't necessarily mean the links must be worthless per se. In the case of Edgar Degas, for example, it is a catalogue raisonée of all his monotypes, in open access. As an external link (not in the literature section, there I agree) this would be justified in my opinion, as it gives quite useful additional information. --Jossi (Diskussion) 00:47, 28. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- They may be 23 on de.WP, but are 180 among all Wikipedias. All of them are addition of a link to pdfs of the same author (probably the user himself), of which I don't see academic credentials (so perhaps the catalogue may be raisonée, but with what autority?), and self-published; it looks like obvious spam to me. If another user find the link a good addition to the articles, I have no problems with it; but I don't think spamming multiple Wikipedias should be permitted--Dr Zimbu (Diskussion) 01:00, 28. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- As I am not an art historian myself, I'll put the question if this has any worth to our experts at Portal_Diskussion:Bildende_Kunst. --Jossi (Diskussion) 11:26, 28. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- (nach BK; after conflicting edits)
- Dear Dr Zimbu,
- Thank you for your explanations. Yes, this looks like „crosswiki spam“ of self-published works to me as well. As this is a problem beyond my authorisation on de.Wikipedia I will link this discussion on our page for „questions to administrators“. I hope this is OK for you.
- Best Regards --Special Circumstances (Diskussion) 11:35, 28. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- As I am not an art historian myself, I'll put the question if this has any worth to our experts at Portal_Diskussion:Bildende_Kunst. --Jossi (Diskussion) 11:26, 28. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- They may be 23 on de.WP, but are 180 among all Wikipedias. All of them are addition of a link to pdfs of the same author (probably the user himself), of which I don't see academic credentials (so perhaps the catalogue may be raisonée, but with what autority?), and self-published; it looks like obvious spam to me. If another user find the link a good addition to the articles, I have no problems with it; but I don't think spamming multiple Wikipedias should be permitted--Dr Zimbu (Diskussion) 01:00, 28. Mär. 2022 (CEST)
- In de:WP, I find 23 contributions in five years from this user which is not exorbitant. Even if this is a SPA spreading the same links in different language versions, it doesn't necessarily mean the links must be worthless per se. In the case of Edgar Degas, for example, it is a catalogue raisonée of all his monotypes, in open access. As an external link (not in the literature section, there I agree) this would be justified in my opinion, as it gives quite useful additional information. --Jossi (Diskussion) 00:47, 28. Mär. 2022 (CEST)