On Jan 19, 2004, at 22:00, Karl Eichwalder wrote: Er, that page *is* editable by users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On Jan 19, 2004, at 22:44, Karl Eichwalder wrote: Special:Booksources when given an ISBN (that is, what you get when you click an ISBN link) takes Wikipedia:Book_sources and slips in the ISBN number. Going to [[Special:Booksources]] raw hasn't got around to that because we forgot you could do that. :) That's a bug. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Karl Eichwalder wrote: Yes, because the very act of selling books is sufficiently evil that you should disassociate yourself with anyone even remotely tainted by it. As soon as you discovered that Wikipedia actually links to people who engage in such nasty business, you should have denounced us and left immediately. Is that really what you're saying? Look, I appreciate that there are many very real concerns that can and should be raised here. But to storm off in response to a short term test designed to give us information is insulting to our intelligence. As for me, I fully expect that the net result of the experiment will be to prove, once and for all, that Amazon links would provide us with very little revenue so that it's not worth discussing this any more. That's what the test is designed to show. Your acting like it's some kind of crime against humanity is not helpful. It occurs to me that the current state of affairs -- linking to Amazon, but doing so for free -- ought to be the *least* satisfactory to those who hate Amazon. They get the business, and they get to keep all the money. Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link, will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the status quo. --Jimbo

Karl Eichwalder wrote: It does - on average, because many "associates" will make exclusive or prominent links to Amazon. We don't. Magnus

Karl Eichwalder wrote: That's right. The offer the associates program in order to induce people to link to them. They would prefer, of course, that people link to them for free. For a site is going to link to them for free, they are surely worse of if that site links to them for money instead. We certainly are bringing Amazon no *additional* benefit by linking to them with an associates code. It seems to me that for Amazon haters, the following ranking makes the most sense... 1. Don't link to them at all. BEST 2. Link to them, but make them pay. 2nd BEST 3. Link to them for free. WORST by FAR --Jimbo

Elisabeth Bauer &lt;elian(a)djini.de&gt; writes: No, "2." is the worst. This way not only people get the impression it's obiously okay to buy at A.'s (if WP links to them nothing can be wrong with A.), but also some readers will intentionally buy there believing that's a good way to support the WP project. Adding such a link could be a way out of the mess. -- | ,__o | _-\_<, http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)

Tomasz Wegrzanowski &lt;taw(a)users.sf.net&gt; writes: Who gives a monkeys? The point of view of the Encyclopedia has to be neutral, everything else is negotiable. If we let amazon make editorial policy, thats stupid, otherwise lets try and show Jimbo some latitude as he throws increasingly large amounts of *his* *own* *money* at wikipedia (which you seem happy to accept). Now who's being non-neutral. Does money spent on AIDS research stink? Does BOMIS spent on wikipedia servers stink too? Which stinks worse? Idiocies like this make me embarassed to be a liberal. -- Gareth Owen "And Cunct, please stop being such a prick." -- wikipedia-l gains a new mantra (Wed Nov 6 2002)