Talk:Ingenta

From Eureka

OK, I started an article here but I'm clueless about how to do some things! For instance, I want my footnote numbers to be interspersed in the text properly and not line up against the left margin. Help me out! Also checking of the content and additions to the content are appreciated. I envision a section here naming the names of notable journals distributed online by Ingenta.

One more issue for advice: I am the author, but I link references such as my own "Hall of Shame." This is, of course, undesirable. Nobody is pretending that the site here comes from a neutral point of view, but I'd like suggestions on how to handle this matter here.

Thanks, Carl

Thanks for the additions. I deleted the comment "suggestive of a payoff" since I think we'll stay on safer ground if we stick to talking about facts rather than inferences. Remember: these guys have lots of lawyers.

I don't have time now to address the formatting and other issues. John Baez 05:52, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I think the formatting issue is a software bug, not your fault — compare the page where I tried the same thing: Google Scholar. I might not have time to attack this one today, but I'll get to it as soon as I can, because referencing is important. Blake Stacey 12:03, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Update: I think it's actually a compatibility problem between the citation extension and the Semantic MediaWiki extension! Blake Stacey 12:22, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

John, Blake,

Thanks for your additions and corrections. It appears that the reference formatting bug has been resolved. We ought to think about borrowing some of the templates (for citations, lists, etc.) from Wikipedia in order to standardize the formatting. My approach to building a Wikipedia article is to just overwrite my own content into a useful format that others have developed. When I write other articles I will probably cut-and-paste from this and other ones to establish the formatting. John's call on the "payoff" editorial is appropriate. Nonetheless, the involvement of Google's marketing department with Ingenta is something around which my curiosity gravitates. I hope I can elicit a better explanation of the relationship. -Carl

In my humble opinion, the tone of the article is a little bit harsh. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the link to Leigh Dodds' personal website. --Brucebartlett 16:22, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi Bruce, I can understand why links to the personal website of an individual whose professional activity is disputed may arouse concern. In justification of it, however, this individual makes revelatory work-related comments on his blog that specifically touch on the issue of cloaking. As references, I believe these links should stand. I would have no problem with removing the now-superfluous "external link" at the bottom of the page. Someone can do that or I can go ahead and do it if this is what you had in mind. About the tone: it's harsh, alright. My own view is that the "debate" over cloaking is simple and was settled long ago--it's black-hat behavior. People at this level engage in cloaking with full knowledge of the ethical ramifications. My role is not to tell Ingenta's side of the story or even acknowledge it (because I hold no respect for the logic behind it). My role is to publicize their unbecoming conduct and ultimately help exert external pressure to rethink how they conduct business. That's just my view. This article is the common product of us all, so if you have edits pertaining to the tone, please go ahead and try them out. If I think they smack of a free pass on anything, I will pipe up. Thanks, Carl --Cwillis 18:49, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

ATTENTION: I added some screenshots. I would like them to carry a highly-visible tag, as in Wikipedia, asserting my Fair Use claim. Right now, I just wrote my claim in the pic descriptions. PLEASE CHECK TO MAKE SURE I AM DOING THE RIGHT THING. I don't mind being told that I'm not, and if someone sees an immediate need to delete my pics temporarily, do it. I think screenshots carry great weight as evidence of online malfeasance and we should establish the means of using them easily and fairly. Thanks. --Cwillis 18:55, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

The article looks a whole lot better now! I'll highlight it more on the main page.

I don't think the article is currently too harsh to Dodds. For example, if Dodds wants to brag on his website that cloaking helps Ingenta, this is precisely the sort of thing we should point out! On the other hand, the (now deleted) comment "suggestive of a payoff" stepped over a line I believe we should not cross. I'm glad Carl agrees there.

I should tackle some of these issues in the forthcoming Statement of Principles, but to some extent we will need to evolve our own standards for this sort thing. Unlike Wikipedia we are advocating change, not merely compiling facts. So, their policy on ['neutral point of view'] should not apply here. But, this is all the more reason to adopt very strict moral standards. --John Baez 14:13, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

John, thanks for your edits and input. I will continue to check in on this page but am now working on another article about my friends at the IEEE that I hope to upload soon. --Cwillis 12:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)