This page is for discussing the contents of E-Z Smog.


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

Since there's some back and forth with multiple users involved, what say we move the discussion over here? At issue is the comment by meggowaffle on the E-Z Smog page linking to a competitor:

The nice guy who worked here for several years recently opened his own test station at A1 Smog.

Marty, the owner of E-Z Smog, feels this is promoting for a competitor and wants it removed.

My proposal: make the comment about A1 a bit more neutral (since it's on the E-Z Smog page, not the A1 page), and put reciprocal links on both pages. Specifically, something like the following:

  • On E-Z Smog: A former employee here recently (2013) opened his own test station at A1 Smog.
  • On A1 Smog: The owner of A1 Smog is a former employee of E-Z Smog.
  • 2013-07-16 18:11:10 maybe if you knew the owner as well as I do, you too would be suspicious. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. —martinennor
    • Martin-the comment was made by a very popular editor on the Wiki who has never gone after a business in a negative manner outside of personal experience. It was not the owner of the other business that posted the comment. —PeteB
  • Really, the popularity of the editor now plays a factor in what is acceptable on the wiki... for shame. Probably should have chosen a better way to get you point across. Perhaps, "a more active editor". Its not what you say, its how you say it. Just my 2 cents. —Aaron.Curtin
  • Totally untrue, Aaron. Martin was pointing at the owner of the other shop as the originator of the comment. I am saying he is false in that assertion. The person who wrote the comment is a grad student-not the owner of the business. She also has an established history of positive and productive edits-I have never seen the person make an uncouth negative edit towards anyone.—PeteB
  • What's untrue about what I said? All I was pointing out was popularity of the editor should play no part in what is acceptable on DW. But I have seen how THAT is untrue first hand. My point was more so about your choice of words. Specifically "the comment was made by a very popular editor on the Wiki". I actually agree with her statement, its the fact that you made it a point to bring up her "popularity" to justify her statement where that should play no factor at all. Less this, (the Daviswiki) become a popularity contest between editors and who deems what appropriate based on said "popularity". —Aaron.Curtin
    • Damn right, and worth pointing out. The idea of "popular" having any weight is troublesome. Weighing content is far better than weighing source, unless that source is relevant. In this case it isn't: it is a simple fact that seems correct. But now that that has been said — and I agree pointing it out is healthy — it doesn't really factor in the actual discussion of E-Z Smog. —jw
    • I agree re popularity. Although establishing an identity does make a difference. Every person who has posted on this page has done so, from Marty with a handful of edits to JW with a few jillion edits. Establishing your identity, whether based on your RealName or otherwise. I agree with JW, though, that neither popularity nor identity has much bearing on the E-Z Smog page, apart from ruling out the possibility of a sockpuppeting competitor. As to the subject of this page: I would be equally uncomfortable with an unsigned comment on the page for Ali Baba plugging Sam's (versus an actually review discussing the merits of the two, or something of the sort). Or plugging Ken's on the Apex page, or Thai Canteen on Sophia's. The standard practice on pretty much any page is to talk about the subject of that page. Sometimes there's talk about how the price is on the high end for that type of place, or the service is good or bad, or whatever. So, yeah. That's my problem with the existing line on this page. —tg

Not sure why we need something more "neutral," since this is a MPOV wiki. MW was expressing her viewpoint. —CovertProfessor

2013-07-17 10:11:47   I am not sure I like having links to competitors on pages. I feel like it sets a dangerous precedent. For instance, I used to run the fish department over at Davis Ace, but I would never in a million years consider putting a link on their page over to mine. Yes, this was a "third" party who did this (in this instance), but what's to stop me from doing it? The precedent has already been set. Ace would most likely not gain anything from having a link on my page since they are an established business, while I on the other hand would gain a tremendous amount since I am just starting up. I have to side with the owner of E-Z smog on this. —JamesKrause

I agree. —DonShor

2013-07-17 11:53:42   On the other hand, we have a long standing (unwritten of course) policy of adding the new location for stylists at previous work locations in salon pages. —Davidlm

I think this is a bit different, but I don't really clearly know how to explain the difference. —DS

2013-07-17 12:04:41   We have already have a long history of having competitors linked to one another, although this is not done consistently everywhere. Some examples: Sams and Ali Baba, the Vietnamese restaurants, and, perhaps the closest example, the comic book stores. I say that the latter is the closest example because the linking was the result of a case similar to this where an employee went from one shop to another, iirc.

The thing we all need to remember is that the wiki is not a business listing site. It exists not to promote businesses, but to be useful to readers and to reflect the diverse opinions of Davis citizens. If there are only a few entities of type X, then the cross-linking makes sense. If there are lots of entities of type X, then the cross linking becomes unwieldy and it's better just to link to the general page. —CovertProfessor

  • In which case the general page is the cross linking. I agree with CP and will say that we should engage in cross linking with utter abandon: you're supposed to find related entries from any other entry. As commercial motivation is not supposed to be a factor on the wiki, let me pose this question: why wouldn't a particular type of fish not link to other kinds of fish, or have a link to a new location where that fish is found? If somebody can explain a rational reason that applies to non-commercial topics, then it would carry far more weight. —jw
  • I understand your points cp and jw, but the wiki does have an indirect promotion of business even though it is not specifically advertising. While these are related entries, and can justifiably be linked, I don't think I agree with them being so unless both sides agree to it. I don't mind there being a separate page where all business of a certain type are linked, I don't mind if the link to that (business category) page is linked on the specific businesses page, but when you link specific business to specific business there are conflicts of interest. I am not sure if Sams and Ali Baba argued about this same topic of direct linking, but if one or both sides didn't approve of it, and it still exists, then I guess the precedent is already set and the direct link should stay. —James
    • Your talk of two sides would seem to indicate that you believe that the subjects of these entries should somehow have approval authorization over the content of the entries about them. These are written by everybody, and Megan has an equal right to define the content as the owner of E-Z Smog: this entry is about E-Z Smog, but it does not belong to them. Even in a limited way. As for promotion, we're supposed to be working to combat that, as we're a federally registered non-profit. You still haven't given a case that fits local fish (or species of shrubs) as well as businesses. Who would have this "both sides of authorization" you propose in the case of Privet Trees? —jw
      • I understand this completely and do not care to argue. I know that this is how wiki works, and how no page is owned by anybody. I have been on daviswiki for a while. I was just voicing my opinion, and I know that it is not a popular one (or within wiki rules), but that's how I feel. I don't really care to indulge your request for an example, as I know what road that is leading toward. Just know that I understand why the link is going to stay, but also know that I don't necessarily agree with the premise. —James
    • "Megan has an equal right to define the content as the owner of E-Z Smog" — You know that in practice that has never been true. Megan has more right, in practice, than the owner. The owner of any business is subjected to unusual and distinct scrutiny when attempting to edit. The page on E-Z Smog, and the page on the new smog-inspection company, should reasonably link to a page of smog inspection stations. There is no particular reason for them to link to each other, and especially no reason for there to be a one-way non-recipriocal link, with the added 'nice guy' editorial. If Megan wishes to leave a comment about that, fine. But it shouldn't IMO be part of the description of E-Z Smog. —DonShor
      • I haven't seen anyone insisting that the link should be one way. It makes sense to have it in both directions. And I can't really see the big deal in noting that the person was a nice guy. That's hardly over-the-top promotion. —CovertProfessor