Wikipedia talk:Spam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hiding spam links with "good references"[edit]

Seeing this more an more such as:

Good ref does not support the content in question. Other is simple spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Videos section[edit]

WP:Spam#Videos contains this text:

"It has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site or to another spamming video, even if it is only one link among many legitimate links."

Wouldn't that pretty much ban all links to YouTube? If you add a link to a Youtube video, on, say, how a particular kind of food is made, the odds are pretty high that there will be a link to a "commercial" site somewhere in there (e.g., a link to the television company that originally produced the video) or that the automatically suggested videos will contain a suggestion for a video that contains a link to a commercial site (e.g., a link to a review of that candy, from a candy seller).

Maybe the problem is with the concept of a "commercial" site. What is that supposed to mean? Is YouTube a commercial site? Is its corporate parent's website a commercial site? (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Any comments, or should I just boldly make this say something sensible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There having been no objections for five months, I've deleted the statement in question.
I then also deleted the line that said copyvios were spam. They aren't; copyvios are copyvios.
This whole thing appears to have been added in 2007, and I think that a thorough re-write is in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018[edit]

2604:6000:1013:9AD:0:C033:948D:AEFB (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MBlaze Lightning 04:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Refspam user warning[edit]

I've created {{uw-refspam}} as I keep on encountering academic spam and thought we could do with a boilerplate message to explain why it is a problem and request that they stop. Does anyone have any comments? @Jytdog and JzG: as I know you're also active in dealing with it (anyone else?). SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Is this in Twinkle? Guy (Help!) 13:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope - not sure how to get it added. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. You should notify WT:WARN of this thread, as the documentation there will need to be updated, and that page is watched by UW template editors. --Bsherr (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - will do later. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! The "template" I use is

Your contributions to date seem to be all about adding references to papers by a small group of researchers.
While we love experts here (see WP:EXPERT) we do not love experts who use their editing privileges to promote their own work, which is a violation of the policy against abusing WP for promotion. This is also considered a form of spam -- see WP:REFSPAM. Please also see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI.
We do love experts, and it would wonderful if you would consider contributing more broadly. But please, enough of the refspamming. Thanks.

I want to encourage people as well as marking out the behaviro as clearly unacceptable ...some of it is too informal for an actual template message of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and made a revision... thanks for creating this! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Just looking at this again and I realised that refspam conflates the classic spamming of links inside ref tags with academic reference spam. They're very different beasts with the first being the work of experienced spammers whereas academics are most likely acting in semi- good faith. Would it make more sense to merge the academic parts with bookspam and maybe rename it the section as academic spamming? SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Trademark issues[edit]

It should be noted that making mention that certain terms also constitute a "trademark" under the Lanham Act does not constitute "spam". Such is actually a reasonably prudent step to avoid potential accusations of trademark infringement or contributory trademark infringement given the right set of particular circumstances, and thus it is actually good form of policy to make such mentions. I'm not going to make a proposal to officially modify the policy on this issue yet, However this is something that we all need to be cognizant of. 108.178.78.26 (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This concerns an attempt at Circle jerk to mention that someone somewhere has a trademark about something. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What is book spam?[edit]

@Qwirkle: has objected here to my calling edits such as this by @RobDuch: to 27 articles "book spam". @Drmies: also reverted some of those edits by RobDuch as "book spam". I am interested in how other users interpret "book spam". - Donald Albury 18:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Weaver book has 2-3 or more specific pages on each fort, with an introduction to each geographic area. I will link them in the articles. In many cases I was simply updating Weaver to the 2nd Edition. The only reason Weaver wasn't already in some articles is that I haven't got around to editing them yet. Lewis is a valuable overview book, useful to anyone wanting a concise, readable source. RobDuch (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, if the book is useful, indeed, use it to cite specific information. Donald Albury, I think that listing a book without explicit warranty to do so is spam--and what I mean with "explicit warranty" is, for instance, a specific bit of knowledge or, for "Further reading" (a concept I find problematic) an obvious title or reference. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you find “further reading” problematic, but the briefest survey of actual articles suggests that Wikipedia itself does not, and that side argument should not be brought in to justify a misuse of WP:SPAM. The guideline is quite explicit: adding a reference for the benefit of the article and the reader, as was done here, isn’t “book spam”. Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Next, the entire point of “further reading”, ontologically and etymologically, is to offer the reader something beyond the article’s current boundaries. It is expressly intented to go beyond, not within, and, IMS, Wikipedia explicitly excludes “further reading” and “external links” which are already on the reference list. Qwirkle (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Despite the arguments presented here, I still see the indiscriminate adding of a book to the Further reading sections of multiple articles as "book spam". If a book is a reliable source for useful information that is not yet in the article, use it as a source. If the book merely duplicates information that is already reliably sourced in the article, then what is the benefit of listing it as further reading? If I find a source that I think may be useful for developing an article, and I don't have the time to add it myself, I may add a note to the talk page suggesting it, but I never add it to Further reading. I still see adding one or more books to the Further reading sections of more than two dozen articles at a time as book spam, but I have been reverted, so I am done with those articles. - Donald Albury 18:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
That starts with a textbook-grade example of begging the question, you assert, on no evidence...and falsely...the the material was added “indiscriminately.” Says who? Next, you point out that you would not a add a source which you were not competent to evaluate - good practice, that- but what has it to do with the writer you accuse of “spamming?”
”Spamming” is misconduct, and should not be used to describe a disagreement over editing styles, or worse yet, as an excuse for not bothering to evaluate a source before removing it en mass. Qwirkle (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I know there's been a great deal of local consensus to limit Further reading sections because of SPAM, SOAP, and POV concerns. I certainly remove new and upcoming publications from Further reading sections without much thought beyond checking if it might be a new edition or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Invoking “local consensus” in the context of drive-by deletion of work by the major contributor in the locale seems like a stretch, doesn’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
How about someone quotes the policy? "Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to "external links", "further reading" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information." These books add useful and relevant information. RobDuch (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Adding them to multiple articles like that is spamming. I'd certainly have removed them if I had come across them.
Besides the SPAM, SOAP, and POV problems with the additions, it detracts from our purpose of improving this encyclopedia by encouraging editors to look elsewhere rather than in related articles here. If they're already being used as refs in related articles, especially articles on supertopics, then they don't belong. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
so, as you see it, it isn’t necessary to actually evaluate a reference’s fitness, it’s just a simple matter of counting the number of articles it’s attached to? And the purpose of this...project.... isnt to inform the reader, so much as it to keep him mired in articles here? Qwirkle (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
so, as you see it No, that's not how I see it.
Also, I'm not talking about references, but I've not looked to see if REFSPAM might apply. --Ronz (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Then perhaps you could explain how your views differ from that view of them, which is based on your words above:”Adding them to multiple articles like that is spamming. That’s a blanket statement, based entirely on the number of articles the reference is added to.
And you are talking about references, BTW; even if this particular variant isnt a specific citation. Ref =/= cite. Qwirkle (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
This is feeling like WP:IDHT. I believe Donald Albury's original question has been answered.
These books add useful and relevant information. Howso? --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"Howso?" is exactly the right question. How does this book contributes something useful and relevant to that article? We don't even know that that specific subject is discussed in this book. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why not read them, and then see if you still have that question. Weaver is a little hard to grab at a library but Lewis isn’t. If that is too hard for you, you might wanna ask why a Smithsonian published work and its wider-published Naval Institute offshoot, both by Emanuel Raymond Lewis, prominently favorably reviewed, is such crap that it could only be added to a related article by a spammer. Qwirkle (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I will note that "bookspam" is defined in a guideline, and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states, "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Based on the limited sample of users that have offered opinions here, I do not think that a consensus for a particular interpretation of "bookspam" has been demonstrated. I do not see either side convincing the other, at this point. An RfC might settle the question, but RfCs can be time sinks, so I won't start one. - Donald Albury 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and I would submit that calling a long-standing editor’s work in an area he is obviously more familiar with than you “spam” is a severe violation of civility and assuming good faith, to say nothing of the level of self-satisfied hubris it suggests.
if the person who added them cant answer, it's spam) Adding snark in the edit summary doesn’t make your bad argument better. That’s been asked and answered already. Qwirkle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not read them The persons adding them or arguing for their inclusion should have read them and should be able to answer the question. If someone added them without reading them, they would be spam indeed. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The fellow obviously has, and you obviously havent, and yet you have a strong opinion on the subject. What does that tell us about you? Qwirkle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And this has degenerated to focusing on editors, always a bad path to choose, and not just when there's spamming in question.
If no one can answer "Howso?", and no one has, then it's going to be treated as spam. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Qwirkle, please don't edit-war over revert the Further reading entries until you've at least attempted to answer the question "Howso?". --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC) (refactored --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC))
I did answer "Howso?" in the second post on this thread, and it's been ignored. "The Weaver book has 2-3 or more specific pages on each fort, with an introduction to each geographic area." That fact hasn't changed, despite all the argument that's gone on. Lewis is an overview; Weaver goes in-depth on each Third System fort. I have not found another source that describes each fort in detail using proper terminology. RobDuch (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry it was overlooked.
So for Weaver, it's a placeholder until it's added as a reference?
The explanation for Lewis is a bit vague. Sounds like it belongs as a ref in the supertopics, less so for the articles about the individual forts. --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Weaver is a placeholder. Lewis is in the supertopics already, and I wanted to put it in each fort because it's the most readable guide to the whole history of US coastal forts that I've come across. RobDuch (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This should be relatively easy to solve. Qwirkle, can you please provide links to the publishers' websites? Book-based refspam is not really any different form garden variety refspam, nine tenths of the diagnosis comes from the objective authority of the source. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is Lewis’s book on Worldcat. Note that it has been in print more or less continuously for nearly five decades, that its initial publisher was the Smithsonian, later taken over mostly by the Naval Institute press. (Widening the search on Wordldcat to show reviews is also illuminating; this will also capture a similar work Lewis did for the Smithsonian internally.) Here is the Google Scholar pull; I think you’ll see that it sits in good company, no? Qwirkle (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@JzG:, have you had a chance to look at this? Qwirkle (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@JzG:, I think I’ve given more than enough time for someone to register an actual objection to the use of these books beyond vague intuitions. If no adds anything here in the next couple of hours, I’ll be restoring the original edits. Qwirkle (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, this appears to be WP:IDHT. No one is against the proper use of these books. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And, once again, reverts are being used rather than discussion. If there's no further response here, the material should probably be removed once again. I think it would be very helpful for editors that feel different to summarize the case for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The case for inclusion has already been stated above, but apparently you didnt hear it. Lewis is one of the standard references for the whole subject of US coastal fortifications, pretty much the seminal scholarly work since they passed out of use in the US. Since bookspam requires actual spamming, i.e. promiscuously placing material willy-nilly for its own promotion, not the benefit of the article or reader, this obviously isn’t “bookspam.” The fact that someone is uncomfortable with the concept of “further reading” is not a justification to disrupt the articles to make that point.
Weaver is newer, and goes back to a specialized publisher, but the publisher is unarguable a subject matter expert. Both books provide a wider view of the subject area, which is exactly what “further reading” is for.
(It’s obviously not soapboxing, either, nor do they reflect a peculiar POV. I’ll leave why you scatter-shot the article with links to irrelevant policies for later and elsewhere, but it is suggestive.)
Since you have already conceded above there is no policy-based reason not to use this source, why have you removed it, @Ronz:? Why do you plan to remove it multiple times? Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for responding.
I asked for a summary. Thank you.
The rest looks like WP:BATTLE and an inability to WP:FOC.
Since you have already conceded This appears to be an outright misrepresentation. Please strike so we can move on. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding external links like that (and yes, 'further reading' reading sections are disguised external links sections - I understand the reasons for splitting certain works out of the external links section, but basically (even when not containing a true external link) they have the same function: point to non-wikipedia material in list format) is spamming. On a non-stub article (and even on a stub article) those additions are very unlikely to pass our inclusion standards (and if you answer the question 'does this work that you added contain something that is not in the article?' with 'no', then you don't understand our inclusion standards of external links, and if you answer the question with 'yes' you also do not understand our inclusion standards for external links), which makes this type of behaviour 'spamming' (and therefore: bookspam' in this case). Please use such material in a way that they deserve instead of bickering that about the definition of bookspam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond an ISBN tag, there is obviously no actual link here, obviously, so you are essentially stating that, in your opinion, any external bibiliography is “spam”? I think it would take a good deal of special pleading to torture that interpretation out of the relevant guideline, and it also flies in the face of actual practice in many articles. Qwirkle (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I wish you'd re-read your statement. Without quoting or linking to anything specific, you've glibly implied that "our inclusion standards for external links" essentially prohibit both "External links" and "Further reading" sections. It seems that any large-scale addition of a pub or link to multiple articles is considered "spam", no matter how relevant the addition is. RobDuch (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Adding the same content to many articles is spamming (a behavior). The likelihood of any content being strongly relevant to a large number of articles is slim, as this specific case shows. It's very relevant to the articles that already have it as a reference, not so much to the rest. Also, in this case, they were added as a placeholder to remind the editor who added them that they should be used as references in the future. While that's not spam, it's not appropriate either. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
No. Adding relevant, useful content to articles is never “spamming”, no matter the scale. If it belongs in the article, it doesn’t really matter whether it is added “vertically”, so to speak, among several edits to one article, or “horizontally” across several articles at once. If a book covers a particular area very well, it might be added to as many articles as it relates to. If it provides a wider overview to those articles, it might be better added as “further reading”, where it might get further read, given Wiki’s dislike of the same source being used both ways. Qwirkle (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Next, this case shows no such thing. Only someone completely unfamiliar with the subject, and proudly willing to remain that way, could suggest that. Qwirkle (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a book containing 'more information' in a further reading section is, rather obvious, material external to our encyclopedia. You do not link directly, but through an ISBN, still it is outside of this encyclopedia (and rather often, more directly linked externally). Further reading sections are just lists of external material with different degrees of usefulness and often an excuse to escape our external links guidelines.
And, as expected, 'relevant, useful' links is debatable, and it can be 'spamming', even if good intended. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
As generality, both can sometimes be true. In particular here, neither is. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
And when all's said and done, it's relevance that matters.
Yes, Weaver is a placeholder. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
And, as anyone who can trouble themselves to actually read the cite could tell you, it’s relevant. It’s a history of the wider subject, across an entire era. It would be perfectly appropriate to leave as “Further reading,” even though you don’t like it. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly.  I did not need to read the ref for that.  And that is exactly why this material does not belong.  What you advocate is linkfarming and allowing anything that is related or mentions the subject to be included. As I expected, a misunderstanding of inclusion standards.
In any case, there is no consensus on inclusion.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
To begin with, link farming is an actual concept, with a real meaning, which even in the most metaphorical, broadest sense, could never apply here. To set up a link farm, one has to make all the nodes interlink with each other, and has to get more than two or three nodes. Next, that assumes the only purpose someone could have for adding a link was nefarious. Next, it ignores the fact that Wiki’s ISBN page does not, in fact, link without intervention. The usual slam at other wikiteurs aside, this is part of the ongoing pattern on this page of slinging accusation after accusation, hoping some of the mud will stick. It hasn’t, except for some backsplash. Qwirkle (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Oooh. SOomeone knows the article, but not the policy(-shortcut). This is, in Wikipediaterms, linkfarming. Again, we do have inclusion standardsfor linking to external materials. Being disguised as an ISBN does not change the fact that the works, the books itself, are external to Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It appears you are grasping at WP:LINKFARM, which, unsurprisingly, has no relevance here. This is not any of the categories discussed there. Qwirkle (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, have to still hear content relevant inclusion reasons of why omitting these books is detrimental to the presented information. Related to the subject is not enough, so we are still atthe same. Throwing in IDONTLIKEIT or mud arguments are ad hominim. I guess the fact that we have here a long discussion does clearly show that you are right, right? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Accusing a wikiteur of spamming is a personal attack. Doing so when it is untrue exacerbates the misconduct.
I would suggest that when a pair acting much like a tag team goes through a laundry list of objections to something, none of them based on fact or policy, that something is going on. Qwirkle (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I have gone through the edits again, and on all the pages the added documents are about the wider topic, not directly about thesubject of the page. I have therefore reverted them again out. They wereboldly inserted, reverted out. Such challenged material needs to be discussed and a consensus reached before adding them again. I notice that an edit warring warning has been given, the discussion clearly has not come to consensus, so I suggest that come to consensus first before re-inserting the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There are doubtless tens, no hundreds of thousands of articles in which the “”Further reading” articles expand the topic beyond the article. If you have a problem with that, as say, @Drmies: does, that does not justify accusing another of spamming, linkfarming, or any other misbehavior. Given that no violation of the Spam projects peculiar- and I mean that in every sense but ecclesiastic- remit, why should you be any part of the consensus? Qwirkle (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a daft question if Lewis is so good why is it not being used as a reference ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Not to speak for the original writer, but if you have a need for “Further reading”, using a work already in the article will almost guarantee its deletion. (That strikes me as daft, not your question.) Qwirkle (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Having just read WP:Further reading, it looks like I'm good to go if I point out which chapter in Lewis covers the third system of US forts, and which pages of Weaver cover a specific fort. However, I seem to have wandered into a wider issue in which some admins desire to limit (or eliminate?) FR and EL sections across the board. RobDuch (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I said a long time ago already that a specific pointer makes an inclusion more acceptable, but of course the best thing to do, as MilborneOne, says, is to include it as a reference. Not doing that, and dropping a link/entry in a whole bunch of articles, makes one liable to the charge of spamming. But "it looks like I'm good to go", RobDuch, it seems to me that Beetstra's comment means NO, not good to go. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: they do not want to use it as a reference because that disqualifies their preferred option which is to have it as a further reading. Seeing that this link is/was on articles like Alcatraz and Fort Lauderdale both massive articles I cannot see how there a further reading is much warranted if this book only spends a couple of pages on the subject. So yes, even linking directly to the right pages gives me doubt that it will add much on those. And as this was/is added indiscrimiinate to those pages and many others, this behaviour, on this specific subset, is spamming (and calling a couple of edits of an editors spamming is something else than calling someonea spammer). And any more responses in kind and other extreme extrapolations to remarks have to stop. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Ummm, no. In some cases it would make sense to reserve a reference for further reading, in others it might not. In some cases it might make sense to add it essentially as a reminder, in other cases it might not. Each of these might strike different writers as better or worse practice, but that doesn’t miraculously make them “bookspam”. MilborneOne asked a general question, and he received a general answer, and he recieved it from one person who explicitly stated he wasn’t talking for anyone else, so where are you getting this “they” bit? Qwirkle (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Next, perhaps you could provide a diff for Fort Lauderdale? Qwirkle (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Finally, this is Wiki’s actual definition of “bookspam”:
Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article. I don’t think anyone familiar with the sources or the subject can see this here. Qwirkle (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious that a top-ranking website which anyone can edit attracts spam? That spam comes in many shapes and sizes including stuffing mentions of favorite books into any page that might hold them. It is very likely that the people involved in this case are good faith and good editors, but if they also had a clue they would realize that it is hard for other editors to see why two-dozen mentions of a book should not be described as "book spam". People who are so offended by that description should not repeatedly add mentions of books. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course Wiki is attracting spammers (an hoaxters and trollers, oh my!) constantly, @Johnuniq:.
And of course there would occasional cases where well-intentioned spam-hunters would mis-identify useful edits as spam by using simplistic models of what spam is and what it is not.
The problem is what comes next. When someone sees additions of a respectable source to a relevant article, their first instinct should not be to label it, and its writer, pejoratively and nuke it. They should, perhaps, lable it more neutrally and nuke it, and let others, even perhaps even the same writer, deal with it. Or maybe contact the writer. Or even actually research the sources and subjects, to make a more informed decision. Or maybe, if they aren’t willing or capable of evaluating the situation deeper, they should just move on, and find some real spam to nuke, and some real spammers to hassle.
What they should not do, IMO, is attempt to take ownership of the articles, and project their own failings on the writer. Qwirkle (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Qwirkle, just to show you I'm serious, I am going to drop an NPA warning on your talk page because of this "project their own failings" comment, which I consider to be a personal attack--especially since it comes after a paragraph full of gaslighting. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Tell me, @Drmies:, in what world is “gaslighting” not a personal attack? Qwirkle (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That is not an acceptable or even meaningful response, and it's lousy bait as well. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
To use Wiki’s own words, Gaslighting involves Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying.... Are you saying that doesn’t strike you as a personal attack? Qwirkle (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Still going on about calling this bookspam. Even if we agree on this not being bookspam the links are still inappropriate. Seeing this added to Alcatraz island shows that clearly. I will have a look whereelse this was added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, @Beetstra:, the Weaver book has an entire section on Alcatraz. It’s listed in the table of contents, not just the body. Qwirkle (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I will behave myself from now on. Alcatraz began its federal life as a third system fort, a small part of which is preserved and much more of which is in the basements of the prison buildings. Weaver has eight pages on this fort. Regardless, I will refrain from adding pubs to this and related articles until if/when I get to editing them in depth. RobDuch (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I see we are making progress, thank you. Yes, I know the Weaver book has material on Alcatraz. I also know that Wikipedia has 8 pages on Alcatraz (10, if you print it). Now, the questions are several: is there info in the book that we do not have in Wikipedia? Is there info in the book that should be in Wikipedia? Is there info in he book that (significantly) expands on what Wikipediahas and that could not be incorporated? Of the info that Wikipedia has are there any statements (tagged or untagged) for which information from this book would serve as a good reference? Is there information in this book that is not covered by other works that are already mentioned/used on Wikipedia? I know that most of these questions are answered with yes/of course/absolutely, so that is the case you have to make (and that for each occasion) whenever you get challenged (for whatever reason). And understand that, in this case, that disqualifies this work as a further reading on these subjects (but there are places where this does/could belong). And because I know that most of these questions are answered with yes/of course/undoubtedly, the 'mass addition' too strongly suggest that most additions were inconsiderate of those questions (strongly evidenced by the addition to Alcatraz). (note: I have been vigilant about linking to external material (in the broadest sense of the terms) and I know the arguments carried forward - arguments which have proven to be straw men even under the best of intentions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that Alcatraz's fort is not neglected in the article. This is good, but if/when I edit it, I will add more with Weaver as a reference. Weaver is best at accurately describing forts in correct terminology. As I said, I will refrain from adding refs/links until I can edit an article more thoroughly. RobDuch (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

External links in edit summaries[edit]

In response to the recent discussion at ANI, I've started a discussion to change Help:Edit summary so it directs editors away from spammy external links in edit summaries: Help_talk:Edit_summary#External_links_in_edit_summaries --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)