I was surprised today to read the WP:SPAM#Source soliciting section, particularly the first two sentences:
Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation are inappropriate.
I have definitely posted messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. I've used the template {{refideas}}, which has over 13,000 transclusions. Is this inappropriate? Does the word "anonymous" in the second sentence mean that it's OK for a logged-in editor to do this, but not for an IP editor?
I looked in the archive and it seems the last time this was discussed was in 2020 in Archive 5 (the thread that begins "The current consensus", which I can't figure out how to link to because of the brackets) by Glades12 and WhatamIdoing, with WAID explaining the section was moved from WP:CANVASS in 2007 by Trialsanderrors.
Does anyone think this section accurately describes current consensus? If not, should we remove the section, or rewrite it? Levivich21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I still don't know what it means, I have no idea whether it describes current consensus. (When you can't make a link easily, switch to the visual mode and make Parsoid figure it out. It usually works, and if it doesn't, then we can file a bug report.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps revise to: Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously when soliciting editors to use a specific external source to expand an article.
A concern over 'anonymity' seems better phrased as a concern with a failure to disclose a COI, and particularly WP:PAY, which would also seem to more clearly reflect current consensus. There is a link to the COI main page at the top of the External link spamming section, but it seems helpful to also add relevant links within the section. Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'd object to it being removed. I wonder if there are RfCs supporting the previous wording, "The current consensus on Wikipedia...". --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The opening lines say "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced". This occasionally seems to get interpreted as requiring editors to know the actual intentions of the accused refspammer. I think we are more concerned about the appearance or result. That is, if you cite the same source in 100 articles, we're going to be concerned about that because it looks like spamming even if your intentions might be as pure as new snow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
