 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 7 November 2009 by Degenret01. |
Link Exchange Criteria
- 1. Must have an established and active community.
- 3. Websites must not violate the Runescape rules of conduct.
- 4. Links section must be clearly accessible from the homepage.
Discussion
Support - As nominator. There has been some concerns from certain people about permanently excluding websites for one reason or another. If you have a problem with a particular website, it is important that you post legitimate evidence to support that request. 
TEbuddy 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment/Addition - Rather than specify "No RWT sites", wouldn't it be better to say (something along the lines of) "Sites must abide by Jagex's Rules regarding Honour, Respect and Security"? 
@Gaz#7521 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had considered that. The problem is that many websites provide very good content in terms of being a fan website, but don't necessarily agree with the Runescape rules when it comes to free speech or expression. If we only include what really matters when it comes to game and account security, then we ensure that we are not linking to a potentially dangerous website, and we don't have to regulate their behavior. Obviously if a website is blatantly offensive then we cannot maintain a relationship, but if they allow swearing (like we do) then it shouldn't matter.
TEbuddy 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had considered that. The problem is that many websites provide very good content in terms of being a fan website, but don't necessarily agree with the Runescape rules when it comes to free speech or expression. If we only include what really matters when it comes to game and account security, then we ensure that we are not linking to a potentially dangerous website, and we don't have to regulate their behavior. Obviously if a website is blatantly offensive then we cannot maintain a relationship, but if they allow swearing (like we do) then it shouldn't matter.
Oppose, I think the number of sites we should try to link to should be limited enough that we can discuss each one separately rather than have a set of criteria that a website should meet --Serenity1137 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Conditional Support - Per Gaz. If they obide by all of Jagex's rules, then sure. 
Doucher4000******r4000
18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Serenity, please explain to me your reasoning. You want to from the beginning limit the number of websites we link with is counter productive, then you want to subject them to our excruciatingly long and painful consensus process which can give someone the ability to block a link simply because they do not approve of the site for one reason or another?
Changed #3 to include all of Jagex rules. TEbuddy 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the reasoning behind that was that we should only link with very good sites, and there aren't very many very good sites => we should not link to many sites. In retrospect this may have been kinda naive of me --Serenity1137 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Pending - Serenity has a point there... --— Enigma 02:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree that there are only a few good sites. The primary reason Jagex was so weary of embracing fan websites was because there were so many. I mean just looking at their approved fansites there are over twenty listed. Then of course you have to wonder how many are not on the list (such as us) for no real reason at all which I don't doubt adds 20-30 at least. I don't want to make a thread for every website I contact just to have the community reject them for no real reason at all (as many wanted to do before I contacted Zybez, see where I am going with this?). TEbuddy 03:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree that there are only a few good sites. The primary reason Jagex was so weary of embracing fan websites was because there were so many. I mean just looking at their approved fansites there are over twenty listed. Then of course you have to wonder how many are not on the list (such as us) for no real reason at all which I don't doubt adds 20-30 at least. I don't want to make a thread for every website I contact just to have the community reject them for no real reason at all (as many wanted to do before I contacted Zybez, see where I am going with this?).
Comment - On #2, isn't RuneScape Wiki using a free web host? This rule seems a bit hypocritical if so. --Quarenon Talk 03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The reason that is listed #2 is to prevent someone making a freewebs.com/runescapeissupercool and then requesting a link. I think wikia may be the only exception to that rule, unless you can think of other free web hosts that allow hundreds of people to come together to create a huge database of information. TEbuddy 03:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The reason that is listed #2 is to prevent someone making a freewebs.com/runescapeissupercool and then requesting a link. I think wikia may be the only exception to that rule, unless you can think of other free web hosts that allow hundreds of people to come together to create a huge database of information.
- I think #2 is irrelevant if they have a large enough following --Serenity1137 08:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the event that we come across a website similar to ours that has a huge active community being hosted on a free web host as part of a free service, then we can make an exception. But unless you can find an example of that happening, theres no reason to exclude the rule as it prevents more harm then it restricts good. I can very confidently say that there are thousands more people making freewebs runescape fansites then there are people who make legitimate successful ones. TEbuddy 08:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the event that we come across a website similar to ours that has a huge active community being hosted on a free web host as part of a free service, then we can make an exception. But unless you can find an example of that happening, theres no reason to exclude the rule as it prevents more harm then it restricts good. I can very confidently say that there are thousands more people making freewebs runescape fansites then there are people who make legitimate successful ones.
- But the point is that those websites will already be breaking rule one, won't they? --Serenity1137 09:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thats actually a very good point that I didn't think of. I would say that an active community could be some random guy and his four friends who decide to start maintaining a free website and forum. But it makes sense to just add it in to the first rule TEbuddy 09:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thats actually a very good point that I didn't think of. I would say that an active community could be some random guy and his four friends who decide to start maintaining a free website and forum. But it makes sense to just add it in to the first rule
Support - Per Gaz. 
Mo 55 55 Talk|Sign 10:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Question - is it the right place to ask for a link exchange? I'd like to offer link exchange with my two sites: Runewise (http://www.runewise.net/ - ads free, approved by Jagex) and Runescape Reader's Digest (http://runescapereader.blogspot.com/ - RWT free, 2 years old with daily updates, more than 650 entries). I think they both fit the criteria under discussion. Links section on both sites are in the main template and visible from every page. I am looking forward to your response. Thank you! -- Vaskor 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Vaskor
Support - What harm could come from this? — Enigma 07:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Support - Sounds like a good idea to get active communities together. ~MuzTalk 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Closed and approved Even though there is little discussion these are the criteria we have been using. --Degenret01 23:47, November 7, 2009 (UTC)