Wiki, Mind Mapping Software, Spam and Ronz

It appears an article I wrote that describes the attributes of mind-mapping, then reviews a number of online mind mapping software applications is considered spam by ‘Ronz‘ over on the WikiPedia. Makes me wonder if the ‘Assume good faith‘ policy is all one sided?

Understand one thing: if the folks at the WikiPedia don’t feel my post ‘How to go mental with online mind mapping software‘ is a useful external link/resource to their their page entitled ”List of mind mapping software,” not a problem. I’m a big boy, and had they just said “… doesn’t meet our criteria … not suited to the article … software reviews not deep enough … etc…” that would be fine with me.

snip from Wiki edit page in question

No, what bugs me is that how to link was summarily called spam – even though it was posted in good faith that someone who was a total n00b not versed in ancient geek might find my over-simplified definition and review of mind-mapping software useful.

Especially when working with a diverse group in a charity or church situation. A sentiment reflected that in the month the link was out there, it drew about 252 views – averaging 4.5 minutes long – meaning it was worth someone’s time.

That point aside, again, if the article wasn’t up to the Wiki’s standards and/or criteria okay – but don’t call an external link that does not meet the Wikipedia’s definition of spam, spam!

  • It discourages community use from those of us who, as it appears in this case, made an honest mistake.

Instead, rather than kill the ‘offender’ … perhaps rehabilitate? A note describing what the article would have to include to be considered useful to the topic would be helpful.

  • A little tutelage, especially in this case, could go a long way.

It takes time to post such stuff, why should I bother contributing if I’m going to have my reputation besmearched as a spammer because I merely followed the Wikipedia’s own guidelines?

  • Again, this isn’t a strawman argument.

If my how to article doesn’t fit, then just delete it with said reason. This paid and published usability and IT authority can live with that … but please, don’t call something that isn’t spam, spam. Wierd.

Then they wonder why there’s a reliability issue: