This page is for discussing the contents of Valero, and as of this moment, the addition of Davis Patch content.

Why is Patch the sole local media outlet utlizing the free services of the Wiki to promote its stories? I never see the Vanguard or the Enterprise putting links to their stories up here. —GeorgeSantayana

  • As might be clear from some of my other edits, I'm not 100% on board with everything that Patch does — but this edit *does* add content to the wiki and it's not so different from an edit that I might have made myself (and I often link to the Enterprise or the Vanguard, although admittedly I don't have an association with either). It's a good edit, in my opinion. —CovertProfessor
    • Davis Life Magazine used to do some of the same thing. When they added content to the wiki, it was great and the edits were welcome. When they only added links without any content, people took issue with it. When it got to the point where they had hundreds (literally, I counted) of outgoing links to DLM, and only (rough estimate) a dozen or so of those added content, people got fed up with it and wanted it all removed. From what I've seen so far, every Patch link has come with an addition of content, and to me that seems like a good thing. —TomGarberson
  • I'll never insert a link without adding the major story points to the wiki itself, and I'll only do it for newly reported, noteworthy stuff. My options are to edit the wiki without adding a supplemental link (which I think adds value, especially if there's video like in this case) or not edit at all. I'd like to edit, and I try to be respectful. —justincox22
    • Hi Justin. I appreciate your good contributions to the wiki and I enjoy the Patch. Having said that, I'm a little bit confused by the two options you lay out that seem like an ultimatum. You seem to have an attitude in which you either only want to edit the wiki if it can benefit the advancement of Patch or not at all. This runs counter to the motivations of most of us other editors who work purely as volunteers without financial incentives. Again, I don't mind your links, but I think you would find a warmer welcome on the wiki if you occasionally made edits without a Patch reference just to show that you care about the wiki beyond just a way to get more hits for your site. —ScottMeehleib
    • I dig it. I also don't see any reason to demand that you edit elsewhere on the wiki. For me, it gets treated as an edit, regardless of the editor — if it's good, it's good. Info plus a link for more does not bother me, and is not an uncommon type of edit. A bare link, regardless of the source is not great. -jw
    • I realize now that I phrased it poorly. It sounds like I'm saying I'll either post the links to stories or I won't edit at all. I didn't mean it that way. I was trying to snapshot my options for posting without being promotional. One way would be for me to simply not include links, but as I said, I think that removes a bridge to supplemental info. My approach in the past has been to edit only when warranted and to provide the bulk of the info to the wiki. But you (Scott) make a good point: I shouldn't JUST edit when I've got a full story that seems worth sharing. I'll keep that in mind. —justincox22
      • Being promotional is as much about tone as about content. Many business pages have information about specials they offer (e.g. Fish's Wild). It's informative in tone, despite the fact that the information is literally a promotion. To my mind, Justin has done a good job of making sure that what he adds is informational rather than promotional. Including a link doesn't alter that. Hell, he doesn't even include text to promote Patch alongside the link (e.g. "read more on Davis Patch!"). I like the edits. —TG
  • It's nice of Justin to clarify his wiki editing stance. However, I think any links Justin makes to Patch should be identified as taking me to Patch. Otherwise, what is that, deceptive advertising? Also, the blurb on the Valero page seems a little promotional. Maybe in the future if Justin just stuck to the facts without adding non-factual teasers like "the owner probably won't report it to insurance because he says his rates will go up" then it would be more objective and like other links to the Enterprise and Vanguard. —[Users/"GeorgeSantayana"]
    • Now it seems to me that you're going out of your way to find fault with the edit. When I link to a news source, sometimes I identify which news source it is and sometimes I don't. I don't have a particular pattern; I just do whatever seems to make sense to me at the moment. But for Justin to include the Patch name would arguably be more of an advertisement than not including the name. I guess you somehow feel deceived because you were taken to a Patch page and you don't like Patch?? If so, that's connected only to your feelings about Patch and has nothing to do with the edit. As for the supposedly "non-objective" part, there are many pages on the wiki that contain personal opinion; many of us think that the wiki should aim to represent the full range of Davis and its community, including opinions. That also includes Justin. —CovertProfessor
  • Why can't Patch be identified the way other local media are when linked to? They are for profit as well. If any media outlet, be it the Enterprise, the Vanguard or Patch, is going to make profits by people going from the free wiki to their for-profit webpage, they all should be identified. I think Patch is primarily an aggregator like Huffington Post, it's parent, so I don't have any personal feelings about it for good or ill. —GeorgeSantayana
    • Did you read what I wrote? If you disagree, it would be helpful if you explained why. —CovertProfessor
    • I figured it would indeed be more promotional for me to include Davis Patch in the link. There will be times when it makes sense to add the publication (like when multiple sources are listed), but this didn't seem like one of them. As for the part about not reporting to insurance, that is factual, as it explains at 1:40 in the video. And I don't see it as a teaser; i see it as an interesting (and kind of troubling) piece of the larger story. As one commenter put it: "This guy is getting robbed in every possible way." —justincox22
  • Love those quotes "more" promotional! Sort of like a "disclaimer?" Actually, I thought adding the name of your web venue, w/o the teaser bit would be more along the lines of a disclaimer—to let Wike readers know that they were going to be switched to Patch. So, that way, they'll know how the news is going to be filtered before they go there. You read "Patch" or "Enterprise" or "Vanguard" on the link and enuf said. The way you do it, without a "Patch" identifier, and adding teasers, seems unprofessional. Like I was being asked to switch to a private blog or something. btw, if the guy said he "probably" wasn't going to tell his insurance company, that's not factual. —GeorgeSantayana
    • The way of linking you condemn is the style nearly every experienced wiki contributor prefers. Justin is actually pretty well tuned-in to the way of the wiki. He may rarely edit when he doesn't have a patch link to add, but when he does, it adds something to the page and he does it like a good disinterested third party would do it. Echoing CovertProfessor, it seems like you're going out of the way to find fault here. —WilliamLewis
    • I really don't get the animosity, George. Couple things to point out, though: the "quotes" were actually pairs of apostrophes used to put "more" in italics. And yes, it is factual to report that someone said he "probably" won't do X. If you infer that "I probably won't do X" actually means he won't do X, that's inference rather than fact. But reporting the statement itself is factual. I've got to agree, it really seems like you're looking for something to fault. What's your beef? —TomGarberson