[wp-docs] User query about linking to training content

[Lorelle on WordPress]

@Marc: Probably not. If you solved some great bit of code and published it,
offered in depth analysis on a subject beyond the basics covered in the
Codex, or offered a unique way of using WordPress, then it would be a
appropriate to link to that as a resource link at the bottom of a related
article.

Links to general articles that repeat a lot of what is already been offered
in the Codex, that's redundant and unnecessary. We'd have to watch all the
time to ensure that it was updated to the latest version and...trust me, we
have enough trouble keeping the Codex updated without worrying about
off-site content. :D It's more important we improve and keep up our own
documentation.

By standards and integrity, we mean in keeping with the WordPress Codex
policies, such as the use of the capital P in WordPress, guiding not
selling, etc. It's a bit subjective, as is appropriate, but the policies
have been honed well since 2004.

To be completely honest and to preserve this for posterity, here's where,
IMHO, your site fails:

1. The content is not freely accessible.
2. To access the content, the user must give away private and personal
information.
3. The purpose of the site is to sell WordPress tutorials and content, NOT
offer open and free content.
4. The author of the content and information about the people behind the
site is invisible or hard to find, thus lacks integrity and transparency.
Without qualifications, there is no verification that this isn't just
another "make money with WordPress" scam.
5. The site resembles the many that have come before, including the art
work. It really closely matches a site I railed against promoting "buying"
WordPress
http://lorelle.wordpress.com/2006/06/30/dont-buy-wordpress-its-free/

While you and your site's integrity might be unquestionable, you are asking
people experienced in spotting these and this is what we see. Trust me,
we've seen plenty.

Thank you again for your understanding in this. Again, I highly recommend
Code Poet and the WordPress profiles as a great way to help promote your
efforts for the WordPress community, though I would work harder to change
the site's look, feel and intentions to be more in keeping with the noted
WordPress experts we do support. We need all the help and support we can get
and it is much appreciated.

Lorelle




On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Marc Beneteau <marc at manifesting.net> wrote:

> **
> Lorelle,
>
> Ok that makes sense I think I got it.
>
>  So you are saying that if I wrote my WordPress Quick Start Guide as a
> single article (it would be quite long) that might be acceptable conditional
> on quality standards and integrity?
>
> thanks
>
> Marc
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* wp-docs-bounces at lists.automattic.com [mailto:
> wp-docs-bounces at lists.automattic.com] *On Behalf Of *Lorelle on WordPress
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:31 PM
> *To:* WordPress Documentation
> *Subject:* Re: [wp-docs] User query about linking to training content
>
> We've had this come up many times. I've put a reply to him on the
> discussion page. I think it represents our feelings. Please edit or add to
> the discussion.
>
> In general, we link to individual articles on sites that might be
> considered commercial by the strictest sense as they host advertising or
> sponsored content. Individual articles may be acceptable if they meet our
> case by case requirements for "quality," integrity and durability, as well
> as appropriate helpfulness. But we don't link to entire sites, not allow one
> site to have a majority of links in the Codex. It's a pain to keep checking
> for dead links so we choose carefully.
>
> If my reply meets with approval, I'd like to consider it closed. In the
> future, let's direct them to Code Poet and the profiles on WordPress.org so
> they can reach out to the right audience through those venues.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lorelle
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:14 AM, esmi at quirm dot net <esmi at quirm.net>wrote:
>
>> on 04/08/2011 12:08 Mika A Epstein said the following:
>>
>> I'd vote for no, just on the basis of the pay for affiliate links.
>>> Not something good for the codex. If they want to rewrite it for the
>>> codex, that would rock!
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Otherwise, WPORG might be perceived as endorsing some of the commercial
>> stuff.
>>
>> Mel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> wp-docs mailing list
>> wp-docs at lists.automattic.com
>> http://lists.automattic.com/**mailman/listinfo/wp-docs<http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wp-docs mailing list
> wp-docs at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-docs/attachments/20110804/b00aaddd/attachment.htm>