0

We have a rule that a person that gives a link to external site has to explicitly say about his/her affiliation to a site if it exists.

What about "useful links for learning Russian" page? Anyone can edit the page and there is no obvious way for doing this. Should such attempt be treated as a spam edit?

I'm asking because today an edit was posted that proposes to add speakfluentrussian site to the list. However the account name and site owners name are the same, and the site itself has only 3 lessons so far. Is it okay to add such sites?

| |
1

I would say that it's ok to add own resources, provided that a remark is made to the extent that the addition is made by a person affiliated with the site. One can always put in parentheses something like added by XYZ - note that I am affiliated with this site.

At the same time, if the site is still under development, it should be clearly stated (ideally with the date indicating when it was added). So, in this case it could be something like:

  • Site xyz[dot]ru - provides lessons for blah-blah. It is still under development as of December 2015. (Added by userZ, affiliated with xyz[dot]com.)
| |
0

From my point of view this situation is pretty much similar to one when somebody is recommending a software tool of his own. I've seen some relevant and valuable answers of this kind and I've seen a bunch of low-level self-promotion type of answers. In any case, I believe that the voting system is a sufficient type of community self-regulation. So agreed with @AleksG.

| |
  • How can help a voting system to deal with a bad link in community-wiki answer where already 20 good links are listed? Again: there is an answer with 20 links and a new user edits this answer and adds his own 21st link. It is not a new answer, it is edit of existing post. – Artemix Dec 11 '15 at 8:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .