Is the content of ComparisonOfJosekiBooks? showing the dangers of using SL to spam your products? :)
John F. Yes, it shows the dangers, but whether the case referred to crosses the danger-line is debatable. I think it does in this case.
Two points first:
(1) SL allows free community ads. It is therefore not inherently objectionable to the SL provider (Arno Hollosi) if people plug products, and regular users appear not to have bridled at the ads either.
(2) This is an enlightened and welcome view by Arno. If you take the view that the availability of as many products as possible is good for the western go community, you should be looking for ways to help those products appear. Go books have generally been regarded as one of the most important ways to promote go and self-improvement. But the current situation is that books have virtually no advertising outlets. You can announce a book on Life19. If you are very, very lucky you can get a review in a national journal. If you or a dealer can take your books to a tournament (a very expensive undertaking) you can get exposure maybe once or twice a year. That's mostly it. After the initial fanfare the book sinks into the depths of obscurity. Exposure on SL will not solve the problem, but can help a little.
If the objection is simply a mean-spirited "why should he make a profit", (a) there is almost certainly no profit - in almost all cases revenue just goes a small way to reimbursing the producer for a vast amount of unpaid time on a labour of love, and (b) the mean-spirited don't deserve these products: we need to get rid of the mean-spirited, not the self-advertising.
Where the joseki page mentioned fails the test, however, in my opinion, is that it compares a product with other products. No self-advertising should be allowed that refers to competing products, or which claims to be the biggest/best/most/first, unless that is very obviously the case. Such rules exist even in the real advertising world.
John F. Yes, it shows the dangers, but whether the case referred to crosses the danger-line is debatable. I think it does in this case.
Bass: Nah, I like it. There is no better way to convey the author's hallmark "What am I missing? There must be a point here somewhere, maybe it is just very well hidden.." style than having all that utterly irrelevant drivel on a page with a very specific and clearly stated approach.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say. What is very well hidden? The author's (a specific author, who?) contents or the author's reminder of the readers' understanding of the contents? The contents in a book or the contents on which webpage? What is irrelevant and why? What is specific and clearly stated and why?
Nah, I like it. There is no better way to convey the author's hallmark "What am I missing? There must be a point here somewhere, maybe it is just very well hidden.." style than having all that utterly irrelevant drivel on a page with a very specific and clearly stated approach.
Then, RobertJasiek wrote:
I can't figure out what you are trying to say.
I am trying to say that it is often very hard to understand your thought processes, and that your contribution on the joseki book comparison page is a good example of that.
What is very well hidden?
In most of your argumentation, the point you are trying to make. Most people have a purpose in mind when they write something. When trying to understand your text, the predominant thought often becomes "I don't get it" or "One of us must be missing something terribly important, and I am not quite certain it's me..".
The author's (a specific author, who?) contents or the author's reminder of the readers' understanding of the contents?
This discussion is about an author, called Robert Jasiek, spamming a joseki book comparison page with a flood of irrelevant information about his own book, and whether such behaviour is acceptable. So the word "author" refers to you in this case. I know not of any reminders.
The contents in a book or the contents on which webpage?
This discussion is about a page on this wiki. You may find the link by scrolling up just a tiny amount. I'll have to refrain from offering any comments on the contents of your books, as I have never read any of them.
What is irrelevant and why?
Most of everything you added on that page is irrelevant. For the reason, see below.
What is specific and clearly stated and why?
The approach of the page. You can peek at the page to see the approach in very simple words near the top of the page. Just in case you are very busy, I'll copy-paste it here for your convenience: The following is a short comparison of several joseki books based upon a single line of a particular joseki -- the Takamoku, Keima Press and Crosscut line.
Since you for some reason also ask why: When an approach is stated clearly, then any readers and future contributors can easily understand how the page is supposed to work. That didn't seem to work out very well, though.
Now, the questions having been answered, here's a recap:
Most of the diagrams you added do not, in fact, contain the line with takamoku, the keima press and the crosscut, nor is most of the text about that particular joseki line. Therefore the bulk of your contribution is completely irrelevant on that page. It is not easy to guess why one would spend a considerable amount of time writing such a useless contribution.
This "not being able to guess what RJ thought"ness I find typical, which is what I tried to convey in a slightly jocular manner.
Should you need any further assistance in understanding my admittedly convoluted English, please do not hesitate to post another torrent of very important and rightly relevant questions right here.
Now I understand your previous message.
When I see a wiki page, then its title says to me what this page is meant to be about. If then on the page the page self-explanation contradicts the page title, then this means 1) the contradictory self-explanation is wrong and must be replaced to agree to the page title or 2) the page title is wrong and in urgent need of replacement. Since I do not have a strong indication for (2) (such as several people insisting on (2)), I assume that (1) applies.
What you perceive as "irrelevant" or "useless" about my writing on that page is motivated by a different perception of what the page is meant to be. My perception is (1). Yours seems to be: "Page titles have no important meaning."
We would have much less need for meta-discussion if page title and page contents did agree.
Whether it is hard for you at other times to understand my thought processes is, to keep things simple, as off-topic as my same remark about yours would be. But to give at least a hint: I cannot always take as much time as necessary to make everything as detailed and clear as necessary so that you would understand it easily.
Contrarily to you, I think that context matters very much. So while you prefer only diagrams that exactly show the particular joseki, I want to show also diagrams essential for a proper understanding of context. E.g., if I adhered to your preference strictly, then readers of that webpage would get the false impression that my books did not show any game examples. The webpage's purpose is, however, clearly not to desinform the readers.
To help you a bit about my thought process: I have invested time on that page also to illustrate the urgency of a WME for the sake of letting the page contents argee to the page title.
General go theory applicable also to the particular joseki I consider more relevant for the particular joseki than mere sequence diagrams of the particular joseki, even if the general theory does not show sequence diagrams containing the particular joseki. The mere sequence diagrams of the particular joseki are less important because, in a game, it might be correct or wrong to apply them. The general go theory is more important because it is always applicable to help deciding whether, e.g., to play a sequence of the particular joseki or some very different sequence.
The page is old. It compares different books by example of the different treatment of a certain joseki branch. It is perfectly fine that Robert adds the treatment of this particular branch in his book. He added some completely different branches (without the crosscut) as well, which doesn't really serve the purpose of the page in my opinion. But anyone concerned about that is free to edit the page, which would be more helpful than starting a meta-thread directed at Robert at each and every opportunity.
"188.8.131.52: Self advertising (2012-05-22 19:49) 
Is the content of ComparisonOfJosekiBooks? showing the dangers of using SL to spam your products? :)"
Perhaps, but the resulting discussion and now the orgy of mutual destruction on the page clearly shows the dangers of allowing a couple of immature twits editing access to SL. As one of the "unknown" original posters let me say, "Thanks for nothing guys!"
Maybe you can suggest what this page should be for, a proper page title and a proper declaration of the page at its beginning? As long as we cannot agree on that, the page contents will not become good.
An alternative is to have several pages:
"Comparison of Joseki Media"
"Comparison of Joseki Books"
"Comparison of Joseki Dictionaries"
"Comparison of Joseki Dictionaries with Only Traditional Tactical Approach"
"Comparison of Joseki Dictionaries with Only Traditional Tactical Approach and Illustrating Only One Particular Joseki But Not General Theory"
I have renamed the page to something more appropriate, without making it too long or unwieldy. The page title now summarizes the basic goal of the page, the introduction then details how it intends to achieve that goal.
In this case, the goal of the page is to give a rough idea of the depth of coverage (how many different lines, and to what depth) of different joseki dictionaries. It intends to achieve this by taking a sample joseki and comparing the contents relating directly and specifically to that main line (i.e. no general theory, just specific variation lines).
Also, IMO, the last section is not about GoGoD, but about "real life". It shows which lines are actually found in professional play. GoGoD is just the tool used, any other database would do.
Thanks for your attempt of finding a solution! I think that something of your explanation here is also good on that page; I will copy the useful part.
You're welcome. I think it would be appropriate to add a section on your books, but then in a more narrow scope, focusing on the dictionary part (i.e. mainly Volume 3, chapter 4, I guess?), but since I do not own a copy, I cannot really write that part.
Another page on go theory books on joseki would be more suitable than ignoring 70% to 100% of some books' contents or trying to fit strategic choices in a dictionary (chapter) to a page about tactical variation.
I agree. This page compares some joseki books one way. It won't touch on a book like the Great Joseki Debates. If Robert wants to write a page, perhaps he can start comparing there. :)
Maybe a couple of months later. Now I need to write some next book:)
Not too busy I see http://senseis.xmp.net/?diff=UnderstandingJosekiAsABeginner&new=34 :)
Editing that page was much faster than what I expect for an almost objective and possibly tabular comparison of go theory joseki books.
and is self advertising on SL again
Instead of complaining that there are wiki contributors that are also media authors, the non-media-authors could easily provide more comparison contents if they 1) were not wasting so much time on meta-discussion, 2) would not let pass years while providing too litte or too restricted comparison contents and 3) would create the degree of objectivity that the media authors can provide, i.e., would mention every medium's contents instead of spending much effort on hiding a lot of contents of those media having much contents. A comparion is not objective if media with little contents are protected by mentioning only little contents of media with much contents - a comparison is objective (with respect to amount of contents) if the amount and variety of contents of each medium becomes apparent correctly.
You are afraid of self-advertising but you advertise the worse alternative: that all books are described as being equal although they are very different. The purpose of a comparison is to compare and not to pretend non-existing equality.
You should follow this policy to the letter - http://senseis.xmp.net/?AdvertisingOnSL
Ah, thank you, I have not been aware of this page!
As a systematic solution, would you consider adopting WP: COI?
No, because Wikipedia and SL are very different. Guidelines appropriate for one need not be appropriate for the other. For example, "Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." is much less reasonable for a specialised study field such as Go and concerning topics where somebody is one of the very few experts and his works can be even the only relevant contribution to a particular topic. Then citation of or reference to his works is the only reasonable thing to do.
1) The page title of ComparisonOfJosekiBooks? deserves much better contents because discussion of just one particular joseki is not a comparison of joseki books in general.
2) For years, I have not added my joseki books on that page because it seemed somebody else's project to keep that page up to date. Since he did not, my books were unfairly missing on that page; I have added my book there to create a fairer treatment. Everybody wishing less "self-advertisement" had a chance for years to provide "advertisement", so that there would not have been need for the former.
3) True, some diagrams do not show exactly the particular joseki. But if you remove them all, then my book becomes unfairly represented again. Maybe the "maximal number of development directions" section can be removed. Removing Strategy Choice 2 and its related diagrams would spoil a proper representation of the major topic of strategic choices.
4) Now my books are over-representated on that page, but this cannot be helped, or readers would not know how they approach joseki. Unless, of course, the entire page would be deleted.
5) Books have very different objectives and if the comparison does not suit all of them, some books will necessarily be represented better than others. Books with much contents (whether tactically such as a very detailed collection of variations or whether strategically etc. such as my books) will necessarily get a better representation in an extensive comparison. Beginner books such as 38 Basic Joseki will hardly make any point other than "good for beginners", but this can well be enough justification to make a book good for such a restricted purpose.
6) This leads me to an idea: a comparison page could shortly characterise each book for its major contents and major objectives. OTOH, this loses the current idea of comparing sample diagrams.
7) Currently overall the SL situation of (self-)advertisements is reasonably balanced and useful from the reader's perspective. Whoever searches something particular can find it. Whoever does not search it, will not see too much of it, unless he has nothing better to do than to start a meta-discussion about self-advertisement...
I think you should have the temerity to let somebody else update the page.
This is a wiki - not a contest in dictating who may or may not contribute.
Robert, I think that John Fairbairn has drawn an interesting line that I would recommend to follow. Please advertise your products freely at Sensei's Library. We are all happy they exist and encourage you to maximize the usage of this collective wiki to advertise them.
However, making an objective comparison to other products cannot be done by yourself, even if no one else does it.
The page itself has useful information though. In this case I would definitely favour signed contribution.
Objectivity: Objectivity is independent of authorship. The most strongly I disagree to not providing objectivity for the reason of nobody else providing it. (Note that currently the discussed page is not objective, e.g., because page title and page contents differ. An appropriate page title for the current contents would be: ComparisonOfSomeJosekiBooksByStudyingMainlyOneParticularArbitrarilyChosenSequence?.)
Robert, I know you believe you can separate your authorship and perception as a reader, but I think most people believe they cannot and therefore infer that you cannot either. Besides, a discussion on what is "objectivity" will become philosophical at warp speed, so I will not participate in it.
Good luck with your books.
A comparison need not have perception or even judgement as a reader but should inform about basics (page number etc.), what is (not) in the books and the methods and styles of presentation. It does not require a definition of objective to create a good comparison in that manner. It is also not necessary to study what all books don't offer; it is good enough to simply look at what they offer and check for each book whether it does offer something offered in at least one of the books.
Authors simply DO NOT review their own books. It is not the socially acceptable thing to do. You can add neutral material about your book to a wiki. Starting out with the sentence The three volumes of the Joseki series by Robert Jasiek have the following chapters, which explain general go theory applicable to every joseki and so applicable also to the particular joseki just wafts a bad smell in front the reader's nose. You omit to mention that it is you, Robert Jasiek, writing this comment. Given the content of the page, it is also making the suggestion that no other book teaches you how to think about joseki... it is not your place to suggest that. I would like to suggest that you remove what you added to this page, then either replace it with a neutral summary, or wait for somebody else to edit the page.
On the comparison page, there is not a review. So discussing whether authors review (other authors: advertise) their own books is not necessary in this context. Let me point out though that I consider it perfectly socially acceptable to review one's own book, much more acceptable than pure advertisement without proper discussion of the contents.
You cast doubts about the sentence "The three volumes of the Joseki series by Robert Jasiek have the following chapters, which explain general go theory applicable to every joseki and so applicable also to the particular joseki.". What, if anything, do you think is wrong with that sentence? Do you doubt that the books provide explanation? Do you doubt that those chapters explain go theory? Do you doubt that the go theory is general in the sense of being applicable to many moves or sequences? Do you doubt that the go theory in those chapters is applicable to the particular joseki? Or don't you doubt anything of that and do you only criticise that I confront the reader with truths?
If you read that page to its end, then you will notice that I have stated to have written that section. Why do you not criticse those that have not stated their contribution to that page yet?
Why do you suggest that the contents of that page would be making the suggestion that no other book taught the readers how to think about joseki? Have a look in, e.g., Lessons in the Fundamentals! It is an example of another book that does teach how to think about joseki, well, at least it does so with a few first hints. You are right to say that it was not my place to suggest it. It is nobody's place. Not on that page, not anywhere else. It is not because it would be false. There are books teaching how to think about joseki. Even some dictionaries do (although in an often cryptic and partial manner).
I do not want to start "improvements" by removing. Rather I suggest that we reach a consensus how joseki books (or books in general) can be compaired fairly while acknowledging (that means acknowledging - it does not mean hiding) their contents, intention and methods.
To be honest, I didn't make it down to the end of the page, as I couldn't take reading through your section. The contributors section does indeed contain your name, although for some reason it blanks all the other contributors. http://senseis.xmp.net/?info=ComparisonOfJosekiBooks
You ask what is wrong with the phrase The three volumes of the Joseki series by Robert Jasiek have the following chapters, which explain general go theory applicable to every joseki and so applicable also to the particular joseki.. I presume you already know, but I will answer anyway. If we include every book that contains some theory which can be applied to a joseki, this will be a very large page. :) You directly proceed to list a substantial number of chapters from your 3 books. Re-read the opening of this page, note the previously consistent style of the page, note how your section breaks with this style. Read on a little further and we find ourselves in the middle of a discussion about development directions. Wasn't this page about dictionary coverage of a line in the Takamoku joseki? we ask ourselves...
I will delete your section and replace it with something more appropriate.
To fit your intended contents style of the comparison page, I have made corrections in the same spirit. Poor GoGoD becomes affected, too, but this cannot be helped. You want the page to discuss only joseki dictionaries of only the purely tactical style. Clearly, GoGoD is not a joseki dictionary book but is 1) a game database and player and history encyclopedia and 2) an electronic format and not a book. If my books and in particular my dictionary volume cannot be on that page, then it makes even much less sense to have GoGoD on that page.
The page title remains in the most urgent need of renaming.
Given the recent controversies on the Joseki comparison page and the BadukTV page, is it time to adopt Wikipedia's three-revert rule?
No. Neither on Joseki comparison nor on BadukTV there was more than a single revert anyway, people may not agree but in neither case they were simply reverting over and over again. Personally I rather have a "mandatory edit on a page after each discussion contribution"-policy.