Payskip.org # matchurl

Payskip.org # matchurl

20.Oct.2021

Payskip.me is a newly launched link shortener company that offers you some of the best rates. It is an easy way to earn money fast by shortening the links. Payskipme offers you up to $16.20/1000 views with a low rate of $2.30. This is too high compared to many other url shorteners. You can make most out of the traffic with the shortener’s ever-increasing rates.

Suppose other URL shorteners pay less in your country then it is high time you switch to Payskip.me . A good thing about Payskip . me is it offers $2 . 00/1000/impressions at its lowest rate.

 

Title: Payskip.org

Article text: Payskipme offers you up to $16.20/1000 views with a low rate of $2.30. This is too high compared to many other url shorteners . You can make most out of the traffic with the shortener’s ever-increasing rates .

 

Suppose other URL shorteners pay less in your country then it is high time you switch to Payskip.me . A good thing about Payskip . me is it offers $2 . 00/1000/impressions at its lowest rate .

 

This article should go under the "Background knowledge" section and not under the "Article text" section.

-johannes 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 

IMO this would go in the footnote of a ref but I'm not going to edit it there for now. Maybe someone else will have a better suggestion? --Wetman 14:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 

I always that that FAQs should be set up as an expander template so that users can expand and collapse them as they wish. In this instance, I think the most appropriate place for it is near the top of the article's Background section if you want people to read it or at the end of its relevant section(s) if you want it out of way. Theymos has said that he doesn't like them in the article's lead section, but I don't know why. This is just my personal preference. --Gmaxwell 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wetman about its being a footnote of a reference, and that it should be TRIVIA rather than FAQ-style information. --Aervanath 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FAQs are discouraged for several reasons. The first reason is the same reason why we have an introduction before any other content on Wikipedia articles - so readers can get acquainted with the subject at hand without having to read through numerous "trivia" or background sections first. The second reason is more specific to Payskip.me specifically - Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be advertisements for commercial services, especially when there is an abundance of information already available about that service (and alternatives to that service). If you go around providing "trivia" or background information on every commercial sales site this wiki covers, it will turn into nothing but advertising space.

--Wetman 17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand your reasoning and I definitely don't want the wiki to become a marketing platform for any company or product either. I think what has happened here is that someone who can promote their own sites decided to do so in order to get more traffic through the use of Wikipedia's IP address. They probably were never going to contribute to the actual article itself, so a disclaimer section is a good way of saying that this site doesn't have a page on Wikipedia. Payskip has been around long enough for us to make an article about it if we wanted to without having to worry about advertising or promotion. In my opinion, what you should do is add the disclaimer in the beginning of payskip's article and then remove any reference from popsci's "Background" section. For example:

 

For more information go here [Payskip].

--Aervanath 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found a solution I'm happy with which avoids alerting popsci that his site was removed. I've added the following line immediately before the reference to payskip.me in popsci's "Background" section:

 

This article makes use of material published at Payskip.org, an unrelated third party website. Their product/service is not guaranteed or endorsed by Wikipedia (see disclaimer).

--Wetman 22:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. So long as there are no official Wikipedia endorsements of commercial companies, any references should only be in the company's own article and nothing else on Wikipedia (except possibly in a footnote under a reference). The last thing we want is for people to think that Wikipedia supports whatever service it happens to mention in an article when the service in question has its own page on Wikipedia with all the relevant information. It's just not necessary to have it in an article like popsci's which doesn't even mention payskip.me. --Wetman 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that we should make a subsection of this article called "External Links" and place any commercial sites under that list rather than in the actual article text itself. If we're going to reference them anyway, then there is no need for them to be separate articles. We can add such a disclaimer as "This site may contain affiliate links". --Aervanath 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to add such a disclaimer at the bottom of the article, I'm fine with that. --Wetman 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a disclaimer to payskip's article and an external link section to popsci's article. Also, for NPOV purposes, we should really refer to it as "Payskip.org" rather than "Payskip". Not everyone can access Payskip (at least not yet), but anyone can access .org. A lot of people also seem to have problems when the word 'www' is in URLs so I'd say it makes more sense to use .org given these circumstances. --Aervanath 16:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 

 

I agree with Aervanath - the best thing to do is make it clear that this site is not endorsed by Wikipedia. Something like "This article makes use of material published at Payskip.org, an unrelated third party website." --Wetman 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that a similar issue has arisen on the Oskar Blues page due to a link shortening service called hopslist being mentioned under "External Links". I have also added a disclaimer for this. --Aervanath 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither paid-to-click or paid-to-surf sites are among those banned from having articles in

We are social