I am a little baffled by these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...ports/jstor.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...links.jstor.org

Jstor is a web site that provides online copies of papers from reputable peer-reviewed journals. While it is subscription only, useful information is often visible even to non-subscribers.

Is there now a policy that links to papers from reputable peer-reviewed journals are spam?

This is scarcely believable. In mitigation, was it produced by some automated process or robot that did not understand the implication? Is there a review process within WP to weed out this sort of silliness?

Wikipeedia?á?åÆ?åÆ?åÆ?áPikiweedia
No, I phear the weeds have won.

Jonny

This is a Wikimedia-wide search as they found one of my edits on Wikiquote:

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=...xt&oldid=618343

I am citing H. J. C. Grierson's comments in The Modern Language Review (1911) on the attribution of a poem to John Donne.

Just because these pages exist does not mean that they are regarded as "spam". That project has thousands of pages like these that simply track the usage of links in articles.

I've seen pages like this that tracked the linkage of official government websites.

They use these pages to identify and analyse what kinds and how many links are being added. Not solely "spam".

Perhaps they should change the title, then. Something neutral, like link report, or something.

The page seems designed to track possible conflicts of interest by User:Kjetor. It keeps saying "reason for monitoring \bjstor\.org: Automonitor: conflict of interest? (calculated overlap Kjetor <-> jstor.org; diff)". Presumably he is suspected of being a reputable scientist or academic with the temerity to cite his own published, peer-reviewed research.

Curiously, this user has no talk page although he has been around since late 2005. However, he's only made 45 edits, surely too few to acquire many enemies.

JSTOR is widely used in Biology-related articles, and as a result, there are several Wikipedia WikiProjects which heavily depend on JSTOR for sourcing. The people who think JSTOR is "spam" are the people who have never worked on an article about a biological organism. As you say, useful information is often even visible to unsubscribed users. That's because the first page of every article, usually consisting of an abstract of the paper, is free to everyone. Most university libraries also have a subscription to JSTOR.

Without a subscription or access to a university library, one can have the particular article ordered through a regular public library. JSTOR is especially helpful for determining if the cited article is one you want to read, since public libraries sometimes charge for the photocopying when your order articles.

Uh, guys, it's an automated bot used to identify possible link spamming for human review. You all would really be more credible as critics of Wikipedia if you didn't go off on random tangents like this.

The bot is used to identify possible link spamming. But why was jstor added to the list of potential spam in the first place? And why have a separate page for jstor at all? It's not spam.

All the bot does is pick up what external links are used a hell of a lot on the English Wikipedia. Jstor is used a hell of a lot. The bot looks at the external links and sees that it might be spam and then lists them on a page so it can be checked later by a human. All websites that the bot checks for probably gets a page. Jstor is just one of those pages.

That's not what the bot's user page says. There's no mention of monitoring links which are used frequently. Instead, the page says the bot is monitoring "linkadditions where the account-name of the person adding has a significant overlap with the domain of the link added" and "link-additions which are currently being (coi-)spammed/pushed".

Why doesn't someone tell the bot not to look for Jstor?

Does it look for Wikia?