Talk:Babywearing

Untitled

Note: New posts go at the bottom of the page.

"Baby" as proper noun

Does anyone else get annoyed when people use "baby" as if it were a proper noun? Such as "if baby cannot hold his head up..." in this article. Rhobite 20:41, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Very much so, and quite a bit of this article isn't written in a very encyclopedic style. violet/riga (t) 21:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fixed all the "baby as proper noun" parts. If it's a proper noun it should at least be capitalized... But that's moot now. But the article still reads more like an ad for babywearing than an article on it. Hopefully someone will NPOV it one of these days. Icarus 04:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

--Nippi 22:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC) This page is one big add, with the editor abusing their position simply to get page rank 5 links to their own site, deleting links to others.

Is this what wikipedia is about?

Merge to Baby sling

I fail to see any reason to maintain both this article and Baby sling. It just makes two sites for spam fighters to watch instead of one. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe there may be a good reason for the two articles seperated, but at this time there is not enough valuable content for two articles. I suggest we put all content in Babywearing now. Perhaps later, when enough detailed (and NPOV) content on specific slings is gathered, we can revive the Baby sling page. --Philippe 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have improved both pages significantly. Please check my notes on baby sling's discussion page for suggestions on reorganization and renaming of the babywearing/baby sling/baby carrier/child carrier group. I would do it, but don't know how. Oh, and Nine In, Nine Out is not a spam site. Product sales are minor and secondary to the primary goals of the organization to support research and education. If a link to La Leche League would be acceptable in a breastfeeding article (despite the fact that La Leche League sells products) then a link to Nine In Nine Out is essential to a babywearing article. The organizations have similar goals in their respective niches. Jenrose 08:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree on the Nine In Nine Out link being essential to the article and not spam at all. How can a non-profit site directly related to the article content be spam? --User:tash 22:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

NOPV

This page needs a major cleanup. It is not neutral in tone. Philippe 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "...the sling will often have a calming influence like nothing else" does not meet NPOV standards. This article gives little information of interest.140.233.208.82 03:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing entire section on why babywearing. No useful info and not NPOV: full of weasel words Philippe 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section under Practicality of babywearing. "Seeing the world as everyone else does" seemed a little... ambitious a phrase. I considered removing the entire sentence since it really has nothing to do with the practicality of babywearing, but thought that I would submit that to talk first. --NizzyWizzy 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think your edit is fine. Jenrose 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in links

Please do not add external links without discussing first. We know there are a million sites on this topic. We do not want to list them all here. Adding external links without discussing will most probably result in the link being deleted as spam. Philippe 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This includes DIY links. MamaToto, TBW and NINO all provide links to DIY. Rev Jan's site, much as I love it, is not appropriate here, and links to forum posts are notoriously unstable. Jenrose 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, really. DO NOT ADD LINKS, even to "helpful sites" where they are not primarily focused on babywearing. Having a babywearing section, even for a .org site, is NOT ENOUGH to make a site a vital reference for this page. Leave the links as they are, do not add spam, even for community sites. If it doesn't offer something new and different and *real* in the resource realm, don't add it. This is not the place to promote your web community. Jenrose 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean it. My Baby Nest is NOT a link that any of us who check in on this page will allow to stand. Spam is evil. Stop it. Jenrose (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

References, anyone?

I think the title says it all. Furthermore, the article seems to list advantages of babywearing and very few disadvantages at all, making it far from neutral. At this stage I would say that merging this into any other article would probably spoil the other article. Many other problems with this article are listed above but there are probably many more. --Hydraton31 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how to add this properly, but http://www.violence.de/tv/rockabye.html refrences violence and aggresion issues. "The Vital Touch" by Sharon Heller, Ph.D. also does. Although I will admit that these lend more to ap then to bwing in general. But bwing does make ap easier....... --User:tash 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be quite surprised to find a list anywhere of the disadvantages of babywearing. You're as likely to find an unbiased list on that topic as you would be to find a list titled "Disadvantages of Eating Nutritious Foods." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.228.223 (talk) 20:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

As of Nov 2009, I have added many citations, and have removed the refcite. Jenrose (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove NPOV tags?

Attention: Given recent changes, I would like to remove some of the dispute, NPOV tags at the top of the page. What is needed to make this happen? Jenrose 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know-- still seems to me that the article makes a vast number of unsourced claims. I have added citation needed tags to many of them. There is virtually no counter position to any of these claims, merely some equally unsourced statements that care must be exercised. Still seems a far cry from being a well-sourced, balanced piece to me. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the typo in the Kangaroo care mention which was breaking the link. Do I need to duplicate the dozen or so references from Kangaroo care which support the claims in that paragraph? I'll track down cites for the upper statements or remove them. Please also look at [[Baby sling] as well. I removed the merger note as it appeared to me that consensus was *not* to merge. I have some suggestions for a dramatic restructuring of Babywearing/Baby sling/Baby carrier and would like some feedback.Jenrose 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to do a major rewrite of the babywearing benefits section. Most of the claims there are overblown and unsupported, however there ARE good researched and supportable claims to be made. I may ask another expert to write this section, as she already has a well-documented blurb on just this topic. Jenrose 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Before editing

If you are editing existing text for anything other than typos, factual errors or poor wording, please check the style guides first. I am about to go fix many instances where someone went through and "fixed" section titles to capitalize all nouns. This does not conform with Wiki's style guide. Please check before you correct, we did it that way on purpose!Jenrose 06:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The links that are in place now have been discussed both here and among the babywearing community. They are minimal, noncommercial, and important to the subject. BWI's site at the moment is minimal, but that is a very temporary situation--as *the* international babywearing organization (NINO is no more, early next year BWI is likely to be the umbrella for most babywearing groups and already has nonprofit status). TBW is a critical resource, and should be linked. The recall page is highly relevant. Coming in and deleting them as unnecessary is inappropriate. We have pared it down to the bare minimum, please leave it.Jenrose 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's External links policy. BWI should not be linked until it has some useful content. And TBW is clearly engaged in selling (see the "Shop" link to its Amazon stores), and it also fails on the neutrality criteria-- it is clearly promoting a point of view. If there is factual material on its site that belongs in the article, by all means add such material to the article.

Finally, an extremely important aspect of the External links policy is that an editor adding a link not be involved with the site: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." I can only assume that you have a less than disinterested relationship to BWI, since you appear to know what it will contain in future. And given that you "work on my own carrier designs", one is left to wonder whether any of them are available through TBW. I note that earlier on this page, you were promoting Nine In, Nine Out, which, according to your user page, you started.

The "babywearing community" may be comfortable with these links, but this is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Links added must be judged on their encyclopedic merits. Mwanner | Talk 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

While I am a community member at TBW (which is true of most people who will be knowledgeable in this field) and know many of the people involved with BWI, I am not an owner or responsible for either. If the links to external organizations on the Breastfeeding article (such as LLLI, Kellymom) are acceptable (all of which support their websites with stores that sell books and advocacy gear), then TBW should be allowed to stay, as 99% of the site is dedicated to the extremely informative articles, including historical and scientifically based ones, community, networking and consumer reviews. The store is a *small* part of that. I will not claim "neutrality" on the issue of babywearing, but I *have* gone out of my way to provide a balanced article. It is *negligent* not to talk about TBW when talking about babywearing. I don't have time right now to write the "Modern history of babywearing" which this topic needs, but when that history is written, you will understand that not mentioning TBW when mentioning babywearing is like not mentioning Henry Ford (because of Ford Motors) when you're talking about assembly lines or automobile manufacturing. And BWI does have useful content, it is simply primarily located in the forums as the organization was started in July and their site is still in a state of being created. But if that one needs to wait until they have more content up, fine. But TBW *must* be listed. I do not represent TBW, I simply recognize what a vital contribution to the topic the site has made. BWI would not exist without TBW. There are many brands of baby carrier which would not exist or not be known, but for the babywearer. It is the site that when people ask, "How do I learn more?" the answer is *always*, "Go to Thebabywearer.com". La Leche League sells *underwear* for gosh sakes... The stuff in their amazon store is all affiliate, they are not sending out products, same with Cafepress.

If Wikipedia wants to exclude all links which have any commercial content, the encyclopedia will be a pale, sad imitation of an informative, useful resource with real, concrete and informative information.

And how do I know what will be on BWI in the future? I read their forums. If you want to sign up for the forums, you can read them too, and then you will know what will be there in the future. I also know what NINO did contain, and am not the least bit disinterested or separate from that, and I know that BWI is wanting to do much of what NINO did, but better. You have to choose... do you want people with no interest in a subject writing poor articles that do not accurately inform the reader? Or do you want experts writing for you? Because I'm an expert in the field, there are few people who know more about the history and practical sides of babywearing than me, few who have as much access to both the ups and downsides and few who have been involved longer or more intensively in the subject. I have radically improved, balanced and expanded both articles, and will likely do more in the future. Would you rather have me *not* do that? Is my information so biased that it is invalid? Does taking out links improve the quality of the article's information? Would an encyclopedia article on breastfeeding that did NOT mention LLLI, despite their sales, be complete?Jenrose 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please understand that the External links guidelines are not something I wrote: they are, like all Wikipedia policy, collaboratively arrived at via thousands of edits by hundreds of users. If you are convinced that Wikipedia "will be a pale, sad imitation of an informative, useful resource..." if it choses to exclude all links which have any commercial content, you should take your concerns to Wikipedia_talk:External_links and argue the point there.

Read it. TBW's primary purpose is not to sell stuff. The rules are clear, I've gone over every one, and I know TBW, and it is NOT that kind of site. I've deleted other very good websites myself because they crossed the line into selling carriers as a main activity. TBW specifically does not sell carriers, they only sell advocacy gear to support the site, and the information is the goal, not the selling. Ergo, it does not fail #5... because selling is not the main purpose. I've known all three owners of TBW, and their goal has always been to simply keep the thing up and running as an information resource, a central clearinghouse for babywearing research, reviews and articles. The forums are large, but that is simply a function of the quality of the site at helping people learn about babywearing--people read, learn, develop more questions, go ask the questions, get answers. It is impossible to say that a site like TBW is "primarily" social networking, or "primarily" commercial because it is such a large, in-depth resource. It contains much primary research, much secondary research, you would have to spend months reading to get through all that is there that is of encyclopedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenrose (talk • contribs)

We must be looking at different sites. See [http://astore.amazon.com/thebabywearer-20]. I especially like the "Price too low to display"! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what an Amazon Affiliate store is? Basically a structured link to Amazon where the site gets a percentage of sales. Amazon is the one who puts in "Too low to display"... TBW is simply providing a gateway. Yes, they receive part of the money from sales, but we're talking peanuts, and it is NOT a fundamental part of the site. I'd never looked there until you mentioned it. I've had that kind of affiliate store myself. That they list a handful of items hardly makes selling the site's primary function. Jenrose 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, what is going on at breastfeeding or any other article is entirely beside the point-- if we had to get all articles to adhere to a policy before we could apply it to any one of them, policy statements wouldn't be worth writing.

Then answer me this... should LLLI be excluded from the breastfeeding article because their website has a store? It's relevant because I'm asking for clarification... the "general" question is, "Are all information sites to be excluded if they sell anything, ever, even if the selling is secondary to the goal of the site, which is providing information?" The difference in those two concepts is basic... most babywearing vendors start out with a store and then add articles and how-to and whatnot. But places like TBW and LLLI start out as grassroots, move to research and networking, and then end up as repositories for tremendous volumes of unique and useful information. On the way, they discover that server space and bandwidth are expensive, and start selling a few related things in order to cover that server space, but the goal remains "Provide information". TBW started out with no advertising and no selling, a pro-bono work of Jeni Norton and Denby Angus, an Australian couple who had a hard time finding the right carrier, went through many, discovered they loved babywearing in general and wanted to help others figure out what would work for them. Jeni is now doing research in her graduate program on babywearing. They stopped being able to afford to support the site out-of-pocket when it blossomed almost overnight into *the* central place for people to meet to talk slings. After a couple of years, they passed on ownership to Melanie (can't remember her last name right now), a former sling vendor in Canada who sold her business to focus on advocacy. She started taking advertising simply to offset the huge money drain of the server space. Somewhere in there, someone set up a cafepress shop. Still going into the red, ownership was passed on to Christy, an American who took it on and set up an amazon shop, again to support the site. They do have memberships--but there is no part of the site that cannot be accessed without them, those of us who have memberships do so completely voluntarily because we support the goals of the site and value it. Although there are feature articles about specific vendors, there has always been an overriding concern on the site to keep such things separate from reviews, and TBW does not endorse *any* specific product over another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by jenrose (talk • contribs)

You'd get different answers from different editors on whether there is an absolute ban on sites that engage in direct selling-- the practice certainly raises the bar substantially. The reasons are simple: sites that sell things are far less certain to be sources of unbiased info, and editors automatically appear to have potential conflicts of interest in choosing to add the link. You, yourself, deleted this edit with the comment "Removed Mamatoto as wearyourbaby.org has become a vendor"-- the site in question uses an Amazon store just like TBWs. Mwanner | Talk 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not just like. TBW's store does not list carriers (although like most affiliate stores, you can find a few if you search all of Amazon...they are not promoted, you can't find them easily.) Mamatoto's specifically lists carriers, and to be specific, two brands of a specific kind of carrier. TBW is deliberately not listing carriers on their storefront in an effort not to be biased towards one specific carrier. Mamatoto is listing *one* brand and advocating that brand specifically. That is where the difference is in a Babywearing article. Mamatoto crossed the line by advocating one brand, one type of carrier, and making "buy carriers" a prominent part of the site. TBW consistently makes the effort to provide information on a wide variety of carriers without telling people "Buy this one! (that we profit from)". It does not show bias about babywearing or specific brands to list a carseat... or to list a book or some other product that parents have been talking about that is not a carrier. That store is mostly tied in and related to the forums (they tend to list things in the store that people are talking about in the general chat as "must have products"). It doesn't really make sense to (or likely draw sales from) the casual reader who links in from somewhere else. And as such is not a primary function of the site. If it were, it would be bigger, splashier, and far better promoted.. and they would not bend over backwards to avoid bias regarding carrier products. And for Wikipedia purposes, I believe that passes the #5 criteria. You'd rather see no sales. But TBW with no sales and no ads was a $7,000 per *month* drain on the earlier owners. Now, between donations, memberships and a trickle of sales, they probably break even on the server costs, and of that incoming money, I would hazard a guess that 90% involves subscriptions or donations. I've done both myself, yet never bought one thing from their shops. TBW gets support from vendors through advertising, but from hundreds of vendors, not just one brand or type. It is a uniquely balanced resources in that regard. Jenrose 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Third, the forums that you consider to be of such value in TBW are explicitly excluded from acceptable links: see External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, # 11,

Which is why I never linked directly to the forums.

TBW started as an articles resource. That is a major part of the site. Another resource it started with, a primary goal of the site, was consumer reviews of every baby carrier brand. Not some, not specific ones, but all. The forums were an afterthought. They are a well-used and popular part of the site, but social networking is *far* from the "main" purpose of TBW. Most people who come to the site read the reviews, read the articles and move on. This is exactly the kind of informative resource that Wikipedia *should* link to, and there is no way that this article could *ever* be comprehensive enough to include all that information and still be considered "encyclopedic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by jenrose (talk • contribs)

Fourth, it may or may not be "*negligent* not to talk about TBW when talking about babywearing", but talking about and linking to are quite different things. In fact, our article on the assembly line does not link to the Ford site; it does link to a public domain article written by Henry Ford. (I note, though, that Babywearing does not, in fact, mention TBW at all, despite your having made a dozen edits to it. So it must be possible to have a responsible article that fails on that point.)

The article "babywearing" has not yet had a "history of recent babywearing" section added. That is where TBW is relevant. But the research article linked here *is* relevant to the page as listed. The new section will take time, and I do have a life, and haven't yet set aside time to write the history bit. Will do, but is not a priority right now compared to things in my real life. I will need to put a good 20 hours or so into sourcing, formating, etc. Don't have it at the moment, not in a concentrated way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by jenrose (talk • contribs)

Yes, but your claims above would seem to suggest that TBW is so essential to the subject that it is incredible that it hasn't been mentioned early in the article, say, along side Dr. Sears. Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not write the part about Dr. Sears, so I can't answer that... most of my efforts have been at fixing the "broken" stuff and adding as much as I could about practical. But the link has been added by several different people, every time it has been removed, because the value of that resource is so high. I see the external links section as a "read more about it"...and to that end, there is no better place to send people than TBW. Want more citations and studies and research based articles? TBW has it. Want how to? TBW has it. Want instructions for making a sling? TBW has it and it will NEVER be allowed here, as far as I know, yet is very informative for people who are interested from a wide variety of perspectives ranging from anthropological to grandmotherly sewing interest. Traditional babywearing? Extensive information, photos, first person accounts in both articles and and forums. It is hard to talk about TBW without sounding like an ad for the site, it is *so* good. My goal has been to keep the articles matter-of-fact, as neutral in tone as one can with a topic that is not really particularly controversial, and as succinct and to the point as possible.

Fifth, you say that "...TBW *must* be listed. [...] BWI would not exist without TBW. There are many brands of baby carrier which would not exist or not be known, but for the babywearer." I don't really think that whether BWI or any given brand of baby carrier exists or not is of particular concern to an encyclopedia-- the goal is descriptive, not promotional. And if TBW is so crucial to the subject of babywearing, why is it that no one, yourself included, has yet chosen to write about it in the article?

Because if people follow the link, the value is self evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by jenrose (talk • contribs)

No, but you're claiming that the site is essential to telling the story of babywearing, like Ford to the assembly line. Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, your "do you want experts writing for you?" query seems to suggest that, if you cannot have your link to TBW in the article, you will take your expertise and go home. I don't see the connection. I can assure you that Wikipedia has many experts writing for it that do not make linking to a particular site a quid pro quo for their continuing contributions. And I think it is safe to say that the Wikipedia community as a whole is not interested in accepting contributions on that basis.

That is not what I am suggesting. You seemed to be implying that if I was as connected as all that, I shouldn't be writing at all, that I would be too biased. Take your pick. Either value my expertise and my judgement and knowledge of the subject matter and the importance of such a link (note that I have NOT been trying to defend other links which would also have value--TBW is worth going to the mat for, and I am not the only person who has posted on this and on the Baby_sling article saying so...) or don't... but if I'm too biased to trust, maybe I shouldn't be writing. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that your assessment of TBW as a "commercial" site might be wrong... yet when I read the rules about external links, nothing I find there supports your position. I've been babysitting this article for a year, I check it every few days, remove spam when it pops up, but why should I keep doing that if you are so determined that even non-spam links should go? I don't feel like arm wrestling you over it, but I really just think you are flat out wrong in your assessment, and I challenge you to go read the article linked, some of the articles and reviews, and tell me if you truly believe that it is more important to TBW to sell a shirt than to help people understand the whys and hows of babywearing. Because the external links guidelines do NOT exclude "all commercial activity". They are specific about commercial activity that is the "primary goal of the site." —Preceding unsigned comment added by jenrose (talk • contribs)

Well, maybe, but as you point out, things change. At some point the commercial activity "tail" could end up wagging the babywearing promotion "dog". Who's to say if or when that point will come?

As you said with BWI, we have to look at right now. And right now, the tail is not wagging the dog. It's not like we're linking to Babycenter, where sales *are* the driving goal of the site, but they have lots of forums and articles. We're linking to a site where the driving goal has *always* been to provide information, where sales have always been, and will always be, supportive of that goal, not subversive of it. Note *what* is being sold.Jenrose 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, though, is that what you're saying here suggests that the TBW link can act as a substitute for a good, complete Wikipedia article. That is exactly what we don't want to happen-- we want our articles to contain everything that belongs in an excellent encyclopedia article. Otherwise we just end up as a list of everybody's favorite subject links.

The article is not just a list of everyone's favorite subject links. In fact, many, many links have been deleted specifically because the subject matter (sewing a sling, general gushy benefits of babywearing, cartoon doll avatars with baby slings) was not appropriate to an encyclopedia. We (and I say we because I have talked with several other people who have edited this article and agree with me on the subject of TBW) want *ONE* superb link to remain, which provides access to "everyone's favorite links" on the subject, but also has good, original content which is encyclopedic. And while you want your articles to contain everything that belongs in an excellent encyclopedia article, I do not believe that Wikipedia wants to duplicate the work of TBW, because it is *too* in depth. The subjects TBW delves into are far more varied and numerous than would be needed or appropriate here. I do not see that an encyclopedia should substitute for a textbook... The point is that if the article were more complete, it would already contain TBW with such mention as to make the deletion of the link inappropriate, and while it is not complete enough, the link is vital to those who want more in-depth information than I and others like me have time or energy to provide right now pro bono. Jenrose 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As for trusting expert judgment, Wikipedia explicitly depends on a collaborative decision process: experts can use their expertise to try to convince other users by argumentation, but they cannot say "I'm the expert, so I'm the boss of the article." Not all expert users like the model, but that's how it is. Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be the boss of the article. I am not the only one making changes. But THIS change has been reverted by several of us, you keep undoing our work. It's a fast route to my not feeling like it's worth my time to bother. That's not a threat, it's just the way it is. At some point I may have the time to do the detailed work necessary to getting this article up to the next level. Whether or not I invest that time is going to depend in part about whether the feedback I get from those who edit about whether my judgments are consider appropriate or valued. My interest is in making this article better. Your interest seems to be in "making Wikipedia look good"... which is a laudable goal, but sometimes you lose content by overapplying rules which are meant to be applied carefully, with judgment.

You'll note I have not gotten into a reversion war with you. I am discussing this at length because I'd prefer we both have a common goal to make the article more informative, rather than less, and if we can't sort that out, I'm really not interested in banging my head against a brick wall. If you consider my comments valid, you can either put the mention back or tell me that you don't mind me doing it, but I'm not going to play tug of war, I just don't have the energy. I think, I hope that I have been doing good things with this article, improving it as I can despite other drains on my time and energy.Jenrose 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One last thought: the one place that a link to a commercial website (and/or one that fails any number of other External links guidelines) is acceptable is in an article about that website. So the link that we are contesting would be perfectly acceptable in an article titled thebabywearer.com, and other articles could contain a direct link (or perhaps a "See also" link) to that article. The one caveat is that not all articles pass the notability test-- one could write such an article and find it proposed for deletion. (Let me say here that I would not propose such an article for deletion, nor would I vote on such a proposal. If you're not familiar with the process, see WP:AfD.

Jimbo once said that "Wikipedia makes the web not suck." For many of us here, what makes Wikipedia different from 99.99% of the web is that, in so far as its users can make it so, it is completely non-commercial. Please try to help us make Wikipedia not suck. Thanks, and thank you for your substantive additions to the article. Mwanner | Talk 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I *am* trying to make Wikipedia "not suck". I'm not sure what universe supports websites that simply do not have any commercial activity at all without somehow underwritten by government or industry... and leaving the link to TBW is a way of helping people have more *good* information without me having the time right now to expand the article as it should be expanded.

Babywearing is a HUGE subject. This article scratches the surface. If I had unlimited free time, I would probably expand it to at least a 5-8 wiki page section... but in doing so would be writing a book. I don't have the time right now to do that. We did a conference in 2006 in which we managed to fill 40 different topic areas on babywearing... and people complained that we didn't cover enough stuff. Linking out to more comprehensive resources helps make what is currently superficial allow people who want to go more deeply into the subject an easy way to do so. The history of Babywearing alone is enough to justify its own page.Jenrose 07:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See above, re: external links as a substitute for a good Wikipedia article. Mwanner | Talk 15:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:External_links#How_commercial_is_commercial.3F. Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is a decent article. It could be better. But even if it reached Featured Article perfection, it would STILL not be as in depth as The Babywearer, nor should it be. So a substitute? I don't think so. We are not saying, "Oh, just go here." There is concrete information in the article. But the link should be there. One of the biggest values of the Internet is the ability to take people from summary to expansion, from general resource to specific via hyperlink. I personally think that it would be a more useful article from a practical standpoint with a few more links...but since there is a goal to keep the number of links down, THIS one will help provide the key to the rest of the kingdom. Linking in to TBW, especially through the research page, is *certainly* appropriate and valuable, and I hope you'll put it back.Jenrose 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I do see the difference between TBW and the other sites, both in terms of contents and degree/type of advertising. I would ask two things of you, and others who may read this:

• One, don't let the comprehensiveness of the TBW link stop you from working to improve the article-- our article, properly written, should be much easier on a reader seeking a thorough overview than wading through the entire TBW site (and it should be much more objective and neutral in tone than their site). And
• Two, do keep an eye on their "Shop" tab. The link really should be yanked if it goes much beyond the current stuff.

Finally, please note that my take on this, while it might have some influence a later editor looking at the same question (and our discussion certainly covers most relevant points), is certainly not binding. Anyway, thanks for sticking with the discussion-- this sort of thing can be painful for all involved, but I suspect its good for us all too! Take care, -- Mwanner | Talk 01:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I will talk to the owner about the shop tab... I don't think they have plans to expand it significantly, and the threshold for me is really "Do they sell carriers" and "Has the shop tab become the thing that drives the site" rather than vice verse. Right now, the things that are there are things that come up in conversation on the forums that are non-carriers. I don't think they will change that, but if they do, I'd agree with you on it being pulled. Thanks for the conversation.Jenrose 06:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Safety Considerations Section

I removed the entire Safety Considerations Section because it lacked encyclopedic information on the topic page.

if this is incorrect in any way, please undo it. :)CaptainMurphy1989 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms or downsides to baby wearing

Any parenting technique has critics and there are some genuine downsides to babywearing. Does one parent have to quit work? There's nothing here. Not even criticisms with responses from supporters. Some more balance is needed here. Ileanadu (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)