| Revision as of 23:49, 21 December 2006 editCindery (talk | contribs)3,807 edits →Discussion: TOTAL WASTE OF TIME← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:47, 10 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkarchive}} | |||
| {{talkheader-guideline}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| '''Sorted by subject''' | |||
| * ]: Discussion of 2006 rewrite | |||
| '''Sorted by date''' | |||
| * ]: 2003 - 2005 | |||
| * ]: January 2005 - March 2006 | |||
| * ]: April - July 2006 | |||
| * ]: July - August 2006 | |||
| * ]: August 2006 | |||
| * ]: August - September 2006 | |||
| * ]: September - October 2006 | |||
| * ]: October 2006 | |||
| * ]: October - November 2006 | |||
| * ]: November 2006 – ''not yet full'' | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| == |
== MySpace Ban revisited == | ||
| I would like to suggest that what appears to be a total ban on links to MySpace be reconsidered if the link is to a Band or some other ''"Professional"'' type page. In particular this type of page can frequently be an appropriate source for ''"Independent"'' musicians, etc. ] 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Apparantly ] had these blacklisted. If you want to change it I suggest you take it up with him directly. --] 06:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not know it was completely blacklisted, only that it was listed under ''"Links normally to be avoided"'' and then only in context of ] or "Personal Blog" pages. ] 06:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::My bad - I shouldn't post so early in the morning. Myspace blog links are blacklisted. For the others you are in the right place. So I'll shut up now... --] 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Howdy, I have a few mixed feelings on myspace. Yes I can see how some information can be gotten from the site, thats great. The problem I am seeing is that if whatever is being cited can only be found in myspace, is whatever is being cited really that big of a deal? If information about a band can't be cited by multiple ], then the band probably should not even be in wikipedia. We are not here to document the "up and coming" so to say, but rather those who ''already'' have had a ton of media coverage. I guess it comes to this... if what is trying to be said can only be cited by myspace, then we should be asking if that material is really notable, and is that material any type of ]. As far as myspace links in the "external links" section, I think they should go, as we are not ]. Its not our job to point people to every related band site. Nor is it our job to be pointing people to random fan-sites. Generally useful links to go in the "external links" section would be, the band's official page, their producer's page on them, and thats about it. If they are an "independent" band, then we should be relying on multiple reliable sources to document if and when the band is releasing something (after we check to make sure the band is or is not notable, and can info really be verifiable). If there are some interesting related hisotory or what not, that could go there as well. Its ], ], ], and the ] job to point people to the related fan-sites, and other paraphernalia. Cheers! —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think the main issue is when a band uses myspace for their ''official'' webpage. If that's the case, WP:EL definitely recommends linking to it. --] 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The situation I have in mind is not just when a Band (''or now other entities such as Films; Books; Festivals; 501c3's and/or NGO Organizations; Performers; etc.)'' use MySpace as their ''"Official"'' web-page, it is when they start using a Main web-site and MySpace in tandem. For instance, since webpage's frequently require the assistance of programmers to update and change, many people use them for more static information and then use more User-modifiable sites, ''(like MySpace)'' to put up new info. Additionally because it is easy for an end user to do on their own, it is a place where the most current music, etc. can be found. While not at all advocating that the ''"External Links"'' sections be turned into linkfarms, I would just like to be able to list and cite both a main website and an ''"official"'' secondary or tertiary site, without having a ''"Removing external link: myspace.com -- per external link guidelines"'' show up. ] 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We just have to be careful, of course, that it's the true official page, and not someone masquerading as such. There are ways to tell. We just have to be careful. -- ] | ] 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(edit conflict)The problem is myspace has no system for 'official' verification. There are several artists out there, and I'm sure many more, of whom have multiple myspace 'official' profiles. Only one of them, sometimes none of them are the 'true' 'official' profile. I don't think ] recommends linking to it on shakey ] (]) grounds. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We have to be equally careful outside of MySpace. There is nothing unusual about a fan site with its own domain. - ] | ] 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) If a band or artist or whatever has an official website and there is a link on that website to the Myspace page, then why do we need to link to both from WP? The link to the official site gets people on the right track to finding the other one. if there is no link on the official site, then how do we know it's official? -- ] | ] 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I would say the same way we assess if any webpage/website is an official & trusted source. By careful research and using common sense and good judgment. Additionally, we can hope to rely on the knowledge of our fellow editors to tell us if someone is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. My thought here is that just as NOT being on MySpace doesn't always automatically make a site and the information contained instantly credible, the fact that it was set up using MySpace as a tool should not in all cases make it instantly suspect. I just want to be able to make that reasonable assessment without being automatically wiped out in some sort of global ''"links to MySpace"'' hunting sweep. ] 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What about when the band puts the myspace link on their album? And along the lines of "why do we link both", why do we do it in the case of corporations that have multiple official websites? I don't see "why do we need both" as a reason not to link to an official site. --] 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: If they have a series of interlinked sites then I don't think we are serving any informational value up by providing every single one of them. -- ] | ] 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Do we have an estimate of how many (in percentage, please) reliable sites there are on myspace? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Impossible to estimate. Technically speaking, anywhere from 0-100%. They all are possible reliable primary sources. --] <small>]</small> 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just look at some of them! Most are sloppily done using code generators, and I could set one up in mere minutes. Any band with no official site outside of myspace should probably be AfDed under ], since a website is so easy to set up these days. ]<small>]</small> 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thankfully, having a website does not meet the deletion criteria. d:-P --] <small>]</small> 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does it matter? If '''one''' band has an official page on MySpace, and the information thereon is reliable information about the band, then that link should be included. Blanket bans should be saved for spam sites. (And if Jimbo has blocked links to MySpace blogs, he's wrong.) ''']''' <small>]</small> 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That is technically a correct answer. But of all the myspace sites .. there are <100% maintained by bands, of those <100% do not have an official homepage, and of those <100% are notable enough to be in wikipedia. But to make it countable first, how many official 'groups' do have a myspace account (as opposed to my neighbours daughter)? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My specialty in this regard is indie music, and I'd say that it's rare for a group not to have a Myspace page, either as their main homepage or in addition to their main homepage. If you want to reach your audience, you get on MySpace. I don't know of any bands at this point that do not have a MySpace page, although I'm sure there may be a few here or there. --] <small>]</small> 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I do believe that, but if that in total are 500 bands, of those have 10% not an official site, we end up with 50 myspace links, right. On a 50,000 myspace sites, that is a mere 0.1% .. all the others, 49,950, we'd have to revert. And then, I am not even asking if all these 50 are notable enough to earn a wikipedia site. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Not music related.''' An article on my watchlist (an article for a school) recently had a groups.myspace.com link deleted, with a note indicating "(Removing external link: *.myspace.com -- per external link guidelines)". This link was to an online group for the alumni of the school, which is a small boarding school. I am not familiar with this school, but earlier when I checked the external links in the article, it appeared to me that the myspace group was at least as useful a resource in the context of the article as the school's official website. http://meta.wikimedia.org/Spam_blacklist lists only myspace blogs and a few other specific myspace pages as being blacklisted. Is there some other blacklist that bans all of myspace, or can I assume that groups.myspace.com is not actually blacklisted?--] 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Howdy, I just want to note that in this case, a quick read of ], would help here. In this case it is a link to a social group, we can't possibly link to every related social group without becoming a ]. Cheers! —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see I forgot to answer to Argyriou. Argyriou, it is still possible to add myspace.com pages, but most (practically all) will be removed on sight. If there is such a page, I am sure there will be an exception (just wondering, how do you know it is an official myspace site of a notable band?). For now, such a site has not been encountered, and wikipedia is ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Some have cited Misplaced Pages:External links. But if you look at the subhead "Links normally to be avoided," you'll find that links that constitute "an official page of the article subject" are exempt. Many MySpace pages are run by the actual subjects of the articles or their delegates and provide a rich source of first-hand information about them. They often function as a subject's only official page or as a supporting page with unique content. No, I don't work for MySpace -- I just think it's a mistake to overlook this resource. ] 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that is part of the above discussion. While obeying that WP is not a linkfarm, one could consider using a myspace page, if a) that is indeed the official page (how to check?), b) the page where that link is on is on itself notable enough to be in wikipedia, and the information is reliable (again, how to check). That indeed gives the possibility that there are some myspace links left over (and I am sure an exception for these can be made), but how many will that be? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Until Myspace cracks down on impersonation, it cannot be considered a reliable or verifiable source, pure and simple. I should note that Jimbo Wales has a few impersonators there. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That issue has already been addressed - identity can be verified by the user confirming their page from an official source. If nbc.com links ''to'' a myspace page for a show, there's no doubt the page is an official one. --] 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, not at all. ] is key. The crux of the matter is this - if the page has legitimate claims, it will be reported by the news media. If it has been reported by the news media, then THAT is what should be linked. Linking to small indie band websites is nothing more than a promotion tool. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *MySpace allows only musicians or authorized agents to post music and create artist pages. see ] 09:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That might be their policy, but it's definitely not the practice. I believe the guidelines should insist that any such pages linked should be 'official' and not fansites, and leave it at that. It would be of value if it became known that the only myspace links on WP were those verified to be 'official' by the WP community. There's a balance to be made between keeping WP 'pure' and making it the best resource possible. joly ] 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Until this day comes it should not be considered ] unless a 3rd party ] confirms it, and in that case just use the reliable source instead. Come to think of it, it seems like 99.9% of cases would end up in not using myspace. If it was used, it would only be in a ref tag. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reliable sources and external links are two different things. The fact that a myspace page is official absolutely needs to be verifiable to use it as an external link. But another source doesn't need to verify everything on that page (same as any other official source), and a source verifying that it is official isn't necessarily going to contain all the info on the myspace page, and thus isn't really a replacement for the page. --] 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but as per ] i remove links that are not ]. ELs are often times info that is waiting to be incorporated into the article, and if they ain't RSs someone is going to be mislead. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then it sounds like you're misunderstanding policy. EL and RS are two different things and have two different standards for inclusion. --] 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please see ], number 2. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And please see the intro to that section that says links to official sites are exempt from that list. --] 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, and how do we know it is an official site? Because there are other (3rd party) sources telling it is official, making that source an even better reference than the blog. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The guideline as currently written doesn't support that. It says to link official sites, not to compare official sites to third party sources and see which is "better". If you don't like the policy, propose a change. --] 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent)Yes, the policy says it should link to official sites, but how do you know something is an official site? Because the site itself says it is the official site? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 15:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It's been my understanding for a while that we don't link to websites of song lyrics because they keep those lyrics posted in violation of copyright. I don't see anything in this guideline that directly addresses this question, so I thought I'd ask here. Is it legit to link to lyrics sites, such as ? -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As has already been pointed out, it can be verified from other official info. Just because another source is required to verify that it is offical doesn't somehow make it not official. --] 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Clearly not all lyrics sites violate copyright; some may have very old songs or may be official provided or with permission. But in other cases, it is covered by Restrictions on linking, item 2. ] 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, and as such it can be used as a reference, noting that it must be clear that the myspace site is there a reliable source (hence, a reference giving both the official site and the myspace site, explaining this). As an external link, it is only reliable if there is an official source stating it is reliable, then it does not need to be in the external links, since the official site can be in the external links, and people can go via the official site to the myspace site. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but the guideline simply doesn't agree with that statement. "Reliable source" is irrelevant in regard to external links to official websites. If a myspace page is an official site, the policy says it can go in the external links. --] 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, how do you know the myspace in question is an official website. Misplaced Pages is not a linkfarm, hence, although it could go into the external links, one does not have to put a link into the external links section when it is available. And in these cases there are better external links available, and when it is the official page, it is better as a reference to statements in the text. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're asking a question that has already been answered. Per the guideline, we just need to be sure that a website is an official one. Once we know that, it may be linked, period. "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Per the guideline, "better" or "linkfarm" aren't reasons not to link to official sites. Again, if you disagree with linking to official sites, propose a change in the policy. --] 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one, and what does that site add to the article when it is in the external links section. That a link exists does not mean that it ''should'' be incorporated (it ''can'' be incorporated, when it is clearly an official site). The majority of the external links contain information that could be used in the text and are then better used as a reference (''vide infra''). So yes, they ''can'' be official sites, they ''can'' be used. But the guidelines says: keep it to a minimum, and then the site that says that the myspace site is official is a better EL than the myspace site .. the myspace is then superfluous. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one" This has already been answered multiple times, why do you keep asking? "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Sounds like official sites ''should'' be linked. It doesn't say "can" be linked. --] 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sorry, I don't see it. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::My 2cents are this point are this: if i see "Official site" next to a myspace EL on wikipedia, i just don't trust it's claim. i don't see any good reason why i should as it is a social networking site. the burden of proof is on the contributor, and from wikipedia space i just can't see how it could be shown to be officially verified by contributor as the sole official site (the most of the 'exceptions' to linking to myspace). ] <sup>]</sup> 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::"Sole official site"? Where in EL does it use that term? The question keeps coming up about knowing a myspace site is really an official one, but how do we know *any* official site is legit? The question isn't unique to myspace. --] 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Its a scenario in which i might use myspace EL. and we use a little common sense to identify official sites. For instance ], you might find the 'official site' being , , , and . My point is myspace is a social networking site, and requires sometimes arduous research to show it is official, all of which is unprovable in wikipedia space anyways. Just like flickr extremely rarely if ever an acceptable EL as an official site, myspace should garner the same response - thus both are hardly ever used and often deleted from EL sections. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I just can't take the argument that "MySpace is never a reliable source" argument seriously. Get with the times; MySpace is here to stay, and its ease of use (for lack of a ''much'' better phrase) is very attractive to people. For example, ], the director of the upcoming '']'' film, has been using his MySpace blog as an ''official'' source of information. Are we ''seriously'' not allowed to cite the director, just because we "]" the website he used? Couple that with the rise of MySpace for bands, and any argument for a flat-out ban on MySpace becomes ridiculous to incredible proportions. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think we have said 'never' .. hardly ever is closer. And I don't think it is a 'I don't like it', it is a Jimbo does not like it. But you can write "], the director of the upcoming '']'' film has announced on his weblog<nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> that something is going to happen.<nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>" ?? In that case indeed you can indeed use it as a reliable source. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've heard some pretty vehement arguments against MySpace being used for pretty much anything, so I'm perhaps a bit overzealous in my arguments ''for'' the site. I just think that MySpace isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and a policy that ignores that is based on a fallacy, in my opinion. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::But the arguments raised against it are legitimate. Please give them a read. Cheers! —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I personally think Milo has the correct argument. And, in my experience, non-official or fansites on myspace nearly always declare themselves as they soon discover it's the only way to avoid deluges of fan messages. The social networking aspect is irrelevant when myspace has become the default method of public communication by so many artists - audio samples, tourdates, videoclips, and other provided content are independent of social connections. Solutions could be to create an 'official' tag to be included on pages and/or to request email verification similar to the permissions@WP system. ] 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This isn't always the case so I couldn't possibly trust the idea that everyone who is non official declares it. The social networking aspect isn't irrelevant, it is actually the most salient: myspace is first and foremost a social networking site no matter how you look at it. The solution you propose is sometimes suggested, but until it is made and it works and isn't abused and such, myspace won't be a proper EL in the vast vast majority of the cases it is used. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Whether it's a reliable source or not is immaterial, if it's not a spam problem it doesn't belong in the spam blacklist. Inappropriate ELs in general can be removed by other editors, who, unlike a blanket ban in the SBL, can use judgement on a case-by-case basis. --](]]) 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{linksearch|*.lyricsdir.com|lyricsdir.com}} currently has 662 links. These sites are usually in copyright violation because the lyrics are copyrighted by their authors, who don't permit redistribution unless granted permission. I suggest removing all these links, as well as any other site with lyrics. -- ] 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, it is not our task to prove these links don't break copyright, it is the task of the editor linking to the site. Thus, I suggest removing them unless the editor informs that the site is not breaking copyright. -- ] 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Guideline against text links to external links?== | |||
| :::I disagree with the strong language "prove". It is certainly not the task of editors adding links to "prove" anything, copyright or not. It is only our task to have a certain level of belief that the material is not in violation of copyright. That belief only has to extend as far as : "It appears to be the work of the author". Any more harsh position would disasterously affect wikipedia's ability to link to anything. ] 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The current 4th paragraph of ] was edited in a way intended to clarify it. It had been combined with the previous paragraph. Provided that there is no Wiki article that covers a hypertext link reasonably well, nothing in ] indicates that a text link to external links are to be discouraged. Or so a coherent reading of the previous Edit suggeests. An example consistent with this interpreation is ], which has the following last sentence of the Lead: | |||
| :Methods of economic analysis have been increasingly applied to fields that involve people (officials included) making choices in a social context, such as , , the ], ], ], ], , ], and . | |||
| There the most suitable link is used, whether to another wiki article or an external link. Does anyone believe that the guideline of ] either does or should discourage such a practice? Comments welcome in either direction. --] 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (']]' & spelling fixes) ] 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What is it, though? Is it in the External Links section? No. Is it a reference? No. Then it doesn't seem to be covered by any policy, and personally, I'd delete it. ] 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Notinasnaid, why do you say these links are not references? --] 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It isn't a form of reference I recognise, or can find in ]. ] 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A reference is a reference if it is intended to show where information in an article came from. There is no hard and fast requirement that the reference be written in a particular form. If you wish to edit an article to improve the way a reference is written, you are welcome to do so, but it would be incorrect to remove a reference because you don't care for the way it is written. --] 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I believe that the 4th para., 4th sentennce clarifies: | |||
| ::::Unluckily, linking to sites that breach copyright without doing anything to prevent it is considered breaking copyright, as stated in the Fair use pages. Thus, someone linking to a lyrics site is effectively working against Misplaced Pages, making us as guilty as himself. It is not different from linking to YouTube, a PDF version of a book, or a mp3 file. While pointing to lyrics in the official site of the singer or band is fine, linking to these generic sites is not. Note that some sites have agreements with determined record companies to upload certain lyrics, but most don't. -- ] 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This guideline only concerns external links that provide additional info beyond that provided by citation/reference links. | |||
| If "beyond" in the quotation referred to the External links section, there would not be a separate section for that subject. Therefore, it must refer to external links other than for citation/reference or the External links section such as referred to in section 3: What to link. There it refers to providing context and making the discussion more accessible, which is just what an in-line Wiki link should do. --] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There's this: ]: "''You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article.''" The links above may pass as citations for the particular examples crime/education/religion/war and should be treated as references. They're definitely not proper external links. Titled embedded links are evil. Depending on your browser setup you can't even visually distinguish them from internal links. I think the guideline could be more clear that articles must not be scattered with links, even if they meet the inclusion criteria. ] 10:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is a completely incorrect representation of case law on this subject. Scare tactics will not stop me and other editors from continuing to link to sites that make Fair use of copyrighted materials and sites which have material whose copyright is suspect or stated for use. YouTube is a medium for exchange of material that may be in the public domain, and may be copyrighted by the person posting to it. Any links reverted on presumption, are subject to edit-warring. Editors are not responsible, under case law, for items they felt were fair use. Don't wikilawyer me on the subject. ] 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I have already stated (maybe you decided to bypass that part), some lyrics site have agreements with record companies or with bands to post the lyrics, while others do not. Extensive copy of copyrighted text (commonly, 100% in these sites, as they post lyrics for the full album) cannot be justified under Fair use. Trying to think you can justify anything under Fair use is faulty. While I am saying "Let's clarify that a site posting the full contents of an album cannot claim fair use and should not be linked because it is breaking copyright unless explicitly stating they have an agreement with record companies", you are basically saying "No, let's not mention it, so that the editors of Misplaced Pages can claim ignorance and thus not being held responsible". I will point you to www.azlyrics.com/copyright.html, a site that posts lyrics. This site clarifies that ''Unless you have received permission from the copyright owner or their representative to distribute the lyrics from their songs, you are in violation of the law.'' and that a certain ''Publisher demand us to cease and desist from offering these unauthorized lyrics for distribution via our website.'' In other words, even these sites know posting determined lyrics can violate the law, they do not invoke Fair use to continue posting the lyrics, and that they would remove lyrics when asked to. They are not claiming "ignorance" as a safeguard like you, but instead "let's hope nobody realizes about this", which is the same approach torrent sites use ("If something you are copyright owner is here, please tell us so that we remove it"). The editor inserting the link must get sure the link he is adding is not breaking copyright. Or, as with images, we will have to have a team checking every link to see whether the link is breaking copyright or not. And since we get 15-20 new external links per minute, that is pretty impossible. -- ] 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::These links are not references; they do not ''attribute'' the statement, they tunnel away (though probably to appropriate pages). IMHO, a proper setup for this sentence would be: | |||
| ::::::"The copyright owner must show that the webmaster actually knew or should have known of the infringing activity." I direct your attention to "must show" which is not a statement by the owner, it's that they have to *prove* their case by the preponderence of the evidence. Also I direct your attention to "actually knew". Technical language which excludes the case where the infringement exists, but the infringer did not know. I rest my case. ] 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ::Methods of economic analysis have been increasingly applied to fields that involve people (officials included) making choices in a social context, such as ],<ref></ref> ]<ref></ref> the ],{{cn}} ],{{cn}} ],{{cn}} ],{{cn}} ],<ref></ref> ],{{cn}} and ].<ref></ref> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::The internal links I used may not be the most appropriate ones, but more appropriate pages can maybe be found, or maybe the sentence should contain a redlink for now. | |||
| ::Another reason why these links (or any external links) in the text are evil is that the page cannot be printed without the formatting breaking. OK, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopeadia, but see 'printable version' button in toolbox). I am not sure if there are policies and guidelines that specifically discourage these practics (I see that ] mentions inline html-links as a proper way ..), but I would suggest to rebuild these sentences on sight (convert inline urls of whichever format into either {{tl|ref}} or <ref>). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thx for 2 comprehensive statements. First, I do accept that <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> is evil (as well as violating MOS'';''). My remarks above refer to extra-Wiki in-text links, that is of the form <code><nowiki></nowiki></code>, which parallel <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>. Fento's MOS quote refers to something else: formatting of external link for a citation. For that case, MOS says do not enclose the title of the external link in . It does not say: don't use an in-text ] in an HTML , such as . In the example, the link is not a citation but goes to the document itself. One can can argue that the MOS should forbid the latter, but that is a different matter. My own view is that no categorical rules should be laid down here, because circumstances may differ. I do accept the presumption in favor intra-Wiki in-text links. | |||
| But Rey, no one, not me, not any living person whatsoever... is stating that we should use sites which can be shown to be in violation. The objection is the assumption that a site is in violation, simply because they are silent on the issue. Your example is not this case, it's a red herring to misdirect the argument. If web content does not explicitely mention, or hyper-mention that there's a copyright issue, then assuming there is one, is not the position that wikieditors should take. Rather we should assume there isn't one, until there is evidence that there is one. ] 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::On Dirk Beetstra's comment, that is correct: the in-text link tunnels to the document itself. Arguably for that example, however, symmetry or simplicity calls for treating intra-Wiki and extra-Wiki links symmetrically (because all intra-Wiki links there happen to use economic treatments of those subjects). On the point about format breaking, at least on my printer, not even the hypertext prints from an HTML link, whether intra- or external link. (For that case, nothing would be lost that is not already lost in printing.) If the reference is to be preserved for printing, however, footnoting is the way to go as you suggest. Hmm, your last sentence seems to recommend intra-Wiki references. That could make sense for linking to the reference section of another article. But presumably nothing else in Wiki is a primary source, the ]. So, I don't know another Wiki article would ever ve used as a citattion. I'm probably missing something here (& not the frist time). --] 20:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Wjhonson, a C&D order would need to be dealt with by our lawyer... and he costs a lot of mula. I prefer to see donations be spent on servers and bandwidth. ---] (]|]) 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are right, that sentence is ambiguous. I meant the in-text extra-wikipedia links. I am inclined not to treat intra-wiki and extra-wiki links symmetrically; the text in wikipedia should explain, which can be helped with internal links, while the external links should be used as references (to attribute the text in the article). If the information is not available in wikipedia, then articles on that subject should be created/requested or the information should be included in the document. The external links suggest that the information on the article is complete, but not all information is included in wikipedia. That might suggest that the documents should not be created in wikipedia, whereas a redlink would trigger that. Although wikipedia is ], CD and paper versions of the wikipedia (e.g. for people who do not have an internet connection) would be void of the external information. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pointing out the advantages of referencing as a guideline is very appropriate. IMHO prohibiting extra-Wiki text links as a way to improve Wiki could produce the postulated beneficial effect, but that's assuming that Wiki policy will have a certain overall effect. What seems surer is that the article would not be as good. So, deciding comes down to a difference in prediction. Here at least the instances are unusual enough as to not require policy. I agree, not all info is in Wiki. It's nice to hope that a redlink would trigger improvement, but where to start and with what focus? At least with an external link there is a starting point. CD versions are different species for which special considerations might apply anyhow. --] 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::All a C&D says is "stop doing that". You don't need a lawyer to stop doing something. It's another red herring argument. Again I'm not suggesting linking to sites that can be SHOWN to be in violation. Only that we cannot restrict linking to sites about which a reverting editor has not made any attempt to *determine* *whether* they are in violation. It should not be up-to-the submitting editor to *prove* that a site isn't in violation. That would be an almost unbelievable high bar to cross. How exactly do you prove something like that? ] 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I totally disagree with this. It is the burden of the person adding information to provide references for it, and it is the duty of a licensee to show that they have a license. So why shouldn't the person adding a link show that the link is properly licensed. If it is not, then you can still use the reference without a link. To do otherwise is to turn our heads and allow violations - then we are no better than youtube users, napster, or any other group that willfully steals from others. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Footnote URLs that mess up the formatting == | |||
| == Further reading == | |||
| Example: ]. What's the best way to resolve this? Use PURL? --] 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Further reading redirects to here. An invitation to further reading of a physical book isn't an external link. Last time I read these MoS entries there was a distinction made between the two, and the consensus at the time was to have external links and other media in a section called "Further reading". Has this policy been reverted or was I reading another contradictory policy elsewhere? --] 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Just put a bracket on both ends of the URL. I correct this kind of problem now and then when I see it on various pages. This long newspaper article URL from the ] reference section becomes this very short link: | |||
| ==restrictions on linking viz COI== | |||
| There is no absolute prohibition in linking to sites you maintain, etc.--WP:V clearly delineates the self-publishing exceptions. WP:EL is a guideline, and as a guideline should not contradict policy. If you want to go into detail on discouraging self-publishing external links, that should go in "links normally to avoid." | |||
| ] 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If you have more time, create a regular reference link consisting of title, author, publication, and date. --] 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a guideline about external links, not sources. Also, what do you think in ] even comments on adding external links to a site a person owns or maintains? ] 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey, I forgot about this... | |||
| :There is an absolute prohibition in this guideline, primarly because people have generaly agreed that there should be. It it rooted in ], which is rooted in ] not ]. This issue has been a pretty clearly established aspect of NPOV. --] 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I meant that the reference at the bottom of the page shows the whole URL and thus throws off the formatting. --] 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I couldn't agree more that self-published links should almost always be avoided, and that strong encouragement to avoid them should be in EL guideline. But, they aren't actually prohibited, and there are some very good exceptions--and stating that they are affects...YouTube. For example, the primary way for a YT self-publisher to affirm GDFL and copyright permission is to publish the link him or herself on Wiki. Instead of going into detail re YouTube, it would be better to move self-published links from restrictions to "links normally to be avoided." Any self-published link of any variety can be objected to by any editor under WP:AUTO and COI, as well as all other policies and guidelines. If you want to spearhead an initiative to outright ban ''commercial'' self-published links not already covered by spam, I will be your vice-president. :-) What I'm concerned about is the possibility of the technicality being used to wrongfully exclude/delete YouTube in general on a technicality. | |||
| == Retitle "Advertising and Conflict of Interest"? == | |||
| ] 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should never link to GFDL video on Youtube. If the self-publisher is willing to release video under the GFDL, we or they should upload it to Commons and not link to it on Youtube. ] 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's a good point. That way the video can't vanish as it easily can from YouTube. -- ] | ] 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You are confused about the language. The External links guideline is not talking about self-published websites. It is talking about the owner/operator of a website adding a link to that website to the External links section. ] 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Could the title of Section 4.1, "Advertising and Conflict of Interest," be amended to something like "Advertising, Self-Linking, and Conflict of Interest"? I'm a math professor who tried to set up links to my course notes. I initially skipped over this section in my reading, because I didn't think I fell into either of the two categories; I was thinking "Coke, Pepsi, and politicians." I think many fellow new users might get confused. Thanks! ] 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I see your intention, but "agent of" and/or "maintains" can mean someone who publishes and maintains a link at YouTube. | |||
| :I see no need for the change. You have aproached linking correctly from what I have seen by discussing it on the talk page. I would however, have a read over at ] to cover all bases in case its Primary (original) research. cheers --] 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Open Directory Project== | |||
| There is no absolute prohibition on self-published sources; external links is a subset of sources. Blogs and websites maintained by the subject of an article are ''usually'' included in external links of articles about subjects (and who put them there is largely irrelevant). It's not a restriction; it should go under links normally to be avoided. The point should be to help people to understand the useful exceptions for the benefit of Misplaced Pages; not to compound existing confusion about what to link and what not to link (by failing to make any distinction between useful and unuseful self-published links in favor of erroneously stating that they are prohibited). | |||
| I removed this for discussion: | |||
| <blockquote>Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the ''']''' (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See {{tl|Dmoz}}.) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{tl|Directory request}} on the article's talk page.</blockquote> | |||
| Self-published sources (online and paper) | |||
| I'm curious to know when this was added and who agreed to it, because it seems that we're throwing ourselves on the mercy of that project's editorial judgment and policies rather than our own. I saw it misused today where it seems it's being added because it contains a link to a highly POV blog-style entry about a contentious issue. Is there widespread consensus that this project should be linked to? ] ] 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. | |||
| :That should not be in the guideline. DMOZ does not have a policy by which they chose to add websites to their directory. It is done by volunteers (I have been one a few years ago) and that guidelines for inclusion are very loose. Allowing links to DMOZ contradicts the "Links to avoid section" in this guideline. ] <small>]</small> 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. | |||
| ::DMOZ is also not always the best link to use - there's a discussion in the beer articles and project about the use of links to BeerAdvocate.com, which provides better and more thorough coverage of breweries and beers than DMOZ does, or probably ever will. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) | |||
| ::: I agree that a DMOZ should not be used blindly. Note that the text says "should consider" - not "they should" - that means that editors should look at the corresponding category and see if it helps enhance the WP page by providing an alternative to the EL list. WP is not a list of links, and this provides ONE alternative, but not the only one. I have no problem with the wording as stated. (Full discloure: I am a DMOZ editor) -- ] | ] 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: | |||
| :Please don't inappropriately remove things from the guideline without gaining a consensus first. There has been a ton of discussion on this. Using a Dmoz link on articles with potentially dozens or even hundreds of valuable external links is a longstanding good solution to the problem. The fact that some sites linked from Dmoz wouldn't qualify as Misplaced Pages external links is totally silly. No Dmoz category is likely to ever have every site be one that would merit an external link from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and we need a practical solution for when there are dozens of valuable links possible, besides whining and reverting and pissing matches. ] 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * it is relevant to their notability; | |||
| ::This was removed as it contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either. ] <small>]</small> 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * it is not contentious; | |||
| :::It doesn't contradict the guideline. In fact it is a part of the guideline that has a longstanding consensus from multiple previous discussions. Do not completely arbitrily change the guideline without gaining a consensus first. We went through this before. You know the process. Please don't be rude. ] 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * it is not unduly self-serving; | |||
| * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; | |||
| * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. | |||
| ] 23:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It sounds like you're not really taking issue with recommending that people don't add links to their own self-published material, but are just saying that it's a guideline and not a policy (so it can be absolutely forbidden). I guess I'd agree with that, but I can't think of an exception where I'd think it would be OK for someone to do so. Personally I'd prefer if forbidding people to link to their own sites was a policy and not just a guideline. --] 18:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, but ODP is. So it seems reasonable to let ODP handle the list of links and Misplaced Pages the article content. It indeed seems popular. Your say "I saw it misused today" and that makes it sound like you ]. // ] | |||
| == Help sought at ] == | |||
| *It may be popular, but the point of our guideline pages is not to advertise popular websites. ] 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Popular to use ''in Misplaced Pages''. That should prove that it indeed has value. // ] | |||
| ] and I clearly have quite different interpretations of this guideline, as is becoming evident at ]. As far as I can tell, we are both being calm about the disagreement—no danger of an edit war—but it is clear that we will not reach consensus, so I thought it would be useful to bring this here. | |||
| So its safe to remove these when found? - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The external link in question is the link to the home page of the working group within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that maintains the VoiceXML standard. I'm linking the working group rather than the standard itself, because there have been several versions of the standard, at least two of them widely used, plus two more that will probably be important within the next year, and I think a link to the group conforms to our intent of providing a relatively high-level link that will lead to other relevant links. I think that this is, for all intents and purposes, the official site of VoiceXML and should be linked. (One of the draft standards is externally linked within the article text; I'm neutral on that, but that is not the dispute we are having.) | |||
| : I think that a discussion on the Talk page would be appropriate before removing them. The policy here says they are acceptable, so just removing them without any comment would not be appropriate in my opinion. One Edit summary made a comment that Google Search results and a DMOZ category are the same. I would like to hear more about your opinions on this, since in my opinion they are completely different. I don't believe that it is germane to talk about how much it has been done - that doesn't make it right or wrong. The EL policy says it can be done. -- ] | ] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| CallTech, however, says that the '''only''' thing in the external links section the article should be the DMOZ page, and that as for finding the group and other relevant documents "W3C has its own article which is prominently linked (internally) in the first sentence" and, presumably, the ] article links to the W3C site, in which you could presumably then look up the Voice Browser Working Group. My feeling is that is awfully far removed (navigate an internal link, on that page find an external link, then within that outside site, navigate to the relevant working group) from what I think (from having used this technology) is the single most useful URL for further information. | |||
| ::The problem is that dmoz (love the site, for what its worth) is a collection of links back to other external sources. From that respect simple linking to individual dmoz pages while a potential convenience to readers is a complete end-run around all our rules for judging who and what we link to. Adding a dmoz link to a subject that the article covers in and of itself I would say is completely unneeded. Nice, but unneeded. - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Ah Denny, I see you already went ahead and removed 16 of them... :-( -- ] | ] 20:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am bringing this here because he tells me that there have been recent changes in this guideline and, if I read him correctly, tells me that what I want to do goes against the guideline. Since I don't think it does—in fact, I think that this being, effectively, an official site, the guideline actually ''encourages'' linking it—I figured I'd bring the matter here, because if he is right, I am obviously quite out of touch with how this guideline has evolved. | |||
| ::I thought about it for a long while, and actually did remove those specifically since they weren't adding anything to the article. :( - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree with some of them, and have reverted others - some of them had 30, 50 or 111 entries, which in my opinion do add to the article. I left the ones with none or only a few as deleted. Sorry to be skeptical, but according to your logs you asked the question here and then 6 minutes later started removing links. It would have been nice to give people time to answer first :-) I am not saying they should be kept, necessarily, but I am suggesting that there should at least be a discussion first. -- ] | ] 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| CallTech, if you think I've at all misrepresented your position, my apologies, and please restate it yourself. - ] | ] 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to suggest that if after reading the Archived version of this discussion (which has been had twice since I became a WP editor) and presumably before then too, we talk about changing the policy, and not doing mass-deletions of DMOZ categories. Previous discussions are: ], ], ] (that one was about me), ] - you will see that the issue has some passionate advocates on both sides of the argument. -- ] | ] 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Jmabel, and I agree that this has been a calm discussion and that there is simply a difference of opinion here. | |||
| :The guideline is very clear: avoid linking to search engine result pages. If you want to link, then you need to explain the reasons why you want to link and the benefits to the article. The EL section is ''not'' a dumping ground for a collection of on-line sources that, per policy, should not be included in an article. ] <small>]</small> 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So... should we have a general DMOZ link to an article's given topic, or is it safe to remove it? As we can't ever guarantee any editorial oversight I would think 'no', and would be happy to do drudge work of removing frivilous DMOZ links if that's the right thing. - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :First, I did not state "that the '''only''' thing in the external links section the article should be the DMOZ page". I replaced the list of links on this article with the DMOZ directory listing and also added a message on the link section warning against undiscussed links. This comes right from the recommendations here ]. Additional links can be added but should be discussed first on the Talk page. In fact, after you re-added w3c to the external links section, I stated "Prefer you remove this link and get consensus first which is WP guideline". | |||
| ::DMOZ pages are not "search results pages". Please act in good faith. If you want to change the guideline, then get a consensus. Clearly the overwhelming consensus is contrary to what you want as many editors have voiced support for sometimes using Dmoz categories, and many more have added them to articles. ] 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here is a quote from the ] section titled "Links to be considered": | |||
| ::]: "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." W3c is already linked here ] and you've acknowledged that. | |||
| :"A ] category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories." | |||
| ] results are not the same as a ] page. Such as a category page at the ] (dmoz). There are many web pages that list relevant links by topic. Each link list, directory, category, and subcategory page should be considered on its merits in my opinion. If the editor of the directory or topic list is putting in relevant links, and is not including problematic links for the most part, then it could be a useful external link for wikipedia. | |||
| :It really boils down to getting consensus within WP guidelines. The arguments you've made here are strong for keeping this link and I now wouldn't be opposed to keeping it. I do think it was important to discuss this first before adding it because this article was becoming a magnet for external links. ] 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest we add some kind of clarification such as: "If the category page has more than a few problematic links that violate wikipedia guidelines, then wikipedia should not link to the category." --] 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Additional note - I went ahead and softened the notice under External Links. Both came from ]. Both messages request users submit new links first to Talk page, but the second one is not so harsh. ] 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no difference between DMOZ and or ]. We should not link ''any'' of these. ] <small>]</small> 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm a W3C member and I was trying to have the W3C spec pages more informative. I added the two links in the VoiceXML page external links. They were removed. Can you clarify why they were deleted? The VoiceXML Forum is good source. Do I need to find consensus before adding a link to a page? I'm a novice and I need to understand the rules first. Paolo Baggia | |||
| ::I do not think that DMOZ should be used, as there is no editorial control over it. ] 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your comments here, Paolo. This was discussed on ] a few days ago. My observation on voicexml forum was that it requires registration (and payment) which is against guidelines ]. There are always exceptions, but these should be addressed in the Talk page rather than simply adding them. There are lots of really good VoiceXML websites out there, but WP is not a directory. If you follow the external link within the article, you'll effectively see all of these sites including voicexml forum. ] 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Alucard''' and '''2005''' are right. There have been numerous discussions and consensus building regarding Misplaced Pages's use of DMOZ as an "unofficial" link repository. In addition to the four discussions listed by Alucard, also see ] and ], both of which resulted in a clear "Keep" results and solid support for our use of DMOZ. | |||
| Again, I brought this here '''hoping to get comment from people who routinely work on external links issues on Calltech's and my disagreement''' and whether one or the other of us is misunderstanding the guideline. That Paolo would like to go farther away from Calltech's understanding than I would in this case is only barely on topic. I am still hoping to get comment from people who work routinely in this area (external links). - ] | ] 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thus, I would strongly oppose any blanket removal of the DMOZ templates in articles, and I fully support its mention in this guideline. It has an established, albeit weak, consensus for use, it is ''not'' a search engine result, and it has just as much editorial oversight as we have here. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Use "further reading" instead of "external links" sections == | |||
| :there are new arguments, Satori Son, and this discussion proves that the consensus is disputed. ] <small>]</small> 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Just a thought: in broad agreement with what WP:EL already advocates in spirit and letter, we should discourage the use of "external links" sections in articles altogether. We should instead use a term such as "further reading" or "further information", ''since this is what external links are supposed to provide anyway''. The use of "further reading/info" would immediately conscientise the editor into considering whether or not an external link genuinely provides more information for the reader or is just linkspam. Another advantage is that if there is no "external links" section (there being a "further reading" section instead) there is no place to dump drive-by spam. I edit the occasional geographic article where accommodation links are often posted, as well as car articles that attract a proliferation of forum/car modification website links. If the section was titled "further reading" instead it would cut down on well-intentioned but inappropriate external links ''at the source''. | |||
| ::Do we really need to go through this yet again. Just because you don't now agree agree means nothing to the consensus achieved. If you want to get something changed, GET A CONSENSUS. If you don't get a consensus, please do not edit this guideline for substance. Edits for typos and clarifications are fine. ] 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In reality the external links section is actually just further reading/info where said info happens to be web-based. External links are the ''means'', further reading is the ''end''. As I said, the letter and spirit of the EL guideline already makes it clear that this is how external links are to be used, so why not make it clear in the articles themselves? '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I fully agree with your principle. Unless there is a clear and wide consensus for adding the DMOZ part, we should not do so. If there is such clear and wide consensus somewhere on this Talk page, please point me to it. Thanks, ] 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Scroll up. Additionally the text has been there for about six months. ] 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did, before posting. I see major disagreements about DMOZ and no consensus for adding it. ] 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was added late October, if it has been in that long that's the consensus you're looking for. If you want to remove something that has been stable for so long, you should have consensus for the change, and until there's clear consensus it should stay in, not be revert warred over. Not to mention that it's a bit dishonest to call reverting back in something that has been there for months changing the policy. --] 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Let's ] about 'dishonesty'. I missed the fact that this change was added in October 2006, but I still feel there is no consensus for it. Was there consensus for the change when it was added? If so, where can I find it? ] 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please read the above. There was an entire "workshop" rewrite of the guideline discussed for literally months. There is no pithy little two sentences to refer to. There was four months or so of give and take where the guideline was made more coherent and focused. And just for the record, as you could see from the threads, I don't like the template part of that paragraph, but accepting it is what happens in achieving a consensus, people accept some non-perfect stuff. They don't just ignore the wishes of the significant majority and remove stuff just because they personally don't like it. ] 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) Since the DMOZ text has been there for quite a while, and multiple discussions about removing it have not reached a concensus, I really think that a proposal to remove should be the subject for an ], and see if there is a concensus to remove. But please do not just remove it without reaching that concensus. If there are new arguments then they can be stated at the intro to the RfC, and then all interested parties can read them and consider whether that warrants a change or not. Essentially calling something "revert" that has been there so long is not the way things should be around here. -- ] | ] 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :From ]: ''"Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.'' It's unreasonable to look at an edit months ago and insist that other editors produce evidence of other people stating their agreement. If there wasn't agreement, it wouldn't have made it into the policy and stayed there for months. We can certainly discuss and see if there's consensus to remove it - if there are objections, I'd also suggest proposing improvements to the text that would fix those objections instead of just removing it. --] 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was not involved in the discussion to allow DMOZ as EL. I guess I am very confused. Am I the only person here who thinks that allowing DMOZ essentially points our readers into the equivalent of a Google search? Even if volunteers somewhere maintain it, we as Wikipedians have no control over the link collection. So please enlighten me - since to me this seems to be in direct contradiction to the rest of WP:EL. ] 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Crum, that very point was brought up in the discussions that I and others referenced earlier. There have been arguments made on both sides during those discussions. I don't feel that a link to a DMOZ category (or a category of any other suitable directory that we can all agree on) is anything like the results of a search engine. -- ] | ] 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seems to me to be a link into a linkfarm, over which we as Wikipedians have no direct control. I feel that unless there is wide consensus for this kind of change, it should be removed. If there is such consensus, I am still waiting for a pointer to the relevant thread. ] 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As you have noted, the change was made months ago. It was not reverted. The "Silence equals consent" part of ] means that after this much time, there doesn't have to be a referencable thread. There needs to be wide consensus to remove it, in my opinion. -- ] | ] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The problem is that as of now, this guideline is self contradictory. I am not at all sure that people are aware of that. I will wait for more comments here by others before acting. ] 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There is no contradiction. Just saying there is one, and making the rather wild claim that a hand chosen directory list is the same as results from the search engine really does not give anything for people to respond to. Dmoz categories are sometimes a great link for broad topics that could have hundreds of valuable external links. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and it is soemthing that wants to make valuable articles for users. A directory link can serve a good purpose, and that idea (one directory link) has been in the guideline for years. It has only been refined now to eliminate somejunkdirectory.com from consideration, and offered a bit on info when a directory category is a good idea. ] 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Crum375, I took part in some of the DMOZ discussions last year and we included some of the editors from DMOZ. The one distinction you need to remember between a DMOZ directory and a Google search result is that Google makes no judgement about the content reliability or accuracy. It simply applies a computer algorith based on links and content and then ranks websites based upon a specific search term. The famous "Miserable Failure" search term clearly demonstrates how its results can be manipulated. With DMOZ, there is a set of human eyes that evaluates each site for relevance, content and quality before its added. Although this is a human process that has all of its shortcomings, it is still a valuable one. | |||
| :I do not believe DMOZ should be used indescriminately, but it has clear value when used to fight spam. I've used it a dozen or more times, and each time, when used with an appropriate message, link spam was dramatically reduced on an article that prior to its inclusion was a haven for frequent spamming. As such, I've always viewed DMOZ as an asset to WP. ] 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't see Further reading / further information as any more discouraging of barely on-topic links. If anything, it is even more open-ended: "But the person who looked up this war may want to know all about the Avalon-Hill game that simulates it". - ]19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Combating spam should not be a criteria for using DMOZ, as we could apply the same for Yahoo Directory, or other directories that are "human driven". The concern is that, as there the editorial process for these directories is opaque, we are relying on unknown criteria and in violation of WP:V and contradicting the wording of the guideline. ] <small>]</small> 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact that there IS an editorial process by an individual(s) that has some knowledge associated with a DMOZ category puts DMOZ ahead of Yahoo! or other directories that are more concerned about format and style than knowledge of the content. Yahoo! doesn't have experts in every category where it places websites. Pragmatically, using DMOZ to combat spam in selective instances works - why remove such a valuable tool? ] 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a DMOZ editor for several years, and I can assure you that the editorial control is haphazard , at best. There absolutely no proof that directory entries at DMOZ are any different that other directories such as Yahoo directory. This idea of linking to DMOZ is simply not sound, in addition of being contradictory to the language on the guideline (Links to avoid section) despite arguments about consensus, that obviously is being challenged in this discussion. ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It doesn't contradict the guideline. If you think so, say why. The consensus on this matter is clear. There is no "challenge" to consensus because some people disagree with it. That's just leads to the childishness exhibited trying to force a change when they see there is no consensus for change. Misplaced Pages has some goofy policies in my opinion, like letting unlogged in users to edit articles, but that IS the way it works here. You want to change something, get a consensus. Personally I'd prefer voting, but that isn't the way it works. Neither is rudely making changes not supported by a clear majority of editors time and again. It's plain there is no consensus to remove the passage now, so accept that... and try to PERSUADE people to change their mind. Don't try and steamroll your opinion over others acting in good faith. ] 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is clearly no consensus to be using this policy to advocate for driving traffic to DMOZ. Please persuade people to change their mind instead of adding a contested endorsement of another project to a Misplaced Pages guideline. ] 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The burden is not on me. The burden is on you to get a consensus for a change in the guideline, and clearly there is none, so either make a case or move on. If you don't get a new consensus, the existing one stands. You are saying that there would be no consensus to have any external link guideline at all because you don't agree to it. Consensus doesn't work that way. ] 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Denny nails it. This is an end-run around the NOT clause. Those who are stating consensus is required for changes need to get consensus to change ] an indiscriminate collection of links before there is any validity to any argument to keeping DMOZ. It conflicts. It conflicts with ], ] as well. So, go get consensus to change those three, and there will be a point to this. Otherwise, no. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have just reverted the edit made by ] that removed the entire section, and invited him/her to join in the discussion at the foot of this page before making changes to ]. -- ] | ] 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You should not be using the rollback button, popups, or valdal fighting tools for these reverts. Revert if that is what you want to do, but add a proper edit summary. Using popups, rollback, or vandal fighting tools should be limited to reverting vandalism. ] <small>]</small> 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I assumed that the note that I left on the edit, the message that I posted to the user's talk page and the note I placed here was enough explanation of the actions I took and why. I assumed that as this was reverting an edit, that the simple revert button was the best way to show that it was just that. If I made a mistake I apologize. -- ] | ] 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Your assumption was incorrect. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In order to try to make sure whether what I was doing was sound or not, I did some digging around and want to share the results with you: The first time the EL page was changed to say that linking to the ODP was ok was added to the article was in dated 26 October 2006 and the note on the edit was ''Paste in from the workshop'' - which implies that it was a part of a larger discussion. The workshop referred to can be found at ]. So this change has been in place for 6 months - a lifetime in the world of WP. I am not in favour of simply removing a section that has been there so long and was the subject of a workshop without some discussion (which I have tried to start further down this page). Given the latest coments, it appears that I am out of line with my comments here. I will withdraw from the discussion. -- ] | ] 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes interesting I hadn't thought about that, but I agree with your idea. We should title the section "Further reading" not "External links". Then within that section we could have links and non-linked works, or even sub-sections I suppose if there are a lot of them. Good idea. ] 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(after edit conflict) The edit which led to the ] was in place for four months before anyone noticed. That this contradiction in policy was not noticed promptly is regrettable, but does not confer some kind of protection to it. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a member of Wikiproject Spam I have included referral to DMOZ as part of spam cleanups, and I agree that it has been helpful for that purpose. However in cases where I have content knowledge, when I have checked the links at DMOZ I find many of them that I would never approve as a content editor, including many commercial sites that do not cite any ] or otherwise fail tests for ]. Various criticisms of DMOZ are noted at ]. An example of a web site specifically critical of DMOZ is . For an example of a specific criticism of Misplaced Pages over-use of DMOZ see . Alexa, an independent rating service, gives DMOZ only a midrange rating based on its . None of the web sites I provide links to are authoritative, I present them only as examples of the fact that DMOZ is controversial. ] 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, my initial instinct upon hearing/reading "further reading" is that it would be a bunch of wikilinks, not external links. Like Jmabel said, changing the wording won't do anything to prevent people from putting improper links there. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Linking to Livejournal.com == | |||
| ::Further reading can also include items that are not links at all. Such as a book, whose contents are not on the internet. Or a magazine article reference. I don't think anyone is suggesting that changing the title will add or detract from whether people misuse it. Just that "Further reading" is a better title than "External links" since it's more comprehensive and also more standard in other reference works. ] 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I of links to Livejournal.com communities from this article... my thinking is that as we can't know a thing about the editorial standards of some random LJ, it shouldn't be linked to in such a fashion. Is this a good move? - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It should be obvious that it would make it more likely to be abused, since other editors can look at an external link, while a we all can't just grab a copy of some obscure book whose title sounds interesting. External links is proper in that they are just that, links. Non-linked items should almost never be outside of sources. Also, the point of external links are for users, not anybody else. Links can be seen immediately. Almost any other "further reading" type thing requires payment/registration or something like that, and thus fail in the same way as "Sites requiring registration". Again obviously the sites requiring registration section of the guideline would need to be removed completely if external links were changed to a broader further reading criteria. There is no value to users in making the change, and a half dozen reasons not to. ] 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :ask over at ]--] 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "''Almost any other "further reading" type thing requires payment/registration or something like that''" There are things called libraries which one can borrow published works for free. "External links" is a limiting title, it excludes published works. Published works, which are a better recognised authoritative source than websites, are an important resource for wikipedia articles. There's no way wikipedia can be considered a serious encyclopedia by reliying on websites as source material. Some readers wont have the need to visit real paper, but others may be interested enough to take out a book from their local library. Even ] which is the parent policy to this page uses the term "Further reading". --] 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK. For sourcing/ELs though, what do you think though...? I'd think for a source they're no good. - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"'External links" is a limiting title, it excludes published works.'" Yes, that is by design. They are things that can be seen via a click. You seem to want to put a round peg in a square hole. The external links section is for links that are freely accessible. That's it. "Published works, which are a better recognised authoritative source than websites..." That is just patent nonsense. Silly generalizations like that won't get you anywhere. ] 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Always '''no''' on a Livejournal link, allowing for rare exceptions where it can be confirmed the livejournal is written by a recognized authority in his/her field. --] 10:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*99% of blogs should not be linked to. Indeed, we make exceptions for recogized authorities, which most of Livejournal isn't. ] 10:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Noted, thanks guys. - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Links in infoboxes == | |||
| : My completely ignored post above states pretty much the same thing. I'm '''sure''' this was policy a few months back. I just can't remmeber where I read it. I've been doing it on a lot of pages that I'm involved with. It works well on the pages I've put it on as the further reading does include printed works as well as websites. Term "external links" doesn't put the section in context while the term "further reading" not only contexualises the section but opens it up to real media, where more authoritive ] exist. --] 23:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Does the condition concerning sites that demand installation of plugins apply to "official" websites placed in infoboxes? One has just been added to ]; according to the site, it "requires the latest flash plugin, 1152x864 screen resolution, and a broadband connection". I'd normally remove it from an "external links" list, but I'm not sure about this. --] (]) 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've started doing the same thing on the subset of articles I edit. In response to some points raised above: I don't get the Avalon-Hill example. Further reading means "further reading on the article's subject/topic" so I don't see how anyone can justify putting such a link in, and vigilant editors will be justified in removing it. In response to the obscure books concern, at least the title and existence of the book, if not the contents, can be confirmed online, and even if it can't I don't foresee it as a major problem.. I don't think you'll get much "non-link spam" as compared to linkspam, because what's the point if it doesn't give your site a good pagerank? | |||
| :It only says "avoid" not "don't". If it's the official site then include it - along with the "explicit indication of the technology needed". And I don't see the reason for ''normally remove it from an "external links" list'' just because of the rich media unless it's deemed not appropiate for content (and I guess "avoid" would indicate a removal if there was a text site that was equal or better). - ] 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my experience, the usual response of other editors is to remove such links (I don't really see much difference between "avoid doing it" and "don't do it", to be honest). Given the relative unimpotance of external links for anything except giving sources, what's wrong with removing them in such cases? --] (]) 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Linking to legal episode downloads of a show (commercial site with ads) Spam/EL issue == | |||
| The problem with "external links" is that it can be taken to mean "list of somewhat-topic-related external links". IMHO "topic-related" is not a strong criterion, and there are well-intentioned editors who add inappropriate links in good faith thinking they are okay. The info has to "add value" to the reader's knowledge of the subject by ''extending the article'', as this guideline already explains in quite some detail. The term "further reading/info" means just that, "find further information on this subject that is not covered (or is not appropriate to cover) in this encyclopedia article" and IMHO is less open to interpretation than "external links". We should discourage the reasoning of "external links for external links' sake", and the first small step to doing so is to name the section appropriately. You won't stop intentional linkspam, but you may stop well-intentioned addition of links to a "list of external links". The term "external links" IMHO is more open-ended than "further reading" as the latter directly indicates that the link has to ''extend the article'', and empowers editors to remove links that are not. And as mentioned above, it is more consistent with what is used in other reference works. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 07:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm looking for comments on the inclusion of a link to In2TV episodes of ] on the shows page. Concerns have been raised over the commercial nature of the site, that is also contains links to other shows, and that it is ad supported. In2TV provides free episodes that contain ads. Actually being able to watch the episodes of Babylon 5 is likely something a reader of the page would find valuable. I'm wondering if the inclusion would be approriate. It seems that the WP:EL policy is rather unclear about this type of situation. (I personally feel that the link should be included) There has also been some discussion on the babylon 5 talk page relating to this issue ]. ] 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Video and photo sharing sites == | |||
| :Well, it's unclear because EL is a guideline and not a policy. :) In any case... | |||
| Links to video and photo sharing sites should be avoided, due to lack of verifiability, reliability, and possible copyvios. This is exactly the same case as per blogs and personal pages: do not link. ] <small>]</small> 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need the link. If it's legal, then I don't see the harm in it. It's obviously related to the subject, it obviously fits into the type of thing we typically WANT to link to the only problem seems to be that the site is commercial in nature... Being commercial doesn't mean we can't link to it. We show preference to non-commercial websites when the choice exists... but there aren't many legal sources for online TV outside of commercial websites. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <br /> | |||
| ==Fourm== | |||
| :All of which issues are best handled on their appropriate pages, not here. There should be no special consideration here, of issues that are policy or not. ] in particular is irrelevant. V can be checked by simply watching the production. Bringing up V over and over is a red herring meant to distract from your real issue which is apparently ]. Copyvio again is irrelevant. Obviously a YouTube of a music video is a copyvio, anyone can tell that. However a YouTube that is an original production has no ] issue since the author loaded it themselves, and has their own copyright. The act of posting it, is a grant to the public to link to it. A link is not a copy, therefore there is no copyright issue involved. We *can* link to copyrighted work. A blanket identification of all YouTube as a copyright issue is ungrounded in fact or practice. ] 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Every time i put my fourm up in a day its down again yet i know another fourm that is let stay up why is my site so wrong can someone tell me the website is <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :EL is a guideline, not a policy. Per V and C, which are policy, YouTube is not prohibited; there are ::exceptions. Due to the disruptive mass deletions of YouTube links immediately following a created EL ::technicality which is in conflict with policy, the YouTube-specific wording is being reverted back to the ::original, in order to prevent abuse of the EL guideline to advance a specific source bias being advanced ::by two people. All blatant YT copyvios are covered under C. Please see YouTube discussion involving jossi ::and I at NOR. Jossi, you're up to 3RR. | |||
| :Our guidelines explicitly state that forums are generally not allowed ''and'' that you should refrain from linking directly to sites you are involved with. The message left on your talk page asked you to discuss the link on the article talk page, but instead of doing this you used the talk page to promote your website and then added the link to the article again. This is what Misplaced Pages considers to be ]. Other forums may be there because they have gained community consensus, or because they have not yet been spotted by an editor who is concerned about them. In any case the existence of one link does not mean that other links are acceptable. If you believe you link can add encyclopedic value to the article you need to make your case on the talk page and gain the consensus of editors there. -- ] 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] 20:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Specifically refer to ] guideline #3 and #10, also your forum doesn't seem to meet any of the ] guidlines. ] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Additionaly it has only has a total of 2 members.--] 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Assistance with external links in ]== | |||
| ::] is absolutely relevant: there is no way that anyone can vouch for the video content uploaded to a site with no editorial control. Such content cannot be verified by "watching it". Same way that we cannot verify the content of a scanned document posted on a personal home page. Note that ] is a disputed guideline. A new formulation is being worked out at ] and ]. ] <small>]</small> 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ] article has had a number of external link problems, none that I'd definitely categorize foremost as a spam problem, more just ] and ] problems. The article is rather unique in that it's about an ongoing promotional campaign | |||
| While we made good progress with an earlier external link cleanup in February, we'd most appreciate outside opinions on the ] section. Currently we have a version without external links, and a very short discussion about it in ] that was started after some back-and-forth revisions. The old version had 17 external links . I thought the removal of external links would not be controversial, but one editor has the understandable concern that "edits should improve articles, replacing a functioning link with a dead link to a non-existent WP article does not improve the article." 17 red links look pretty ugly... --] 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would also appreciate if you refrain from deleting the examples given for video and photo sharing sites. ] <small>]</small> 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand the background to the restrictive wordings in ]. Many editors are used to the Net Culture of generous linking and I have seen many examples of newbie editors who have a big problem accepting link removal. Hence, the strong wordings in ]. However, the WP:EL has to be interpreted, such as in the various consensus debates on this Talk page and the EL Workshops , . When reading these texts, it is clear that the actual interpretation of WP:EL is more flexible. | |||
| :I will not refrain from deleting a list of specific sites whose only purpose is to push a particular POV. A list of specific sites has no purpose in a general discussion, when that list itself is disputed. One side does not win in a dispute. The most appropriate action is to not list the sites whatsoever. ] 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a clear and obvious consensus that an article about a subject should have at least one EL – to its own official web site. I think it is reasonable that this principle can be expanded if the article covers a broader topic that includes several entities. Look for example how external links are used in articles in the category Political Movements . For this type of articles WP:EL is obviously adapted to the fit the topic. | |||
| ::That is a silly attitude. At least you could have kept the explanation, if you do not like to have the examples there. ] <small>]</small> 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The Health Freedom Movement article is a rather long overview article. The article claims that the HFM consists of a loose global coalition of a number of activists, campaigners, and opinion makers. I find it strange that the ELs to some of the most vocal and important of these are controversial. | |||
| :There is now a controversy over 19 links. How will the article be improved by reducing them? By removing EL to organizations outside the United States? By removing a direct link to an open source documentary film about the subject? Will verifiability of the claim that there are a number of HFM organizations be improved if links to these organizations are removed and replaced with “red” dead links to non-existing WP articles? | |||
| :I am all for that if there is a WP-article about one of these organizations, the link should be internal (and the EL should be from that other article). But if no such article exists? I don’t want to start 19 stubs with a few lines of text and an EL just to circumvent an overly strict interpretation of WP:EL. In the future the missing 19 articles might be available, but I want to produce an informative encyclopedic coverage of the topic that works now. In the future the HFM article might also split into sub-topics (e.g. for the Geographical regions) and then the number of ELs in each article will be lower. But in the meantime? ] 13:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Include the ''relevant'', ''verifiable'' information from those external links in the Misplaced Pages article text, and cite the links as sources. We're supposed to be spending our time improving the Misplaced Pages article text and filtering such sources through ] and ], not just finding external sites to link to. This is the basis of ] and ]. Nineteen external links is excessive by any measure, and a movement that cannot be adequately described without including that many links may not be a truly organized "movement", but just a catchphrase to which a number of websites have signed on. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Can you both please refrain from editing/reverting each others changes, and instead continue discussion here. Thanks/] 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's just keep in mind that the health freedom movement is a very real movement and that its existence has already been verified by articles in the orthodox media. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/09/13/dp1301.xml and http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1157031,00.html ] 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fansites== | |||
| :Both ] and ] have attempted to make significant changes to the guideline today without discussion. This page is here for a reason, and almost everything in the guideline has been discussed in-depth and with CONSIDERABLE difficulty. Just slashing through and adding or removing things is inappropriate and uncourteous to the rest of us. If you want to add or remove something (other than typos/copyedit kind of stuff) then discuss it here first. ] 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Didn't this used to say something about no linking fansites? Can we include this? Any thoughts? | |||
| ] 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't this why Google exists? Why even bother linking to fansites/forums/possibly unreliable information? I mean, if you can use Misplaced Pages, you can use Google. We don't need to provide links to everything. In my experience this lack of consensus has led to nothing but conflict, off wiki canvassing, personal attacks, edit wars etc. etc. etc. ] 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Video sharing sites should not be linked to for the reasons widely discussed here: ] and here: ] ] <small>]</small> 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree that we should not be directly naming specific sites in the guideline. There are lots of good reasons to link to original content on YouTube or Flickr or other sites and a blanket interdiction is plain wrong. There is no basis for user: Jossi's position. --] 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is not ''my'' position, just check the comments ,made by other editors in the links provided. As for the "lots of good reasons", I would appreciate it if you list them, as I do not see any. ] <small>]</small> 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is your position since you have been inserting a list of supposedly banned photo and video sites into this guideline. Leaving that aside, let's take a closer look at one of these sites: YouTube. Besides the masses of home videos and the like, YouTube also hosts an enormous amount of authorized content for major media companies as part of negotiated agreements or other types of partnership deals. NBC is an example , but there are many, many more. YouTube is not violating copyright by hosting material placed on its site by the publisher and we would not violate copyright by linking as specifically authorized under wikipedia policy . Given this context, your concerns regarding WP:V are not relevant. Considering that we do articles on many of the TV shows, stars or other media phenomena that may be covered by the authorized content, an external link to YouTube may be warranted in certain situations. That is just one small example of when a YouTube EL may be necessary. Another is when YouTube content itself gains enough prominence to justify an article at wikipedia. For example, ] can not be treated in any serious way without linking to the YouTube content. In short, given the many, many valid exceptions and the rapidly shifting nature of the internet, blanket bans on specific sites are always a bad idea and should never be included in policy. --] 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Videos and photo-sharing sites are no better than blogs; the contents of them cannot be considered reliable, nor copyright honoring. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::See above. --] 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Both User:Jossi and User:Wjhonson have attempted to make significant changes to the guideline today without discussion. This page is here for a reason, and almost everything in the guideline has been discussed in-depth and with CONSIDERABLE difficulty'' | |||
| ::We don't provide "links to everything". That's silly. We have a guideline for meritable linking, which is this. If you have constructive comments, feel free to suggest them. Saying no linking to fasites is weird and thoughtless, and has never been the guideline. I'd encourage you to start thinking about building a better encyclopedia, not frankly bizarre black and white ideas that have nothing to do with user value and encyclopedic merit. ] 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| --mmm, that's not really true. Wjohnson is supporting a consensus edit back to the original state EL guideline was in before two weeks ago, and the reversions he made are to my edit/Barberio's--both Barberio and I posted discussion, which jossi ignored: jossi just kept reverting until he was up to 3RR, then he was forced into joining the ongoing discussion. | |||
| I came here to say the same thing; who removed it, and why? --] (]) 13:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Also, there wasn't really a ''lot'' of discussion about the YouTube-specific language that was added two weeks ago--it was actually railroaded in while the page was protected, on a dubious claim of consensus involving three editors. The fact that it was put there and immediately used by the people who put it there to enforce EL guideline against a specific site should be disturbing to all EL guideline editors. There is no ban on YT; the EL guidleine was just hijacked wrongfully for that purpose. The purpose of EL guideline is to help editors evaluate external links, and when to link; not to enforce a phony ban on a medium a handful of people don't like. | |||
| ] 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Going back into the history, the clearest was: "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." At some point this was replaced by a long and overly explanatory comment about "non-reciprocal sites", of which fansites were the example. Now there's nothing. --] (]) 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't talking about anything to do with YouTube, which again is the problem with a flurry of multiple content edits to this guideline. ] 23:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I take exception with your assessment and your lack of assumption of good faith. This is not a " phony ban on a medium a handful of people don't like". If you want to engage on a discussion, do not use straw man arguments as these do not help. Fact is that you have yet to provide a solid argument on how linking to video sharing sites is any different than linking to a personal website or blog. What applies to one appies to the other, so if ''yo want to change policy'', go ahead and make a proposal. But do not go around asserting that adding a limitation on linking to video sharing sites is a change. It isn't. ] <small>]</small> 00:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd add "or reliable" to the "not informative" bit. But more important, I'd like to see this added back even without that minor and possibly contentious wording change. --] 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbitary Section Break because this is such a long thread== | |||
| :::I think the crieria should be based on the notability of the fansite relative to the availability of other informative sources. -- ] 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please remember this is an encyclopedia. We have a guideline for external links. This is it. The guideline is based on what is best for users and the encyclopedia itself, not random nonsense. We have had plenty of discussions about this. The guideline covers what should and should not be linked to based on merit, uselfulness, reliability and so on. Ownership of a domain has nothing to do with encyclopedic merit. ] 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'll be bold... --] (]) 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(I haven't taken part in this discussion before, but came here after people started mass-deleting links, regardless of the copyright status of the linked-to content.) Jossi, you ask "how linking to video sharing sites is any different than linking to a personal website or blog". While both '''can''' involve personally-created non-authoritative content, a site such as youtube has a large amount of authoritative content, provided by major WP:RS sources like NBC. Blog content is mostly POV and non-authoritative, but it can be linked to in some cases. Ditto for personal websites. An image or a video can have the same issues (for example, a video of the uploader talking to the camera about something) - but often it does not; it's a recording of an event or an item. Also, while a bigfoot video on youtube would probably not meet WP:RS and WP:NOR, a video of a major event that gains notability might. For example, if youtube had existed, the Rodney King video might have ended up there instead of at broadcasters, and might have been appropriate to link to from an article on Rodney King.) Someone might upload a video specifically for linking to from Misplaced Pages the same way they upload images to Misplaced Pages, and as the copyright owner give explicit permission as owners often do for images here.<br> My feeling is that video-sharing links and photo-sharing links need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and right now they're not - some editors are trolling for links and mass-deleting them (using the "linking to content of unknown copyright is a US violation" argument) when obviously there's considerable disagreement. ] 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mass deletions are not welcomed. The use of video material uploaded by a studio, news outlet, record label, etc., may meet the threshold for inclusion on El sections. That is not disputed. As for the Rodney King example, it is not applicable: if such a video was ever posted in YouTube, Misplaced Pages will need to wait until a major news organization refers to it and confirms the content. ] <small>]</small> 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do enjoy boldness. Thank Mel. ] 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Mass deletions without reference to the content or its status '''are''' happening, and at high speed. See for an example (deleting 2-4 per minute it looks like), and he's not the only one. As for Rodney King, I said it would need to meet notability guidelines, which would almost certainly mean that it had been referenced elsewhere - but once it did it would probably have been linkable. My point was just that it's different than blogs. ] 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Have you tried actually looking at what's being deleted? I just looked at half a dozen of ]'s deletions, and I didn't see one that I would miss. Actually looking at this stuff also raises the issue of how one determines that copyright isn't being violated. With images, it's pretty much up to the uploader to state and demonstrate that copyright is not an issue. On these links, there's nothing at all to go on, not even a claim on the part of the editor adding the link that they ever even considered the issue of copyright. And one of the links was already "withdrawn by the uploader". I for one am not all that worried about losing this stuff. -- ] | ] 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Do you understand that your argument applies to ALL web pages ? Not just video, all of them. Ninety-eight percent of all web pages say nothing about copyright whatsoever. Are we to assume they are all in violation simply because they don't address it? That logic fails. ] 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The contents of 98% of all web pages is not uploaded by random users. Have you tried looking at the images our users submit to Misplaced Pages in a given week? Take a look at ]. That's the kind of content you're dealing with at YouTube. -- ] | ] 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not be arrogant. There is a process for changing this guideline. It's called consensus. Making changes to something that was the result of many months of discussion is not just inappropriate, it is downright rude. Please show respect for other editors in the future, and please at least read the thousands of words of discussion on this or any other topic before changing a guideline in direct contradiction to ongoing consensus. ] 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And you're not addressing my point. All web content, per that view, comes from "random users". How do you propose, finding the copyright status, of *any* web content? You want to assume that all web content, of any type, is in violation of copyright first? Our policy is not to remove images immediately but rather to ask for copyright status of the image. So are you proposing that wikipedia needs to allow video uploading? Cuz if you're not I really have no idea what you are proposing. A blanket prohibition on links to video is simply not going to stand. So you should come up with some alternative. A link to video doesn't normally start off by saying "here's the copyright data wikipedia needs". I would propose that we act in good-faith by assuming copyright is in the hands of the uploader UNTIL we have evidence otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty? I think that works well with all other web content. ] 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thought: at what point does a fansite theoretically became an RS? When its successful? When its cited in turn by other sources? A blanket restriction would also restrict some actual 'fannish' news sites, which are considered fan sites simply for focusing on a subset of culture. Just a thought. - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Actually, I ''was'' kinda leaning in that direction, but the servers here run pretty slow sometimes already. Still there's a major difference between sites that solicit user input for content and sites that don't, in terms of the likelihood of encountering copyright infringement. And yes, you're right I suppose, an outright ban on the site won't cut it, at least until Misplaced Pages ''is'' ready to accept video uploads. Thinking out loud, though, it ''would'' be possible to say that links to YouTube and the like would be permitted only via, say, a template that tied in a page on which the linker was required to make a statement similar to what we do on image pages: indicate the source and the copyright status. Too clumsy, perhaps? Might be worth thinking about. -- ] | ] 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A blanket restriction is of course just dumb. We aren't here to just link to corporate owned sites. We are here, this guideline anyway, to provide links to material that goes over and above the articles. Sometimes fansites do that and are excellent resources on topics, especially obscure ones. Very often they are useless. But we need to judge them on their value to users and the encyclopedia. Fan sites like filmsite.org are sometimes highly authoritative; sometimes they are thrown together junk. The guideline currently cares about the information, not whether something is owned by Tim Dirks or Time Warner. ] 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I swear that this existed once before, I see no real consensus for its removal above either. Was it added without consensus then? This page is seemingly jacked up, if it is that unstable how are we supposed to apply the guideline? ] 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::At a site such as Flikr, or other photo-sharing sites, almost all photos uploaded are taken by the uploader. At youtube it's different, but at a guess from looking over the "recent additions" I'd say around 75% are taken by the uploader. Now, the links in wikipedia to youtube probably skew the other way, I agree, and probably many youtube links in wikipedia are inappropriate for various reasons. Warnings are appropriate, reviewing is appropriate, banning or mass-deletion are not, IMHO. ] 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've looked a little. If the content is copyvio or not useful to the page, fine - but Spartaz certainly doesn't seem to be making that distinction; he/she appears to be mass-deleting youtube links. His talk page includes discussion on how to configure AWB to make it easy to do, and editing 2-4 pages/minute removing youtube links tells me he's not reviewing the links and checking for appropriateness or copyright; he's just deleting '''all''' youtube links. If as jossi said, mass-deletion are not welcomed, well, then, spartaz is doing something unwelcome - and he's not the only one who took this entry in WP:EL as license to mass-delete. ] 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No I took the discussion on AN/I as reason to review these links and I see no reason at all why we should keep obvious copyvios or videos whose copyright status is unclear. I asked you to give me a diff for an incorrectly deleted file and the one you gave me was of a file that did not have any evidence that it was free and where you made assumptions about its copyright status. I'm afraid that this isn't good enough. If the file is not clearly free than we can't link to it in case its a copyvio. I also reviewed the file you objected to before I deleted it. In future, I would prefer you to address objections with me before making public allegations of misconduct. On a more cheerful note, I'll be very happy to review any other deletion that you disagree with. I'm sure that we all want the best but lets concentrate on the issue - copyvios and vidoes whose status is unclear. If you can think of a better way to handle this problem please let me know. I'd be delighted to find a simpler way forward. Thanks --] 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In addition there doesn't seem to be a word about them on the page, considering how much trouble I have seen them cause a mention would be merited somewhere so editors could apply the guideline as well as cite it in discussion, if fan sites are to be considered on a case by case basis then shouldn't the page say something about it, at least mention it. As for 2005 people arrogant, good strategy, that oughta be conducive to discussion, please point out the consensus, I saw above a discussion involving three or four editors but nothing closely resembling consensus. If it is in the archives, perhaps you could link it please, as they are quite hefty. Thanks. ] 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one is suggesting keeping obvious copyvios. The problem comes when assumptions of copyvio are used as a reason for mass-deletions without comment. That's a problem and has to stop. If you claim other are assuming copy, you are assuming copyvio. You don't have the high ground here. ] 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The guideline "says something" about external linking. It says a lot. You seem to want to just ignore it for some reason. ] 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All of the articles I deleted links from yesterday had already been tagged to highlight concerns about the free status of the videos. The vast majority (95% of the links at least) were either copies of TV programmes (copy vios) or links to commericial music videos (copy vios). In the case of Katana the vid had a link to a website where the vid wasn't available and there was no evidence that permission to upload the video had been granted (likely copy vio and deletable in the same way as an equivilent image). I'm still waiting for someone to show me a video I deleted incorrectly so I can understand where the consensus of the line should be. If you could review my deletions and show me any that were incorrect it would be exceedingly helpful. --] 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First, I didn't mean to accuse you here without discussion, but others here asked for an example of apparent mass-deletion, and that was the one I knew of. I didn't see how someone could review 4+ pages and videos per minute and remove them; that looked like mass-removal without review, especially given the comment that implies that no review for copyvio is needed.<br> The ] link hadn't been flagged that I know of. The video appears to be an amateur video with title added, done by a student of that dojo and the person giving the demo. The comments there from the uploader imply (but do not state) so. The site mentioned (apparently his sensei's site) has some professional-quality videos, but not the one linked to, and not with the title on the one linked to. I agree, there is no absolute certainty it's not a copyvio - but it's not obviously a copyvio either.<br> But the real issue I have is that the summary for all these edits appears to be misleading, and implies they were not removed for copyvio, but instead were removed due to a blanket mass-deletion policy which is at best a controversial opinion held by some of the editors. Even jossi here doesn't support a mass-deletion. If they're copyvio and the editor has reviewed them and decided they're obvious copyvio, then remove it and summarize as such (including that it was reviewed). This will make future editors much less likely to undo the edit. If it's possible copyvio, ask a question and get one of the page editors to investigate. As I stated in response to spartaz, "not clearly no copyvio" != "copyvio". ] 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, well I think there is considerable doubt about the status of that video and I don't think we should be assuming anything (other then good faith of course). I think we already discussed the summary to death. We will update it. Can I ask you whether you had any objections to any other link I deleted, or just the Katana one? --] 05:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <deindent> My major problem with fansites is that the vast majority of them are stuffed full of image and multimedia copyvios and as such are prohibited by ] - not knowingly linking copyright violations. That takes priority over EL as it is a policy and EL is a guideline. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Whatev, jossi! :-) And remember, "accusations of failure to assume good faith are themselves failures to assume good faith." (I have taken note already at NOR that you appear to switch to ad hom/pretending not to have heard arguments you have heard repeatedly when you're losing on logic, and I won't be sidetracked here, either.) but Warm wishes and Happy Thanksgiving!, | |||
| :So the vast majority won't be linked to because they fail to meet the criteria of the guideline. ] 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Happy thanksgiving. The way to resolve this is to have more long standing editors take a look at this issue, rather than keep arguing the same arguments again and again. I am placing a request at the Village Pump. ] <small>]</small> 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That is a problem too. Which should be discussed. | |||
| I suppose that if you can't accept that your edits didn't meet consensus, you could try to recruit people to adjust the numbers to your side--but because reason and logic should ultimately be used to establish the guideline, I have the feeling they will. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, etc. There's no logical reason for EL on C to differ from C (but there is an illogical reason, and now that we know what it is, that makes things a lot clearer). | |||
| ] 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Ownership of a domain has nothing to do with encyclopedic merit'' | |||
| :I find your assessment that this is "recruiting" to be quite peculiar. When there is a dispute pertaining to policy and guidelines, the way to move forward is to expose the issues to the wider community. While Wilkipedia is not a democracy, it works by establishing a wide as possible consensus. ] <small>]</small> 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have to say 2005, while I respect your opinion, I disagree with it (and I am not trying to be arrogant). There are plenty of domains around the Wiki that are known spam domains, ownership could definitely come into play. ] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Absolute restrictions == | |||
| :Read the guideline please. Spam domains would not merit links. ] 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::All in all, it doesn't matter, I don't want to argue. I just came here looking for some guidance on the page about fansites, found no mention and said something. This page was most unhelpful in that arena, as I am working on trying to resolve an edit war as a neutral party. Though, I think a solution may have been reached regardless. ] 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The absolute restrictions section was added to clear up a problem with the old format guideline. These absolute restrictions were not created as part of this guidelines, but are parts of and results of other policies. | |||
| :::Read the guideline. Your comments really don't make much sense. The guideline is detailed about we link to. If you are adding or removing something based on whether it is owned by a fan versus a corporation, that is inappropriate editing and you should stop. Spend some time reading the guideline, and if you are a masochist, the lengthy rewrite discussions from the last six months of 2006. ] 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The copyright issue is '''absolute''', it is an almost direct copy of the language in ]. | |||
| The blacklist issue is '''absolute''', the blacklist is a technical restriction on certain lists, maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation. | |||
| The issue of adding links in a conflict of interest is '''absolute''', there have been issues recently where Public Relations companies have attempted to abuse this, and the conclusion was clear that ] means you must not edit with this kind of conflict of interests. | |||
| :Thanks for the tips, I am not removing any links, I want to be able to apply the guideline appropriately and its not very detailed if it doesn't even mention the fact that these sites should be considered on case by case basis, because there are certainly sites that aren't. I have read the guideline, perhaps you should assume good faith. ] 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| All of these are the results of decisions and policy made outside of this guideline, and simply being repeated here. Please do not remove them, or 'merge' them into the rest of the guideline. There are kept separate and noted as absolute restrictions for a good reason. --] 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For instance: The average fan site hosted on Geocities generally fails the first What to link to criterion: | |||
| :I agree with you that there are some absolute restrictions, and that those include spam and copyright. But, copyright should be shortened to exclude licensing info--C clearly states that if an author has published their work elsewhere under other terms (say, public domain on YouTube) that does not affect their right to publish it here under GDFL. It's not accurate to include licensing info as an absolute, because it implies that under C, any link may be deleted without discussion if there's a question about GDFL. That's not actually the case--C specifies that a note be made in talkpage of article, with url etc., if there's a cr doubt. When the cr "doubt" is GDFL, it's not really a legitimate doubt, and certainly not deletion-worthy, as the vast majority of YT work is published without copyright under public domain. (There should be some cr issue with the material other than GDFL, which is being used as technicality.) | |||
| ''There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link''. | |||
| RE site you are an agent for or maintain--that's strongly discouraged, but not actually an absolute restriction. | |||
| ] 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with User:Cindery, definitely not an absolute restriction. Also please do not shout by repeatedly bolding your comments. --] 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ''Is it accessible to the reader''? | |||
| A guideline cannot prescribe absolute restrictions on anything. You can refer to existing policies, if you want. ] <small>]</small> 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ''Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)''? | |||
| : Again. The ''guideline'' is not prescribing these restrictions, but repeating them clearly. These restrictions will be in place if they are in the guideline here or not. It's plain silly to claim that we shouldn't say they are absolute restrictions just because we're reporting them in a guideline. | |||
| * ''Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?'' | |||
| : Specifically, the Blacklist is a very absolute restriction. ''The Wikimedia software will not accept edits including links that match the blacklist''. This is not a 'guideline' that can be overridden by editor consensus, and should not be reported as such. --] 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.'' | |||
| == Foreign language links == | |||
| Because Geocities sites are neither accesible (due to constantly being down b/c of bandwith nor are they likely to be functional on a continuing basis, usually. Some domains inherently have problems like this, regardless of content. ] 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Re this section: could someone insert an example of the "proper" use of the language code in an external link? I find it much easier to understand an instruction (and less likely to screw it up) if examples are included. Thanks-- ] | ] 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:As you can see, the guideline covers that. ] 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::So can we at least mention fan sites somewhere in this guideline or no? It's hard to cite this guideline in discussion because the come back is easy, well it doesn't say anything about fansites.... ] 05:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Scifiscripts.com == | |||
| ::Whatever, nevermind. This is clearly fruitless. I guess this page isn't going to go into specifics, on fansites. ] 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{linksearch|*.scifiscripts.com|scifiscripts.com}} appears to be a site offering full movie scripts. Their site claims ''All rights not reserved.'' and has no copyright notice about the different scripts. I suggest removing every single link pointing to a script. Someone disagrees? -- ] 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Fansites can offer useful info just as well as any other non-official site. If a fansite violates copyright or other EL clauses, it won't be linked for those reasons (just like any other site). If it meets the EL criteria, it should be linked (just like any other site). Not to mention that since "fansites" isn't really defined by wikipedia, so a mention here without a definition would just lead to arguments over which sites are fansites. It hasn't been part of this policy for good reason, please don't add it without consensus. --] 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == To promote a site== | |||
| All links promote a site. Links to the Library of Congree promote their site, links to IMDb promote their site, links to Google books promote their site. "To promote a site" is ridiculously vague and was never the intention. The language must be clarified otherwise all links are in danger of violating "promotion". ] 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Summaries like ''nonsensical revertion'' won't help you. -- ] 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Especially when the reversion is to wording that makes clear sense and has been understood and agreed to by many editors. The change trying to be made insisting all links are promotional doesn't make sense in this context. Links added to promote a site are prohibited. The fact that links may benefit a site is not the issue. The text is clear and easy to understand. Don't add a link because you want to promote a site. ] 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Benefit" and "Promote" are synonyms. ] 03:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Stop lecturing me. You are acting as if I added it. I have NEVER edited this page. Jeez, people need to lay off. I asked a question and got berated for this whole thread. What the crap? ] 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree that this prohibition is in here just for commercial sites (as indicated in your edit summary). And I think the recent change to emphasize the commercial aspect is not an improvement. | |||
| :::I'm not lecturing you, and I'm not acting as if you did anthing. A question was asked, and I gave an opinion. ], be ], chill out already and don't take responses so personally. --] 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''Whatever, nevermind. This is clearly fruitless. I guess this page isn't going to go into specifics, on fansites'' | |||
| :I do a fair amount of editing on nonprofit/charity articles and we get a lot of editors who add links to sites they are connected with (either as an employee, volunteer or supporter) with the intention of promoting the organization and/or its point of view. These are generally good faith additions, but nevertheless inappropriate. In the same way we see people adding fan sites (some of which may have no commercial aspect at all) to many popular culture articles. I believe these types of additions are no more appropriate than links added to promote commercial sites. Although the profit motive is a strong one, a simple belief in a particular point of view can be just as powerful, and is just as bad for Misplaced Pages in terms of diluting the value of an article for readers. --] 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe I should have added "it's cool" to the end, like I meant to. It's fine, I don't care. This is just an area I am starting to familiarize myself with and the last time I was here I thought I saw mention of fansites. Maybe I'm nuts. ] 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Regardless of how authoritative everyone here thinks this guideline is it did not help to resolve the craziness at ]. Which is why I came here, another page I never edited. That perhaps is one of the lamest edit wars ever and this didn't help at all, in fact it got me accused of being a troll when I posted it....that aside, that user was blocked. No one ever answered my original question though, didn't it used to say something? When was this? Am I confused, or was I reading something else? Anyone? (and no, I don't want to add it, this is just a question not a proposal).] 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In the past it has said "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." I think it was right to remove it, particularly since wikipedia discourages using quotas like that, and it was contradicted by other guidelines. --] 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Somehow I've missed all this discussion. Just to set one or two things straight: this page used to rule out links to fansites, and that was removed without (so far as I've been able to find) consensus. Many of us were unaware of this, and have continued to remove links to fanistes. Indeed, this view has been used in a number of disputes, discussed in places such as ], and it's clear that ''most'' editors are unaware that the strictre was removed. In putting it back (after a discussion, albeit a brief one, I restored the ''status quo ante''. 2005's talk of arrogance was not only uncivil, it was wrongheaded.<br>Misplaced Pages isn't a link farm. There are many sites on the Web that point to fansites — indeed, interested people can Google for them; this is, however, supposed to be an encyclopædia. Fansites are rarely (I'd say never) reliable, in that they're inherently baised towards their subjects. We shouldn't link to them.<br>Incidentally, I've never seen a dispute over what is and isn't a fansite. --] (]) 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Links added in order to promote a site is very much the intention. That is why editors are discouraged from adding links to their own sites. Links should be added to inform our readers, not to promote sites. It is not at all vague when one looks at a user's contributions-- when a user adds a link to the same site to a dozen articles in a row, especially when they are the user's only edits, it is patently clear that one is dealing with "links added to promote a site". -- ] | ] 02:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The guideline was rewritten five or six months ago, and singling out fansites was abandoned then. It was a long process with a lot of discussion and compromise by many parties and the consensus at that time was that it was inappropriate to single out fansites. The reasoning being that a fansite that meets the other requirements of WP:EL shouldn't have to jump through additional hoops to be included. Especially since for some pop culture areas some of the fan sites are the best source of critical review of the subject matter. Objections were mainly that there was too much fansite cruft on wikipedia, and we needed all the strong wording we could to help keep it down. While I subscribed to the latter of these arguments the overall consensus favored leaving out specific mention. -- ] 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The way its worded it does not address owner-placed, or employee-placed links. ALL links are promotional. Every single link, in all articles, ever, is "promotional". "To promote" is too vague to stand. ] 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough, thanks; a number of us obviously missed it. Perhaps, though, it could now be discussed again, as there seems quite a bit of support for reinserting a specific mention. --] (]) 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"To inform" and "to promote" are synonymous. ] 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You can start a discussion of any new principle you want, but a very long discussion of a significant rewrite involving dozens of editors giving and taking that led to the current consensus. Additionally, among the community of editors there is certainly no widespread consensus to prohibit fansites. To the contrary quite obviously, as literally thousands of editors have added them in good faith. Of course many that don't qualify under the guideline are added to, just like all kinds of spam is added too. The guideline covers all this though. The bottom line is the guideline covers links that merit linking. It's useful to anyone, even if all of us would perhaps prefer more clarity one way or another on some of the items. It does not make irrational statements for no valuable reason, and it doesn't seek to end run the general behavior of the mass of editors. The oversimplified point is to have good links useful to users, and not have links that add nothing or very little to the user experience. That should be a good guide to any good faith editor. ] 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What part of the ''intent'' issue don't you understand? -- ] | ] 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The problem is that Misplaced Pages is full of editors who are essentially adolescent boys with time on their hands and an uncritical enthusiasm for pop music, video games, etc. — just the sort of topics for which fansites exist. Trying to persuade them that a site doesn't meet a complex set of criteria here is pointless; they have neither the intellectual capacity nor the attention span for it. To be able to say: "look, fansites aren't allowed" makes life immesaurably easier. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles infested with editors like this, and it's a frustrating business trying to keep some sort of order. I've never seen a fansite that belonged in an external links section, which is doubtless also part of my approach to the issue. --] (]) 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The part where its clear and not vague. "Promote" merely means "to encourage the use of". All links encourage the use of the link. Therefore all links are "promotional" and serve to "promote the site". ] 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds like you either need to ] or find another outlet for your interests. Insulting the mass of editors and articles is not helpful or sensible either. ] 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''''Intent''''' matters. -- ] | ] 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::While Mel's language may have been somewhat harsh, I understand and fully sympathize with his frustration. And his assessment of the current state of external linking is fairly accurate. As such, I support putting the fansite prohibition language back into this guideline. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Then the word "intent" must be present. As I've now done. ] 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also fully support the restoration of the original guideline. I just came here to cut/paste it into a discussion, and was disappointed to see that it had somehow been removed. ] 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>What happened to: ''For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 3. A website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for; even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines. If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, mention it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Misplaced Pages editors decide whether to add it.''</strike> | |||
| *'''I would also fully support the restoration of the original guidline'''. I also came here looking for policy for fansites that I've read before but find no longer exists. It seems that out of thousands of editors that use these guidines regularly, only a handful (3-4) claimed consensus of change of policy in . A few relative changes are and . I must say, the way #13 now reads in ] is probably one of the most confusing paragraphs I've ever had to endure. ] 07:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>I thought this was an excellent guideline which very clearly outlines a good practice to establish a consensus about new links. Why was it removed?</strike> - ] 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I still haven't seen a reason why fansites should be treated any differently from other sites, and every example of a fansite that shouldn't be linked can already be removed under the other criteria already listed. Aside from discussion here, on the encyclopedia itself, there's huge support for linking fansites, and when the policy said "one fansite" (quota, which is frowned upon on wikipedia) it was often disregarded when there was more than site that met EL and was worth linking. If you really want to add wording discouraging linking to fansites, you need to publicise that discussion very widely so that editors are aware and can participate. I do agree that 13 reads very convoluted, but what's scary is that it used to be even worse. --] 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Thousands of editors add links to fansites in good faith, so your statement really is too absurd to take seriously. The guideline wording is clear and appropriate and was adopted via consensus after months of discussion involving many editors. No reasons are ever given to include a braindead prohibition, and just to cut to the chase it is quite plain to any fair-minded individual that the editor community at large has no consensus to have a random ban on fan-owned sites. It would be nice if a tiny minority would stop trying to force wording into the guideline that is plainly against the will of the mass of editors, even if they don't agree with that will. ] 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***There is a large contradiction here - most of the comments assert that the reason to not enumerate fan sites as prohibited is because they would be prohibited for other reasons. If thousands of editors are adding fan sites that are prohibited for other reasons, those actions are NOT "good faith" by definition, right?] 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****There is contradiction. Sites that don't merit linink are prohibited by the guideline. Thousands of editors add sites in good faith, many of those qualify under the guideline, many do not. You probably should read ]. ] 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that arguably the ] is a fansite. there are other such cases (admittedly rare) whan a "fan site" can actually be the most reliable source availabel on soemthing. I grant that they sterotypical fansite is not a reliable source for anything, but then neither is the sterotypical random corporate site. ] ] 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I only just discovered that fansites had been removed. I would also support reinstating the no links to fansites rule, except under extroardinary circumstances (as DESiegel pointed out above) where widely agreed-upon on the article's talk page. 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Never mind, I found the new section that covers it. - ] 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is an interesting discussion. But surely, this is a guideline? In that case, it is wrong to refer to "rules", just as it would be wrong to go to an article and remove things which this guideline discourages, against a local consensus. And it seems to be that the abovementioned teenage(?) boys(?) with time on their hands might well come to a consensus that these twenty or so fan sites are suitable links. A guideline is not a blunt instrument to override consensus. Or is it? ] 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Individual WikiProject rules on External Links== | |||
| :First I reverted edits by ] because I think he made his changes in good faith thinking these were grammatical errors when in fact these are items that have been vetted here ad nauseum. His changes effectively stated that only commercial websites were included in the "promotion" clause. My personal opinion is the clause in the article as originally posted was sufficient. Adding "intent" and "main intent" are impossible to determine. If I want to spam WP, I'll argue that 51% of my intention was to provide good content and 49% was to promote a website. I haven't seen any abuse of this clause and its something that can be explained to a new user who gets caught promoting a website. If all links are promotion, then every link woould be challenged and removed which is just not the case. ] 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I ''did'' believe that first sentence was written with a grammatical error and should actually read, "Links that are added with the main intent of promoting a site that primarily exists to sell products or services, that has objectionable amounts of advertising, or that requires payment to view the relevant content." (I have no opinion on the "main intent" versus "intent" issue.) Now I see the purpose of the sentence, but by leaving it the way it is, we are trying to cover too may issues (four) in one confusing, run-on sentence. I apologize for not reading the above discussion and suggesting my correction here first, but maybe a little ] will suffice. How about making my change, then adding a ''new'' sentence that covers promotion of non-commercial websites? This is obviously a very hot topic right now, and we need to try and make this policy as clear as possible for everyone. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like the idea - how about taking it one step further since all 4 topics are separate: | |||
| :::* Links mainly intended to promote a website | |||
| :::* Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services | |||
| :::* Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising | |||
| :::* Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content. | |||
| :::] 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's even better as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, I see more ] in our future as spammers and other special interests continue to parse that sentence in different ways. Clarity is paramount. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What's the precedent if an individual WikiProject proposes adopting a different (more restrictive) version of this policy on the articles that the project maintains? The proposal, in its infancy stages right now over on . If I was trying to link to a site and that particular link was allowed under ], but not allowed under such WikiProject rules, should that link be allowed? ] (]) 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You read my mind. I was thinking as I woke up that it should say "main" and not just "intent". ] 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :WikiProjects have no more authority than any other random set of editors. But because they generally take a considered approach to articles and have already built some consensus, normally based on good reason, around an issue they tend to be fairly influential. If an editor believes the actions of a wiki-project do not lead to good encyclopedia articles s/he should discuss it with the other editors and, if necessary, continue down the ]. The guidelines here are a guide to deciding if a link should be included, but in the end we are trying to build an ], ] encyclopedia, sometimes the rules will need to be more or less strictly interpreted to get the best results. -- ] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Maintaining an article is not the same as ] an article. Personally, I think its really important to try and maintain a consistent approach across the whole project so my view is that the guideline should always trump the views of an individual wikiproject. Ideally. i'd like to see much less in the way of external links but that won't happen anytime soon, so in the meantime we should all try to work against the same standards - i.e. the guideline. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see that one guideline trumps another; the word guideline seems to be used more and more as if it is a synonym for "policy". The ''policy'' is that articles are decided only by article-by-article consensus (as modified by policy), correct? If so, a Wikiproject guideline is more likely to be closer to the spirit of those most likely to be involved than a more "elevated" one. Consistency is a highly desirable aim, but it doesn't seem to be that the policies either produce that, or give strong tools for enforcing it. ] 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyvio Weasel words == | |||
| == Personal websites of non-notables, and anonymous websites == | |||
| Just something I would like to confirm with the assembled experts. | |||
| As these are almost literally a dime a dozen, and in no way verifiable as accurate, true, non-libellous, etc., and in no practical way different from blogs, is there any reason why we should link to them? Would any serious encyclopedia link to them? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, unless it fits this policy. Did you have a specific link in mind? ] 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I just removed an EL to a site that published copyrighted lyrics from a musical artist. At the bottom of each song it has the following text: "All lyrics are property and copyright of their owners. All lyrics provided for private study, scholarship, or research reasons only." | |||
| :Of course they would. Obviously they are different than blogs so why mention that non-sequitor? The prohibition against blogs relates to their changeability, not any sense that anything written on a blog has to be useless. This guideline lays out what is valuable to link to. Many non-corporate websites present very valuable content, even if most websites of every kind would never merit a link. Brainless, blanket prohibitions show contempt for users and that is not what an encyclopedia should do. We link on merit, accesibility and appropriateness. ] 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure I understand your argument. The problem with blogs is not that their content can change, because that is true of ''all'' websites. Rather, the problem with them is with the nature of their authorship, and their complete lack of editorial oversight. Personal websites of notable people are, of course, encyclopedic, but personal websites of non-notable people don't have any particular value, and anonymous websites could say anything at all, without any possibility of knowing whether or not they are true. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that personal websites, including blogs, shouldn't be linked to. The only exception I can think of is a blog belonging to the subject of the article. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem with blogs is their changability. That has been establieshe ad nauseum in discussion here which you seem to have not cared about. It's ludicrous to say no blog can ever have useful content on it, so your position is unfathomable. We link based on merit, accessibility and copyrights. That is what is all over this guideline. Personal websites from non-famous are often excellent things to link to, like someone's website with hundreds of historical photographs of Peoria. The fact that aperson is not famous does not mean that a website can't have authority and value. Your wild generalizations make no sense at all, while the wording trying to be added makes even less sense. Filmsite.org is Tim Dirks personal website, and it is a great site to link to. Michael Grost's film essays have been online for a decade and are great resources to link to because they are meritable, accessible, stable, and everything else good, even if on an AOL homepage instead of some corporate site. The guideline speaks very strongly against lightweight, unhelpful links. That is what it should do. Great links that meet the criteria should be linked to, non-qualifying ones should not. Thoughtless generalities have no place here. ] 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Now in my mind that doesn't make it suddenly not a CopyVio and we should not be linking to that site. Does anyone have any different opinion on this? -- ] | ] 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blogs have been in the guideline for some time. The "personal websites" part is a recent addition that was made without discusion. There are numerous exceptions to both, notably when the blog/personal website qualifies as the "official site" - one of the prime criteria for linking. Furthermore, there is no real, underlying consensus on blog ELs: even ] currently links to blogs and to video hosted on blogs (another topic much discussed here of late). I'm reverting your addition, as the issue requires more discussion. --] 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You haven't articulated the difference between a "personal website" and a "blog"; in fact, they are essentially identical, though they have some minor differences in terms of the editing tools available. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is too bizarre. Are you honestly going to insist that this http://googleblog.blogspot.com/ is a personal website? My goodness, you really need to give some thought to your assertions here. ] 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You keep making assertions without meaningful content; please make a coherent argument. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What part of this are you failing to understand? You continually ignore example after example. You ignore statements backed up with logic and reason, and instead just fall back on bizarre assertions, in this case asserting that Google's blog is a personal website. Okay, if all blog are personal websites, explain the exact person this official corporate blog belongs to. Stop avoiding responding to the several reply that make your statements completely absurd. You brought up coherence, so please be coherent now and tell us how the official Google Blog is a personal website, and what person, specifically, it belongs to. Or, better, just agree your statement that all blogs are personal websites was silly so those of us interested in this guideline can move on to real topics. ] 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What is the site? Are you sure that it doesn't have permission to use the lyrics on condition that notice is used? As long as we don't copy them, what would be wrong with a link to the site? (Where do the weasel words come in, by the way?) --] (]) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they are "essentially identical", why do you believe further explantion and iteration is needed in the guideline? Furthermore, why are you talking about "personal websites of non-notable people"?. We have a few guidelines on notability, but this page relates to ELs and as per the entire guideline, we don't link to "non-notable" information, whether that information is found on blogs, personal websites, major news sites or anywhere else. That is blatantly obvious starting with the statement about "meaningful, relevant content" in the "what to link to" section. --] 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::JJay, I can't see why you're reverting exactly, and what is a "recognized authority"? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Also, the definition of the exceptions for blogs has completely changed from a "recognized authority" to a news publisher or pofessional researcher. That is significant change in meaning and I don't see any discussion or logical basis for the change. --] 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * In response to User:Slim Virgin, the types of blogs that we might want to link to, tend not to be news organizations or professional researchers. They do tend to be closer to the definition of a "recognized authority", which granted is vague, but is vague for a reason. It applies to people like ] or some of the hundreds or articles in our ]. These may not qualify as article references, but may be suitable in certain situations for ELs. I see no reason to make the exception definition more exclusionary, unless we are going to list further exceptions to the exceptions. And that is a never-ending process that should be avoided--] 03:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, I can answer the second part easily - take a look at ] - that is QUITE clear. As for the first part, I have no way of knowing, and that is my question - we have discussed here before that we do not link to lyrics sites unless there is some distinct permission to use on the site (this should be in the archives for this talk page). My question is whether this is actually a CopyVio page, and the text I quoted were attempts at WeaselWords to get around CopyVio, or if they suffice. The site is www.quasimodobell.com/default.aspx/tabid/130/groupid/1465/gingroup/MEAT+LOAF/lyrics/1 -- ] | ] 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Andrew Sullivan is a professional researcher/journalist (we can add journalist if that will make it clearer), and newspapers' blogs ''are'' the kind of blogs we want to link to. Can you show me an example of an acceptable blog that would not be covered by the current wording? The problem with the "recognized authority" thing is that it isn't just vague, but meaningless. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Sullivan in a journalist and his blog consists of his personal writings. If you are going to add journalist to your definition, then you now need to add diplomat, government official, politician, judge, author, artist, performer, actor, political candidate, rabbi, imam, union leader, pro athlete, museum director, board member, CEO, nobel peace prize recipient, etc - none of whom are necessarily "professional researchers" or "news organizations", but all of whom may be "recognized authorities". Recognized authority is not meaningless. It is vague. Vagueness has its virtues, because the road you are heading down is a never ending street, where exceptions invite more exceptions, etc. It is a zero sum game.--] 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, I obviously didn't make myself clear; my third question (which I assume you were responding to) was predicated on the second. Looking at the site, though, talks at some length about copyright, but still doesn't make things clear. perhaps we should contact them to ask for the copyright status of the lyrics. --] (]) 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see what you mean, but this guideline has to take into account the wording of the relevant policy, which is WP:V, and the words I used here reflect that. It's true that the bar for external links is lower than the bar for sources, but it should not be wildly different. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be better to contact the copyright owners of some of the songs than the site who may be violating copyright. Just a thought. -- ] 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The bar is lower for ELs for good reason, because the ELs are not acting as references for the article. They point users to sources of additional related information, within the confines of a fairly rigid guideline. "Recognized authority" is a perfectly adequete measure to judge the worthiness of a blog/personal site link, but may or may not be sufficient as a source. "Professional researcher" excludes every field I named, and to respond to the comment below, people from all these fields are blogging about their work. There may be occasions when those blogs can serve as valid ELs. The present wording excludes them, just like with the professional timpani sites referenced below. --] 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::People may be "recognized authorities" in one field, but not in others. In fact, that's the typical case. Most of the people you refer do not write professionally about their fields. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In relation to your previous question, "further explanation" is apparently needed because some people don't actually seem to understand what a blog is. Can you articulate a meaningful, content and policy based difference between a blog and a personal website? As for "non-notable" people, the whole point of EL is to link to stuff that isn't, well, crap. Personal websites/blogs are a dime a dozen; the only reason they might be of value is if they are the personal website/blog of someone who is a professional or expert in a specific field, or perhaps a blog of an inherently reliable source (e.g. a respected newspaper), or if they are the personal website/blog of the person an article is describing. And you still haven't articulated the value of linking to an anonymous website, for which there is absolutely no way of verifying the validity of ''any'' of the information found therein. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * First, I have no clue what you mean by "anonymous website". You'll have to elaborate on that. Second, if you want to add blog/personal website to the definition, then do so - you have already said they were essentially the same - but I personally think it adds nothing. And I would appreciate an explanation of what you mean by "personal website". Millions of websites are owned by individuals. Are you saying that any site not owned by a corporation (or to be more restrictive, a news source) should not be linked? I have already addressed your point about "non-notable blogs"- if they are "non-notable" than they are not recogized authorities, are they? In short, the guideline already covered this, succinctly. But taking out the phrase "recognized authority" overly restricts the exception clause. --] 03:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, the million of dime-a-dozen (or free) personal websites or blogs (btw, the difference between a personal home page and a blog is only te underlying publishing technology), are not worthy of being linked to, unless the site in question is published by a notable/recognized expert in the field. Anonymous websites are evidently not worth linking to, as there is not accountability and no feasible way to attribute the opinions placed in that website. ] <small>]</small> 04:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As per Jossi. An anonymous website is one for which we have no idea who the author is; there is no personal name or organization which takes credit for or claims ownership the contents. As for "adding" blog to the definition, it has already been there for ages; a blog is just a shorthand name for/special type of personal website. Sites which have little or no editorial oversight in general should not be linked; while the guideline for External links is somewhat looser than for ], that doesn't justify linking to all of the millions of sites on the web. An encyclopedic link is, in some sense, one which we know contains information that is at least somewhat reliable, ideally not defamatory, copyright violating, etc. With personal websites, unless it is the website of someone who has a reputation in the field in question, there is no such guarantee. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Yes, all of which is already covered by numerous clauses in the guidelines - i.e. the ones that relate to the reliability of the material. However, I will point out that the guideline now excludes Jossi's "notable/recognized experts" (which is pretty damn similar to the previous definition of "recognized authority" that should be retained). Instead, it makes an exception for professional researchers and news organizations. That is way too exclusionary. It is not supported by Jossi's statement, nor is it even supported by User:Jayjg, who writes: "''Personal websites of notable people are, of course, encyclopedic''". The approach shown here, by adding a new definition after a 24 hour discussion, ignoring objections and then edit warring to impose the change is counterproductive. It won't stick as written. That's not the way this page is edited, but is the way that has led to numerous page protections in the last few months. --] 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that people differ strongly on how "reliable" material is; it's essentially a personal view. On the other hand, "anonymous" and "personal" are quite specific, and deal with 95% of the crap currently linked to that contains "unreliable" information. As for the guideline, it has been held hostage for the past couple of months by people who resist both change and logic; that is not the way the page should edited, and that methodology "won't stick". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm interested in the 5% that would also be discarded. And your use of the word "crap" is offensive, as is your comment that the page has been "held hostage for the past couple of months" by those who "resist change and logic". It is particularly offensive to the hundreds of editors who have contributed here because I can't find any evidence that you participated in the page in the last few months (besides one revert) or made any attempt to add any sort of logic during that period. Maybe I missed your previous comments. As for the "change" you have tried to impose here in the last 24 hours, argue your points without ad hominem remarks on the work of other editors.--] 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jayjg acting arrogantly and dismissively of others is not going to get your opinion included in this guideline. Just because you disagree with and did not particpate in lengthy discussions on this guideline doesn't mean you or a couple of others can just come in and make major changes, especially ones that don't even make sense, particularly since they have not even been attempted to be explained. I don't understand this desire to be illogical, but please behave like an adult acting in good faith. If you or anyone else wants to present a case for improving the guideline, THEN DO SO. Don't just arrogantly try to cram something down other people's throats. Not only isn't it polite, it won't work. ] 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The more clear wording of policy has been explained, but I haven't seen any logical responses yet. Perhaps you can try that, rather than focusing on other editors and hurt feelings. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have an issue with the wording of the guideline. In ], I have including a number of links to websites of professional timpanists that offer material that enhances the article (e.g. video clips, especially good FAQs outside the scope of the article, etc.) These are "personal websites", however they are by professional performers. I think it should be noted that links to personal websites are okay if they are reputable and they offer content that enhances the article. (Links to personal websites that offer no educational content should be discouraged.) Many editors have a rather narrow interpretation of these guidelines, and I can see links like these being deleted citing ]. – ] (]) 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The current guideline would not exclude those links at all, since they are by non-anonymous professionals. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Under the current wording, those links could be easily removed, since they are not by professional researchers or news organizations. --] 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| JJay, which part of your version of EL would disallow http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ as a link in ]? Please unequivocally prove that the source is "unreliable". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* See "Links normally to be avoided": #2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Which points directly to WP:RS, which bans extremeist and partisan sources. See also the sentence that requires links to be: proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.). And it's not "my version", it's everyone's version, built through consensus. Just like with articles, where editors are more than competent to remove that type of link, without the ongoing laundry list approach of this guideline --] 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I was referring specifically to that; please prove, using undeniably objective standards, that the source contains "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", or that it is "extremist and partisan". Clearly the author feels that the information is accurate, useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. and not extremist or partisan. Who is to say that he is wrong and you are correct? And if you rely on ], then why not just scrap ] and insist that external links meet ] instead? Finally, the consensus version is, of course, the current version, which also appears to have a consensus of the current editors. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The guideline points to WP:RS. And your link would be gone immediately, without much protest. Furthermore, your interpretation of what the author "feels" has no bearing on editing articles. Instead, point me to the edit war over this link and the failure to remove the link due to the previous inadequacy of the guideline. --] 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You keep making assertions, but you have not been able to actually answer the questions. Please prove, using undeniably objective standards, that the source contains "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", or that it is "extremist and partisan". If you want to convince others of your position, you'll have to make an argument for it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Asked and answered above. If you don't think Bushisanantichrist is an extremist and partisan website more power to you. Please argue that point on WP:RS. If you see "factually verified research" in that link, well perhaps we need to change WP:V radically. If you think that type of link was acceptable, and would have been accepted by editors, until you got the insight to add "anonymous website" to this guideline, then I can only refer you to ]. In the meantime, I'm not here to play mind games and if you need more opinions on your link try the Village Pump. --] 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A blog is a personal website; a personal website may or may not be a blog. The standard practice on Misplaced Pages seems to be to avoid linking to such sites, unless, of course, they're by the subject of the article (see for example ]). I know that from my own experience, because when I arrived at Misplaced Pages, the article I spent most of my time on was one where a lot of private websites would have bolstered the side I was on (which I felt was not adequately represented); but I accepted that personal websites were not considered reliable, encyclopaedic sources. Like Jayjg, I can't imagine any serious encyclopaedia linking to them. ] ] 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sites requiring registration == | |||
| :I'm at a loss as to understand the reverting here. Is someone saying that anonymous websites '''should''' be linked to? Who is saying that? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why would being "anonymous" be a factor in linking? The criteria for linking is spelled out already: providing extra info not in the WP article, being accurate and verifiable. As long as a site meets those, what's the difference if it's anonymous? I think personal websites are comparable to blogs in regards to EL, and I don't think there's a blanket statement that can cover either. There are good and bad blogs and personal sites, and they just need to be judged on their own merits, according to the rest of EL, and the same as any other external link. --] 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Obviously anonymous websites sometimes merit links. I'm at a loss as to why you insist on trying to cra this addition in, especially without offering the slightest reason for it. Anonymous websites will seldom meet the criteria to link, but sometimes they obviously will, like an example of hundreds of photographs of Peoria from 1900 to 1940. Such a site would not become infinitely more valuable if the title "photos by John Smith" was on it. This is guideline to help linking to help readers. It isn't some thoughtless, arbritrary thing that throws logic to the wind for no reason. Linking is primarily based on merit. Anonymity adds no merit so anonymous websites have a much higher road to climb to deserve linking, but that is all it is, a much harder road. It's blatantly silly to say an anonymous website can NEVER have value to our readers. C'mon, you have to understand that. ] 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Not allowing links to these sites seems reasonable to me — but if they're allowed when there's no other source for the information, I can't see what's going on. Why weren't they allowed in the first place? It reminds me slightly of saying that dogs aren't allowed into restaurants on grounds of hygiene, but making an exception for guide dogs (because they've been trained to have a shower before going out to eat, presumably...) --] (]) 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you know what we mean by "verifiable"? We mean "with reference to a reliable source." There seem to be editors on this page who have never read the content policies. This page, and all other pages, '''must be consistent with the content policies'''. "Verifiable" does not mean we can check whether it's true (how could we?) It means we can check that it was published by a reliable source. The bar is lower for external links than for sources, but the words as used by Misplaced Pages don't suddenly change their meaning. Your opinion of the merits of a link is likely to differ from other people's, so the criterion is only this: has the thing been published by someone reliable? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course I know what it means, you can lay off the ad hominem attacks. An anonymous page can be verifiable if all the information on it is cited. It can also be verifiable if it's something like a TV episode synopsis, where the primary source is a work of pop culture (which is what can be used to verify it). In both cases, the info "has already been published by a reliable source" and meets WP:V so it's consistent with the content policies - a linked site doesn't necessarily have to be an original source. Don't forget, wikipedia isn't all scientific topics. Anonynimity really has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable, just as a source having a name to it doesn't automatically make it reliable. --] 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, and will remove the addition for now until it can be discussed a little further and consensus reached. Let's be clear - this isn't about citing sources. Sometimes a ] such as a newspaper will require registration or purchase to view an article, but we link it anyway as a citation. However, when it comes to external links, they should all be readily available without registration or payment. Otherwise, they don't add much of any use to the average reader of the article. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please read ], which is policy. ] is NOT policy. And it's not an ad hominem attack to point out that a lot of the people on this page seem to be unfamilar with the content policies. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So point me to the part in ] where it says it applies to external links. Should be easy, assuming you're familiar with the content policies. :) --] 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But if we have to look to other reliable sources to properly verify the information on an anonymous website, wouldn't it be best to cite to ''those'' sources, and skip the middleman link to the anonymous site? I'm not being rhetorical, I really am trying to understand your position. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Absolutely. ] may need to re-read our core policies and understand these well before contributing to a guideline that ''cannot'' be writen in a way as to contradict policy. ] <small>]</small> 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Quit telling me to read the policies, you're just using that as an excuse to avoid addressing what I have to say. Satori - one example would be a list of quotes from a work of fiction. Citing the original would require many citations (and lists of quotes are specifically discouraged on wikipedia), while citing the list would be much more convenient. Assuming this hypothetical list was sourced to the original material, allowing it to be verified, how would it violate WP:V or WP:RS? How would it being anonymous make it any less verifiable? And would it somehow become more verifiable just by slapping the name of the author on it? Quoting from V: ''""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source."'' How would this hypothetical page not meet the standard set by that policy? --] 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the draft, I had made an amendment: sites requiring registration could be used as references if they are presented as an inline reference. Anyone can create a reference section and add a link to the site requiring registration, which is just an attempt to bypass the "External links" restriction. Thus, I had asked to rewrite that so that if someone wants to add a link to a site requiring registration, it should be as an inline reference, immediately following the sentence or phrase that is referencing. -- ] 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::For log or numerous quotes, you can use Wikiquote and use the {{tl|Wikiquote}} template. As for your last question, the only way a reader can verify the information is '''if it is published by a reliable source'''. An anonymous website or any other personal website is not a reliable source: It can be changed, selectively quoted, placed alongside POV commentary and editorializing, etc. ] <small>]</small> 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Wikiquote is an alternative way to do it, not a reason an anonymous site can't be linked. You didn't answer my questions above. And ''any'' online source can be changed, selectively quoted, placed alongside POV commentary and editorializing, etc. Anonymous or not, and "personal website" or not. If a site does those, that's a valid reason not to link to it. But none of those have anything to do with anonymity. And I completely agree that info is verified from reliable sources. You just seem to be missing the fact that a linked site doens't have to be the reliable source itself (particularly if the site provides sourcing). I'd recommend reading ]: '''"Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."''' So this '''policy''' says that they should not be used as secondary sources, but says they are acceptable otherwise. Since external links aren't held to the same standard as sources, it certainly seems that personal websites and even anonymous content may be acceptable assuming it meets the rest of EL. I don't think EL should even mention anonymous content or "personal websites". --] 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You seem to think we verify external links. Where does that come from? We most certainly do not. There seems an awful lot of confusion here. The content of Misplaced Pages articles have different policies governing them than external links. Most obviously external links very commonly have POV and are unencyclopedic. External links are not sources, so lets not pretend they are. ] 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Inline references are governed by a different set of rules... ] applies specifically to external links. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Of course we verify ELs. And if you do not, I would advise you start. All external links that are hosted on sites that are not considered reliable sources, that push a POV, that are un-encyclopedic, that do not add value to the article for these reasosn should be removed ''at sight''. The EL section '''is not the dumping ground for what could not be added to an article because it fails to meet WP content policies''' ] <small>]</small> 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but the external link guideline should state that such links should not be used as external links but instead as reference, pointing them to ] or ]. -- ] 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You have caused a lot of problems with this page due to now four misunderstandings of yours about wording or policies (two of which you seem to have relented on once you recognized you misunderstood the wording). The idea that an editor verifies that John Smith batted .231 in 1964 before a link from baseballreference.com can be added is counter to policies, and just plain absurd. You need to ask more questions instead of insisting your very mistaken assumptions are the only valid concepts for anything. ] 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::2005, can you please make coherent arguments, rather than borderline personal attacks? You have yet to articulate how we assure that anonymous websites contain ] material. Note, not "verified", but "verifiable". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And "please make coherent arguments" isn't a borderline personal attack? Assuring that anonymous websites contain verifiable material has already been addressed (and I guess ignored?). Could we all please address the actual content of the guideline instead of complaining about the other editors? --] 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::"Please make coherent arguments" is a request regarding Talk: page comments, not a personal attack. What coherent argument did you see in 2005's statement, and in what way do you think that the issue of ensuring that sites contain ] information is addressed? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I have addressed this multiple times, you'll find my comments if you search the page for "fiction". And how does "Please make coherent arguments" actually respond to what he said or help make this guideline better? --] 00:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Jayjg your behavior really offers no reason to even deal with you, let alone explain a dozen times what you could learn by just reading, but I have already shown how anonymous websites can have verifiable content. Besides yourself, I doubt there is going to be anyone who asserts that they NEVER can. But now try and follow this, THAT ISN'T THE POINT. The guideline prohibits websites that contain things like copyright violations, unverifiable original research, and so on. THAT IS COVERED. Insisting a site without a name on it somehow can never have linkable content but one with a name on it can is simply absurd. If you do have any genuine views here, you need to start thinking about the content, and the prohibitions in the guideline. Which means, if you do believe an anonymous website could never meet the criteria of linking, then it is redundant and pointless to say it again in the guideline. Your interpretation is illogical, but even if you actually believe it, the guideline already addresses your concern. Now I'm not going to go over this same point again and again and again just because you want to argue. I am instead going to say clearly: READ THE GUIDELINE. Perhaps after you do you will have a better appreciation of how unreliable, unhelpful, unvaluable things that don't merit links are already addressed. ] 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ReyBrujo, you seem to want to apply EL guidelines to references that aren't inline. While I agree that these sections are often abused, and I'd like to see them phased out, I don't think this guideline has the mandate to extend itself into that area. I also think it may be a tactical mistake to strip out all these links - it makes it harder for editors to go in and find which assertions in an article a particular reference supports. It might make more sense to try and get a prohibition on adding new non-inline references, but this isn't the place. -- ] 12:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ...I'm very disturbed by what appears the be the implication that anything not published by NBC is "anonymous" and therefore "unreliable." Notability varies a ''great deal''. Very often--if not ''always''-- one must know or learn something about a subject before one can make judgements about whom is notable/reliable regarding a subject or field of study. To use the Joshua Clover example again, you would have to know something about postmodern American poetry, and about Joshua, to know that Jordan Davis is also a postmodern American poet and a friend/colleague of Joshua's, and therefore a reliable source about postmodern American poetry and Joshua. If you were completely ignorant, you could look at that YT link and say, "not NBC. never heard of the guy, therefore he's anonymous." This is a problem that comes up in AFD a lot, and when people who are ignorant assume that everything which is not on Google is OR (or that everything that's not in the first 100 Google hits is OR. See under: "research is not original research.") It's not humanly possible for an 18 year old (Dmcdevit) and a 20-something guy (JSmith) or for ''any'' two people for that matter, to know enough about every article on Misplaced Pages to judge whom is notable enough on every subject to be sufficiently "un-anonymous." Deleting all the links, putting "anonymous" in the guideline fosters an editorial policy of ignorance; doesn't foster respect for the editorial process, whereby, collectively, with collective knowledge, Misplaced Pages editors are capable of determining whom is reliable/notable and whom is unreliable/anonymous. | |||
| ] 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It would be inappropriate for any WP policy or guideline to forbid general, non-inline, references. Also, it would be outside the scope of this External links guideline to do so. An example of when it would be appropriate to include a general reference is when an advanced article takes it for granted that the reader understands basic terms, but provides a good general reference that has an index and glossary that will allow a reader to look up any basic terms the reader does not understand. It would be unreasonable to expect the editor to include an inline reference to the definition of all the basic terms used in an article. --] 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A "personal website" is not the same as a "blog" as has been stated. A "personal website" is not the same as a "personal website of a person who is not a professional researcher, journalist, writer". I hope we can keep that firmly in mind. Perhaps we could come up with another name for websites created by researchers, writers and journalists, such as "professional website", but that seems a bit vague. ] 15:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that references are outside the scope of this project, but I would think a link such as you give in your example ought to meet the basic requirements of these guidelines, such as not being a registration required site. It's not so useful to the reader if it's not accessible (and it would, presumably, have to meet the points about being on subject and NPOV in order to be useful as a general reference). -- ] 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==This is a guideline== | |||
| ] is a guideline dealing with one of the most difficult and contentious aspects of the encyclopedia. Please do not just attempt to add pet peeves and personal opinions into the guideline. If you feel the guideline should be changed in a substantive way (that is, new new concepts, not just wording clarifications or grammar), please start a discussion here with your reasoning. Please treat your fellow editors and their views with respect, even if you disagree. Please do not just try to arrogantly ram your favored changes into the guideline just because it seems like you can. ] 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sites that require registration and/or payment are useful to those readers who are willing to register, and possibly pay a fee. Of course it would be better to use an unrestricted site if the editor knows of one, but better a restricted site than an article with inadequate references. --] 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree with you. This guideline is one of many. Editors are expressing their opinions based on their understanding of current policy, which this guideline cannot bypass, but only support; and you can start treating fellow editors with respect by not calling them arrogant. ] <small>]</small> 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's rather odd that you would insist that we "treat your fellow editors and their views with respect" when your edit summaries say things such as "behave" and "act like an adult". Perhaps you should try modelling the behavior you demand of others. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both of you, please don't do this. If you want to discuss an issue, do so. If you want to see a change made, propose it. Repeatedly trying to force a change that has no consensus to a page that says it was developed by consensus is rude and arrogant, in my opinion. If you don't agree, fine, but I hope you will begin to adopt tone and behavior of a cooperative nature. Force and ignoring others is neither fun nor nice. ] 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe I misunderstand your example. To me the example you give doesn't sound like a reference supporting an assertion or text in the article but more of a primer for a reader. Terms that rely on a very particular definition can be inline referenced (or possibly wikilinked), but if you you're looking to provide a resource that can be used by a reader to understand the general concepts and jargon of a subject area - that doesn't sound like an actual refernce for the article to me and I think it better falls into external links rather than references in terms of the guidelines that should be applied to it. -- ] 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Addition... == | |||
| ::::I hope that the important assertions in an article will have inline references, but I wouldn't expect every single assertion to have an inline reference. For an example of a featured article that contains many assertions, but depends mostly on general rather than inline references, see ]. --] 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's a great example Gerry. I think we're on the same page. I was reading too much of my own interpretation into your previous example. Thanks. -- ] 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Third opinion requested == | |||
| :"''Links to websites that allow self-publishing, except when the copyright status and ownership is clear.''" | |||
| Anyone have a problem with this guideline? ---] (]|]) 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please explain where you would add that. What do you mean exactly by self publishing? --] 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: This should maybe be held off on until the conversation about "anonymous"/non-notable "personal" websites above is resolved? I haven't had time to wade through all the points in that conversation, but it seems like it would overlap with your addition. ] 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can someone chime in on ]? There is a disagreement about whether links to researchchannel.org violate the external links guideline. I'd prefer that the conversation be kept in one place. ''']'''] 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict) I assume he means in "Links to be normally avoided". "self-publishing" isn't perfect, but may be a step in the right direction, and may be possible to tie into guidance on links to forums. I'd be careful with "copyright status and ownership is clear" - it seems like that could be interpreted too strongly in both directions (one side saying that should exclude all or most of youtube, the other side saying that means that all youtube links are ok because youtube requires uploaders to clearly assert status/ownership - even if they lie). But maybe this is a step. Also "allow" gets tricky - if a website has a forum or section with a wiki, but has other controlled content, can one link to the controlled content? I'd assume yes, but the wording above would imply no. But perhaps again this it too much "]ing". Maybe we could discuss the intended implications? That might also help (if this is adopted) by clarifying intent. ] 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Also see the section immediately before that titled "Linkspam ast.cac.washington.edu?" for more background. ''']'''] 09:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''JJay''', Oh sorry: "Sites to normally avoid" | |||
| :: Websites that allow it's users to publish material without a vetting/verification process. Wikis, image sharing sites, video sharing sites, HotOrNot type sites, MySpace type sites, etc. I know those are all covered, but I think this guideline summarises all those issues in one descriptive statement, (descriptive instead of prescriptive). | |||
| ::'''Schi''', I Was kinda thinking this would be a good solution to that debate. ---] (]|]) 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == SAFCO == | |||
| Before anyone gets hot under the collar (on either side): lets discuss this before we insert anything into the page or remove anything, please. Civility thanks you. :-) This may be a way to unify some of the current requirements, with some thought and perhaps some examples or sub-cases. ] 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : (edit conflict)It could be, possibly, I don't know exactly. But it's redundant at present with some of the other aspects of the guideline. Also "websites that allow self-publishing" seems very broad to me. A large portion of websites have rolled-out some type of blogging feature that allow reader comments or uploads. The sentence might cover too wide a cross-section of sites. I also don't understand the obsession with adding something about copyright to every line in the guideline. The very first restriction in this guidleine states: ''Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement.'' What could be clearer than that? --] 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::My intent with "websites that allow self publishing" was actually to only include the material that was self-uploaded. It was a bit too broad. I'll think of a different way to state what I was trying to get at... Give me a few minutes to brainstorm. ---] (]|]) 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can I get some discussion please about the user ] and a couple of links that were placed back to the SAFCO company website? One link is at ] and the other is at ]. In both cases the user placed links to the ] website which, in my judgment, violates ] and ]. I have removed the links. From what I can obeserve, there was no information added to the article beyond the external links. In the case of the search and rescue article the link was placed as a "See Also" link. I would appreciate your thoughts on my action. <span style="color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Bazooka;"><span style="background-color: #0000FF">JB</span><span style="background-color: #429D37">Evans</span></span> 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''How about''': | |||
| :::"''Links to amateur websites, except when the owner/author is known to be an expert in the field.''" | |||
| ::::or... | |||
| :::"''Links to material whose author is unknown within the scope of the field.''" | |||
| :::---] (]|]) 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've dealt with this (the account has been blocked as violating ], and for spam-linking). --] (]) 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ..that is completely unacceptable because, as I pointed out, thousands of films like ''Alexander Nevsky'' are legally in the public domain, and one need not be any kind of authority to upload them to a website or to YT and external link them to Wiki. | |||
| ] 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Registration== | |||
| :If the author is an unknown person (either anonymous or simply non-notable) then we have no way to evaluate how trustworthy the uploader is. If YT user "IHateJews" uploads clips from a PD holocaust documentary... then we probably don't want to link to it. However, if a notable holocaust historian uploads the documentary then we can be reasonably sure it's accurate. Unknown person = no assurance of accuracy. <s>Oh, Cindery, start indenting your comments. I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.</s> (rewording for civility) Cindery, please start indenting your comments, otherwise I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. ---] (]|]) 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I happen to have a subscription to which allows me to for one thing, view original images of census returns. I'm not comfortable with the implication here, that we cannot add an EL to say, the actual 1930 census image for Charlie Chaplin to his article. To my mind, it enhances the article to be able to add links to actual documents, even though they may require registration or payment to view. ] 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would you take him more seriously if he indented? :)--] 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, that's what I was getting at... I just didn't say it well.---] (]|]) 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, I reworded. ---] (]|]) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If the source is cited correctly (the document and not the link) the user can choose which route to acquire a copy of the document. However, if you cite the webpage, the user is forced to subscribe to view a document that would otherwise be free to the public. --] 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ...I am a she. If J would like to re-do the indenting for the ''entire page'' here and then on to the rest of Misplaced Pages, I could care less--it seems a less destructive control-freak project than deleting all the YT links without looking at them.:-) | |||
| ] 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We shouldn't be discussing sources, because this guideline only covers external links that are not references. So the example of a census page available on Ancestry.com wouldn't fall under this guideline unless it was extra material, not used in creating the text of the article. If the Ancestry.com site provided enough information to find the hardcopy version too, you could list both the hardcopy and the online version. In that case, I suppose you would have the choice of putting it either in the External links section, or the Further reading section. --] 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Also: you completely don't seem to get it that thouands of films are in the public domain, and the Wiki uploader can be ''completely anonymous,'' and that is fine. | |||
| :::My point is not just about source but also about providing additional info that is not included in the article. So what I'm saying is that if you have the main source of info available for free to the public, we do not need to add a link to pay per view site(s) and should list the source instead. If we provide the source, the user can perform their own search (using their own search engine) and decide which pay per view site they wish to use. Otherwise, every pay per view site will want to have their site listed in the EL as offering a paid copy of something that is available for free. Then wikipedians have to decide which pay per view site should be listed over the others which opens up another can of worms and other assorted conflicts of interest. To keep wikipedia honest, we need to sacrifice the loss of some external links in favor of adding additional content to the article (copy of a historical document, quotes, refs, etc.). If the link is a rare exception, it can be discussed on the talk page and added through consensus. --] 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Okay now what about EL's which *only* have an internet version? That is, there is no print version of what the EL is stating, and the EL requires registration. In particular the issue has been raised that is not a ] for the statement that "So-and-so was in the Class of 19xx at Y High School". (It's a site that requires registration before you can verify what it says.) Nor for adding an EL indicating that either. What do you think? ] 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Guidelines cannot bypass established policies == | |||
| :It has no place in the external links section. Registration on it's own knocks it out, but also, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, it's low on the quality scale in terms of adding encyclopedic information and insight. I wouldn't expect it to pass points 3 or 4 of "what should be linked to". As for the discussion on use as a source - that belongs elsewhere and isn't relevant to whether it's an appropriate as an external link. -- ] 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The registration issue seems to be a complete red herring. Registration has no bearing on content. Period. ClassMates is a problem not because it does or does not have registration, but because it is a source of hearsay. The ''New York Times'' is no problem even though it does require registration. | |||
| The lead had this wording: ''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. '' That sentence, added circa Oct 22nd 2006, is in direct contradiction with Misplaced Pages content policies. Material that could not or should not be added to an article, should not be linked to either. The EL section is part of our encyclopedia and not the dumping ground for material that is not considered valid, useful, or compliant. I have removed the last portion of the sentence to read only ''''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages''. ] <small>]</small> 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For print sources that have versions that can be accessed on-line, a link to the online version should be provided if possible, ''but a regular print citation is also expected.'' I'm inclined to allow reference to registration-only sites if the source is considered reliable, maybe even if the general public cannot gain access. Free registration sites for acceptable sources are a no-brainer: they are intrinsically acceptable. ] 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to disagree with the removal. There are cases where copyright laws would prohibit adding content on wikipedia pages but could provide a source of information by following the link. This would also apply to long list of historical data and other archives. --] 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarification of rich media section == | |||
| The rich media section as it is now is not well-written, as it talks about avoiding direct links to rich media then giving such a link (the PDF file) as an example of proper layout of links to rich media. The definition of a "direct link" is also not given - this has caused problems at ] (as I linked above), but this time my question is more related to the external links guideline so I'm bringing it up on the talk page. My definition of a "direct" link to rich media is based on (which was subsequently then . I define a direct link as one where the rich media is activated as soon as the browser window is opened by default (PDF files and many streaming media files being an example). Direct links to rich media cannot always be avoided (for example in PDF files, with links to ] videos and some audio files, an example being the first one in the article ] as there is no other way to conveniently get the audio). Therefore, the wording should be softened to "try to avoid" or something. That would be easy as long as there is consensus. A big problem for me is trying to figure out how to clarify what a "direct link" is because the wording has obviously caused confusion. Also the guideline to explicitly name the file format of the rich media seems to be rarely enforced. To be honest I think it is much more useful on direct links to rich media than indirect ones. Inadvertently clicking on a link and having the computer crash trying to load a large PDF file or load a poorly composed Java animation is much worse than going to some HTML page and finding that you haven't yet installed anything to play a .ogg file that you wanted to download. ''']'''] 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I think Jossi is missing the point of the phrase he removed. It relates to the "What should be linked to" section... | |||
| ::* Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. | |||
| ::* Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. | |||
| :Granted, it might be put better. Maybe we should go back to another workshop version: there's getting to be an awful lot of off-the-hip editing on what really ought to be a pretty stable document. -- ] | ] 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I disagree with Graham87's interpretation of the rich media section. WP:EL says to "avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software." I interpret this literally to mean '''no''' external links to flash, java, pdf, audio, or video. I also extend my interpretation to stub html pages whose sole purpose is to be a launch pad for the rich media. I believe the intent is two fold; one is for Misplaced Pages to link to pages that have content that is viewable in a web browser, second is for non-discrimination of codecs and operating system operability. For example; I am a Linux user and I cannot '''legally''' view Microsoft Media and QuickTime video. I don't have problems with a web page having rich media links on it but those links must be auxiliary to the useful content on the page. (] 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ::I think the intent of "''information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article.''" relates to things like articles in peer review journals. The minute detail of how a experiment was performed it helpful for those who want more information, but is likely too much detail for an article aiming for a broad scope. Likewise, an author might release the first chapter of his new book on his website... the first chapter cannot be included because it would be a violation of his copyrights, but it could be of great value to someone who wanted to know more about the book. ---] (]|]) 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is at least some content on some of those stub html pages - for example with researchchannel.org there is a further information section with links to more information about the program/subject. Rich media often *is* useful content (for example many articles are only available in PDF format so Misplaced Pages needs to link to them (often in a "References" section these days). Audio that can't be uploaded to ] but is available free of charge can make an excellent external link. is about the most relevant link possible to add to ] (note: I didn't add it, I just clarified its content). I believe we disagree because we are both taking different approaches: you are interpreting the guideline literally as the last word on everything where as I am interpreting the guideline as a nutshell in terms of adding useful, accessible and tasteful links. Here is the which is about as close as you're going to get to the original intentions of anyone. is the guideline as it was in May 2004 (the only change after that was to add a navigation template in October 2004 which is meaningless in the context of this discussion). There is nothing there about forbidding rich media - just that it's a good idea to state the format of the rich media. I will ask ] for his opinion about this conversation as he wrote the section which you are quoting to justify your position. ''']'''] 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Mwanner and J.S' points. External links are provided to offer further and useful information that is outside the scope of the encyclopedia, and I think that has been the spirit of the guideline (and usage) since before the addition of the sentence. How is it in violation of Misplaced Pages content policies? Or maybe the broader question is: how do content policies apply to external links? ] during workshop editing and only 2005 responded, saying that they (or at least ]) ''don't'' apply. It seems that there is disagreement about this, so maybe we should hash that out? Personally, I find it a little difficult to apply Misplaced Pages content policies to external links (except for those policies that address external links specifically, e.g. ]), because all the language in the policies is formulated to discuss text/images in the article. SlimVirgin made the point above that, in terms of verifiability, the bar for external links is lower than for sources, which I think most of us would agree with (right?) So where do we place that bar (if we place it at all)? ] 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The only content I see on the researchchannel.org pages is a brief description of a video that I can't play. From my perspective the page has zero content and the links are broken. I'm all for rich media but I have a huge problem when Misplaced Pages links to content that I cannot '''legally''' view. Misplaced Pages has a policy not to link to known copyright violations. Isn't this in a similar vein? (] 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| The lead is worded in a way that is inappropriate. The explanation needs to be kept at the "What should be linked to" section and the lead kept simple and formulated in a manner that does not create confusion. ] <small>]</small> 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not similar to the copyright issue. The copyright issue is about linking to sites that are breaking copyright and the legal and ethical issues involved in encouraging that. You may not be able to legally view the media with the equipment you run, but there are no laws broken by the media being there and us linking to it and the vast majority of our readers are able to legally view the media. -- ] 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree, but if you have a better wording, I'm open to discussing it. ---] (]|]) 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the wording could possibly be less open to interpretation, but it certainly doesn't violate policy at all. There certainly is worthwhile content that can't be included in a WP article but could be linked. Not to mention that the policies discussed are all about WP content and sources, they don't even apply to EL. Some people seem to think that content on external sites that WP links to must meet all WP policies, and that's certainly not the case. --] 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The idea is that when possible — when you are aware of an HTML page on a site that describes and is, in turn linked to — the rich media, you should link to that page. When a link goes directly to rich media, you should indicate the format (because, for example, someone with a slow connection and not too much memory on their system should not find themself sitting there with their system frozen for five minutes because they clicked on a link that happens to be a video or a PDF). Similarly, if there is a page describing an image, we should usually link that instead of externally linking an image. | |||
| Other than that: I don't particularly like PDFs, because they add overhead without really adding much information; they are often the only available format for a document, but when an HTML form is available, it should be preferred (or both should be offered). I'm all for linking truly rich media: for music and language-related matters, audio when available is irreplaceable (e.g. we should certainly link things things like KEXP's enormous and unique collection of live recordings, the Yiddish Radio Project, etc.). And, in general, many people will find audio and video more accessible than text. I'm all for linking a good English-language audio interview with the subject of a biography if one is available online, or an NPR or BBC story on the topic at hand: these are great resources for people who are less text-oriented than the people who tend to ''write'' Misplaced Pages. However, nearly always that should mean linking the HTML page that, in turn, links to the rich media. - ] | ] 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===The concerns are valid and need to be addressed=== | |||
| :OK, I have tried to clarify the section per that message. I have replaced the first link to a page with links to rich media with one where the rich media is imbedded - i.e. a link from ] as that is a well-known piece where the audio link is fitting. I have also added reasons for not directly linking to rich media and a link to the category containing rich media icons. To Requestion: linking to files in formats that happen to be patented and therefore cannot be played on all systems is *not* a copyright violation - the whole point of the external links section is to link to files that can never be on a Wikimedia project. The problems playing these files through linux are an issue (they can be played but the legal status of that varies by country, see ] for details) but that means that there should be other external links in more conventional formats for finding out about the subject. That is why in the article ], I also linked to a page with the transcript of the video - the transcript happens to be in PDF format but we can't have everything. I would welcome application of the ] if anyone feels so inclined - this is a ] after all. ''']'''] 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The concerns raised are valid and should be addressed. While EL section can be a useful addition to an article, it cannot be a dumping ground for <s>crappy stuff</s> unsuitable material that could not make it to the article for being in violation of policy. So, this guideline needs to be worded in such a way that encourages useful links, while discourages <s>crap</s> unsuitable ones. The tension between these two aspects, what to link and what to avoid, needs to be carefully worded as to provide a good understanding that can be easily applied by editors. The guideline's lead in its current state does not reflect the spirit of the guideline and needs to be reworded. As the page is now protected, we could move forward by discussing a new lead. This is my attempt: | |||
| ::I fear your edits might be premature. Consensus really hasn't been reached yet and I believe there are some problems created by your edit. #1: The copyright status of the audio you link. It appears to be hosted by a private person on their personal website. There is inadequate information about the recording and as far as I can tell, it's a pretty flagrant abuse. #2: "Only link directly to content that requires special software or an add-on to a browser if ..." Only is the wrong word in this instance since ] is a guideline, not a policy. ] 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As for the first objection, copyright is an interesting point but says "©1997-2007, Charles K. Moss" so I'd assume he has permission from the relevant authorities about the recordings. There are recordings there that clearly come from his piano students, but if needed I could try to find another example. As for the second one, "only" is probably a bad choice of words - I'll think about changing that. I've also replaced the carolinaclassical link with a link to the ] because having thought about it, it seems ironic to have a link to a piece by ] followed by an article about ]. ''']'''] 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages. A good selection of external links is welcome, but keep it concise: ]. These links belong in an "External links" section near the bottom of the article, as per our ]. If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, and that website is a reliable source, consider using it as a source first. </blockquote> | |||
| ::::I have a feeling that (the pianist featured in the recording) is not one of his students. So even if he does have recordings of his students, it would appear that he is also posting the recordings of others without their permission. I would recommend against any links to the site. I think this highlights another problem with rich-media links: copyright status. I realize there are a number of differing opinions about linking to material of dubious use, but rich media does pose a new set of problems for identifying ownership. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the guideline, as well. ] 05:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have answered your second objection with my latest edit. ''']'''] 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wow how do you know who the pianist is? Perhaps my ] isn't reading the details or I should download the file to find out. I will send an email enquiring about this - if it is a copyright violation then it definitely should not be linked. I highly doubt it is though - this seems to be a well-respected piano teacher. ''']'''] 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"Crap," is a) uncivil b) utterly and uselessly subjective. (Or perhaps we should throw out the whole EL page and just write "don't put any 'crap' on Misplaced Pages"?) Not everything in a blog-published-by-an-authority or YT link published by NBC is de facto relevant as an external link: your ideas of "what is not 'crap'" are not necessarily good ELs either, hence the editorial process, by which ELs are vetted by collective judgement viz all policies and guidelines. "Careful wording" should ''not'' be so specific that it replaces the editorial process. | |||
| ] 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hear you. I have changed the offending words. ] <small>]</small> | |||
| ::Careful wording ''is'' needed to avoid misinterpretation as well as making this guideline compatible and not competing with established policies. ] <small>]</small> 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Looking at the html source, the file has not been uploaded to his server and is being hosted by what looks like Angela Lear's personal website. I shall dig further ... ''']'''] 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ...I said "Careful wording should not be so specific that it ''replaces the editorial process''"--which seems to be the crux of the matter. Some people would like to make the guideline so specific that it excludes specific problemmatic sites, which have exceptions. Other people--the majority--are saying because there are exceptions, the wording can't specifically exclude them, they should be vetted by editors. A better solution to the problemmatic sites is faster removal under C; not erroneously specific language at EL. Re the lead, I don't think it needs to be changed; "unsuitable" is ''too'' vague/extra verbiage; links should be evaluated as "further reading," not as sources. | |||
| :::::I don't think you have consensus yet for watering down the guideline in this way. I certainly do not agree that we should be more liberal about linking to rich media content. As it is, you are seeking to allow this when the guideline previously said ''Avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser''. This is a major step away from the concept of an open project as we will be encouraging non-free formats. I have reverted back to the previous version subject to further clarification of concensus here. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And you can get that exact recording and more by following the downloads link from her website (sorry can't paste the URL because it uses frames), so it is not a copyright violation. The carolinaclassical.com link uses the recording for streaming. ''']'''] 05:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Protected == | |||
| ::::::::Nope that is only a 1-minute sample. ''']'''] 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have full protected the guideline. Please discuss before modifying the guideline. This page is visited by thousands of new and established users, and we can't just modify it every other hour. I also ask administrators not to modify the article other than correcting spellings. I thought we had already learned in the last edit war. -- ] 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Graham87 - the sever path for this <nowiki>http://classicalmus.hispeed.com/lear/</nowiki> doens't resolve to a proper website. Can you clarify exactly what link you are following? I suggest that you find a different example - I'm sure its possible to find one that has no doubts about its status. In this case it seems likely that the rights remain with the performer but unless we know the exact circumstances in which the recording was made we don't actually know that. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What template? Shouldn't this go on the template's talk page? ---] (]|]) 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::OK - on further investigation classicalmus.hispeed.com is the hosting service used by carolinaclassical.com to host its media and is not a website - in fact hispeed.com appears to be blocked by Google. I'll remove that as an example for now. ''']'''] 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ehem... sorry, I was multitasking with a template and got the heading mixed. -- ] 02:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <deindent> all we need now is clarification on whether there is consensus to waterdown the wording on the guideline to encourage more use of links to rich media. For that we need further editors to weigh in. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::While I'm glad this is protected, I have to say that it's currently locked into a pretty bad state that doesn't reflect consensus. I particularly disagree with the inclusion of anonymous content and personal websites, both of which are only in the guideline because they happened to be in at this particular point in the revert war. So how do we go about getting the guideline back into stable shape? --] 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My personal opinion of the inclusion of anonymous websites aside, I do agree with ] that the current wording is more indicative of where the music stopped in the game of edit-revert-revert than it is of demonstrated consensus. Let's please keep discussing this to ensure the guideline reflects current community opinion. Or maybe it's time for a strawpoll to get a quick read? -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Er, no, let's not do that. It's generally better to make a good list of pro and con arguments. A poll tends to focus everything on a binary issue and tends to give the result that "some people disagree with one another" which we're already aware of. The issue seems to be once more whether we can link to wikis and blogs? I believe the answer to that was "in most cases, no". (]) 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A locked page is always ]: this is an established principle. The way to get the right version is to discuss and reach a consensus, which is what should have happened before ''every single recent change'' instead of this appalling edit warring. Please don't try to take shortcuts to "the right version" which should be "immediately obvious". ] 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I was probably a bit hasty in making my edits after the comment by Jmabel; I certainly won't change anything on the page now without consensus. Some of what I wrote changes the guideline about when the format of rich media should be specified and probably needs more discussion here. In some cases (as I have said above) it is impossible not to link directly to rich media (i.e. in the case of PDF's) so the wording should be softened there; the wording should also be softend from "avoid" because this is just a guideline. I think they were the only significant changes I made and more closely reflect current practice - I invite further discussion. ''']'''] 06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I agree that this is an egregious case of the "wrong version," and that noting that is relevant--there was no consensus for the changes made, and there was consensus to leave them out. | |||
| ] 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was ''no'' consensus, Cindery. ] <small>]</small> 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, in fact their was. The page should be reverted back to where it was stable and previously protected, , as a result of several months of discussions. It should then be protected, (semi)permanently, with any changes to be discussed here first. There is a very clear previous version to revert to, the same version that was protected previously. ] 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to see the guideline point out the reasons that weigh against linking to rich media and outline the alternatives clearly so that editors have knowledge from which to make a decision about whether to link - along the lines of ''links to rich media can add depth to an article but can cause also problems for readers. The need for additional software (some of which is not available to all users), greater bandwidth requirements, and accessibility issues can make such links useless for some users. When adding a link to content that is not a basic webpage editors should look for equivalent content in html format (for instance a transcript) to add instead or as well as the rich media. Editors must also ensure that any benefits from such a link are significant and outweigh the disadvantages of linking to media that may not be accessible to some readers. In particular, over reliance on rich media links should be avoided. Where possible links should always go to a launching page rather than directly to the media, and the media format should always be specified.'' -- ] 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Confusion about that probably ''does'' call for a poll, then, Jossi. | |||
| ] 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the absence of consensus, changes shouldn't have been made. I hope the current version doesn't give anyone an excuse to go on a massive editing spree. I agree with Radiant that a poll probably isn't the best way to go, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what ends up happening. --] 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No polls, please. The issues need to be argued and agreed upon. ] <small>]</small> 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nobody seems to want to take the time to propose a change (as in: I think that where it says "XXX" we should add/replace it with "YYY" with all of the wording). Instead, instant gratification, making a point by changing the guidelines. I feel this has to stop, no article is for making a point, still less these critical ones. Even now, nobody has proposed any form of words since the protection! Nothing should be changed until exact wording reaches a consensus. ] 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I started whit a proposal for the lead, above at ]. You are welcome to comment. ] <small>]</small> 22:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As Notinasnaid stated above, administrators never protect the right version, that is why the template has a disclaimer. I am willing to revert to a version with consensus, but unluckily there is none. The page was full protected on July, September, October and November due edit warring. And I am sure next month will be again :-( -- ] 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I like that wording. It's clear and outlines the reasons against linking to rich media, but also acknowledges that there can be benifits of linking to rich media. It doesn't need examples because the wording is self-evident so that guards against linking to copyright violations and ]. Would there be any objections to using that paragraph in the rich media section? ''']'''] 01:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Evaluating links to other wikis == | |||
| :::Actually examples would still be helpful but there would be no need to change the examples currently on the page. ''']'''] 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There's a ] at ] about linking to a non-Wikimedia wiki. Looking at the criteria for links to wikis, here's what the ] section of ] says: | |||
| :''"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."'' | |||
| ::: I object to removing emphasis on the word "avoid" and I also object to ignoring the "special software" accessibility problem that us Linux users suffer from. (] 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| Any comments on what constitutes "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? Any other pages on Misplaced Pages where I might find information on this issue? Thanks, --] 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This was discussed not that long ago, in a now-archived talk page, found ]. Generally, folks were concerned about weeding out links to wikis with factual inaccuracy/instability/unverified original research, and keeping links to wikis with ]-like authority. ] 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It's not just Linux users that can have a problem with rich media, and this is why I think the section should be very general - at the moment I read it as implying that all rich media can have accessibility problems to somebody, and that is true. Audio links without transcripts are useless to people who are deaf; images without descriptions are useless to people who are blind. Here's another example to throw in the ring which I just remembered: of ] that just happens to require ], and is difficult (sometimes impossible) to use with ]. It would be ludicrous for me to remove that link because it's an official website - I have now pointed out that it requires Java. A lot of people use Linux and will have problems with links to proprietary codecs; I'm sure that a similar number of people will be using slow or unstable PC's (probably running Windows) that won't be able to run certain types of rich media. Because of the large variety of circumstances that people are likely to be in in terms of system performance and ability to use non-HTML sites, I think the section should be quite general in case it overflows with people's pet accessibility problems. There must be websites out there that explain the problems with rich media and if I can find a well-written one I'll suggest that it be added as further information. ''']'''] 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As to the "substantial number of editors" question, the low end is pretty easy to recognise: I see lots of wikis added that appear (from the Recent Changes page) to have one to three contributors, and only a handful of edits in the last 30 days. My read is that this is too few (and too inactive) editors to ensure reliability. Of course, there is no easy way to draw a line on larger, but still small, numbers of editors. Is 12 enough? 25? You really have to start looking at the articles-- not a determination that can be made quickly or easily. -- ] | ] 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Those were all excellent reasons why the "avoid" wording should be strengthened. Why would Misplaced Pages want to encourage such potentially problematic external linking? (] 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ::I think it's important to look at the subject matter of the article as well. I think the bar is a bit lower for independent video games then it might be for radical right/left-wing political wikis. ---] (]|]) 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <deindent> if we have agreed that we don't need to water this down, why not just leave it as it is. Avoid is nice and clear and we need to avoid instruction creep. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == YouTube vs. blogs == | |||
| I believe that it is also very important to more carefully evaluate any external links to Wikia.com wikis, because of the obvious appearance of a "conflict of interest". Wikia is founded and operated by the Chairman Emeritus of Misplaced Pages (]) and a former Wikimedia Foundation board member (]). There is no good reason why non-profit, donation-supported Misplaced Pages should be used as a "link farm" to generate for-profit traffic to Wikia, unless the wiki in question truly is authoritative like ]. I have deleted a few external links to Wikia wikis that had something like 1 or 2 edits in the past 30 days, which is an obviously shameful indication that the external link never belonged in Misplaced Pages. With how aggressive Wales has proved himself to be in to Misplaced Pages, it's kind of embarrassing that he hasn't recused the Misplaced Pages property from his efforts with Wikia.com. Moreover, Wales sends official "Misplaced Pages-related" e-mails to users from an account at Wikia.com! --] 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I concur - I've removed several wikia.com links that appeared to be spam - no new content. I was not aware of the affiliation between WP and wikia.com, but I know that the wikia.com pages are populated with Google Adsense ads. There are currently over 3000 wikia.com links on WP . I've seen some linked pages that appear trivial and even empty over at wikia.com (perhaps under construction). In other cases a one or two line article is created in WP with an external link to a larger article over at wikia. ] 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can someone clarify for me why blogs are generally banned, but YouTube videos are not? Both sources seem open to the same problems with reliability. <b>]</b> 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Video links == | |||
| :we are trying to get rid of YouTube. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Blogs are generally not a valid EL, YouTube is not generally a valid EL. Each has to be considered on their own merits. IN general though, they fail all sorts of WP standards for inclusion. -- ] | ] 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For viewing the film '']'', replaced with . I'm wondering: do we favor one of these? Or is this link theft, pure and simple? I'm totally outside of my area here. (Certainly, it is appropriate to provide a link from an article on a film to somewhere you can watch the film for free.) - ] | ] 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Deja Vu time. If its a link to a blatant copyvio its not appropriate to link to it via ]. That's said, perhaps we should let the bickering over YouTube die down before we even begin to think about other videolinks providers. --] 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is either official? I don't know anything about liketelevision.com. ---] (]|]) 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK. I'd be in favor of more moderate standards in both directions: allowing YouTube videos and blogs, but only good ones (in the case of blogs, not necessarily blogs written by experts, but ones written by credible sources). <b>]</b> 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I could be wrong, but I believe the film is in the public domain. | |||
| :::That's pretty much the standard right now. The issues tend to be different, with YT the concern is more often copyright, but as long as the material isn't a violation and meets the rest of EL, it's OK. --] 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What do you think of the use of in ]? <b>]</b> 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as policy Blogs and YouTube are on equal footing... Both sometimes host official and reliable material and sometimes they host utter crap. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] is a guideline and not a policy. WP:EL says to avoid "links to blogs" and "direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java)." I should note that YouTube requires Flash. So I agree that Blogs and YouTube are on "equal footing" in that they both should be avoided. There is a thread over at ] about how well blogspot.com links have been avoided. (] 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| I take it that the short of it is that for films in the Public Domain that are available online, we do ''not'' yet have a specific policy on what constitutes appropriate linking. - ] | ] 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Misplaced Pages now has 23670 blogspot.com links. That is an increase of about 1000 links in the last 3 weeks. (] 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| == Links to Myspace == | |||
| Hello, I'm not sure if this is where I should be bringing up this issue. But I would like to make a written exception under ''Links Normally To Be Avoided-#10'' to allow external links of a musical band's ''official'' Myspace. These sites are usually managed by the group themselves or someone close appointed by the group. Of course, the site must be official, and not a fan-made (unless it were maybe a verified official fanclub). I feel a band's Myspace can be just as important as their own official website, as news regarding the band, tourdates, and etc can be updated through them (causing many on the 'net to use a band's Myspace over their official dot-com to get the same, or even different, information). Additionally, bands put their songs up on their Myspace by their own will, so it is a link to quickly allows Wiki readers to gain access to hearing officially released material of the band as well. Again, I don't know if this is where I should be brining up this issue, so if it isn't, could someone lead me to where I should be? Thanks a lot! -- ] 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == blow molding design == | |||
| :That's already covered: "Links normally to be avoided" starts with "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid..." -- ] | ] 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is a pretty good (short) article on plastic extrusion blow molding. It does not discuss double wall constructions or allow readers to learn about designing parts for the blow molding process. The company I work for has a design guide for the process. The link is http://www.custom-pak.com/BlowMolding/Index.html I would like feedback about the information in the link to enhance its usefulness to engineers and students interested in blow molded part design. Ultimately we woukd like to contribute the information to Misplaced Pages in an appropriate format. | |||
| :: Yeah, I thought that was enough to cover it too, but I was confronted with this page by another Wikipedian when I placed an official Myspace link to a band, with my external link removed. So I think it might not be specific enough, and that might partly be due to MySpace being more of a "service" that anyone can set up a page at, as opposed to an actual site owned by someone. I was thinking maybe add in a ",unless officially handled by the subject of the article" to #10 or something. -- ] 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you | |||
| :::Seconded, this is happening in a number of places. Some clarity would be very useful. --] <small>]</small> 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Mark Rutenbeck | |||
| :First of all, let me say how much we appreciate you coming here first and seeking input on possibly linking your website. That is exactly the right way to do it. | |||
| : Does anyone else have anything else to say? I would really like to see this done (having an "except those officially managed by the subject of the article" or such, under Links to Be Avoided #10). ] is actually a debate on a MySpace template, but a few of those arguments are from those who side-with/oppose the allowance of MySpace links altogether. The consensus does say "...in the understanding that in certain cases, myspace links are inherently useful and permissible under policy", so I think this also backs up the idea to allow MySpace linking (as does "except for a link ...an official page of the subject of the article" in the External Link guidelines). -- ] 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately, I do see some problems with the website linked above. It seems fairly promotional in nature. I am certainly no expert on plastic extrusion blow molding, so I don't know how readily available this type of information is, but has your company published this information anywhere else in a manner not so advertising-oriented? Has anyone from your company given a trade show presentation that might now be available online? Maybe written an article for an industry trade publication? | |||
| ::Links to MySpace should be avoided, unless there is a ''very compelling reason'', such as a MySpace page of a celebrity (providing, of course, that there is no doubt that it is of that celebrity). ] <small>]</small> 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :While it is great that you want to contribute specialized knowledge to the encyclopedia, it really needs to be in a neutrally presented format and backed-up by citations to reliable, third-party published sources. Hope this helps. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, that is what I'm saying. I think we should allow external links to the official MySpace of a band, celebrity, or whoever is the subject of the Wiki article. However, there are some people who have taken Links to Be Avoided #10 to mean that ''all'' MySpace links should be avoided, so I wish to make it more clear by making it something like: ''"Links to ] (such as ], except those officially managed by the subject of the article), ]s or ]."'' -- ] 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Shadowolf, there used to be a clause at the end of the blogs/MySpace bullet point that said "unless mandated by the article itself". This was much more confusingly worded than your suggestion, but both exception clauses are confusing because it implies that all the other items in the list under "Links normally to be avoided" don't share the same exception. That's why we agreed to put the exception at the top of the list - because it applies all the time. But I agree with you, there's clearly rampant misunderstanding about it, so perhaps we could revise to: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (As is the case for any type of link that may otherwise be normally avoided, ''official'' sites managed by the the subject of the article are acceptable.)" A bit wordy, perhaps... <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I see, that does make sense, and I could understand how adding this exception could probably cause some cluttering of "exceptions" in the future as well. But yeah, I think the matter should be worked on, because it is presenting a problem for some people (as it presented one for me). Your suggestion sounds good, and we could work with that (and trim it down as necessary as possible). I think an alternative way to approach this also, is to reword the first sentence at the top. Looking at it now, I feel it does not emphasize directly that there are exceptions to those rules, making it a little confusing. The line "...is an official page of the subject of the article" could simply imply the official dot-com website, but may not apply to networking sites (like Myspace) officially managed by a group. All in all, the first sentence might be a little vague. (Thanks for working with me here) -- ] 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Examine existing articles such as '']'' and '']''. Several steps in the process are presently not described in much detail. Text could be donated to the Misplaced Pages articles if following policies such as ]. Also examine the policies for donating images (the "Upload file" link on the side of the page has links to info). (] 05:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| == Proposed new opening == | |||
| :: Incidentally, the custom-pak page is hard to use as a reference. The index page only gives a little information, with mouseover abilities to show several images. It is not obvious that other little pieces of information are available through several levels of pulldown menus. The user interface seems oriented toward big pictures rather than reading the text, thus making it hard to see what is being said and hard to link to it as having significant information. All the paragraphs together seem to be informative, but only a few sentences at a time can be read or linked to. (] 05:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| Current version:''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article."'' | |||
| Proposed version: ''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below."'' Text is the same after that. I don't think this changes the intent of the text, but just makes it more clear. Comments? --] 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Chester Wiki: Appropriate or not?== | |||
| :It's good. It might, though, be worth including something along the lines of ]'s "A good selection of external links is welcome, but keep it concise: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory" (above). The "keep it concise" is a bit off: perhaps make it "should be kept to a minimum". So taken together, it would read: | |||
| I'd like some advice. Some users, usually anonymous ones with few other edits, have been adding various pages from (Chester Wiki) to various articles (such as ], and ]). The guidelines for external links reads that "open wikis" are to be avoided, but I can't determine whether this is an open wiki or not. I'm also not sure how long this Chester wiki has been in existence or how stable or verifiable its entries are - the entries I have seen do not contain any citations or references for its claims, of which is a typical exmaple. So, my questions are these: My inclination is to delete the external links. Would others share this viewpoint, and, if so, can a definitive list of justified reasons for this be given? ] ] 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :By open we mean "anyone can edit" and anyone can edit the Chesterwiki. I'd agree that they aren't appropriate links. If all the local Chester-based regular editors on the article start saying "hay ''everyone'' in chester uses that wiki" you might wnt to put it back, but looking at, for instance, the pub guide, I'm pretty sure Chester has a few more pubs than that, and it hasn't been edited this month, so it's obviously not a comprehensive well up to date guide. As for definitive - well pretty much nothing's definitive on Misplaced Pages - but it falls to the person adding the link to justify that it improves the article. I think it would be hard to say it's the sort of information people would expect to find in an encyclopedia. -- ] 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many thanks for the response. ] ] 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below. A good selection of external links is welcome, but should be kept to a minimum: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory."'' -- ] | ] 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::With only 15 editors and about 200 articles, it doesn't seem to have the critical mass to be a reliable link for wikipedia. --] 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Providing the appropriate link while following the grey areas of the guidelines is often times a difficult decision for me so I'll give you an example of how I look at the wiki situation. | |||
| ::How about: | |||
| :::''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below. A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory."'' — ] 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If the article is about a space shuttle and the linked wiki is administered by NASA, it's a useful resource and may contain more info than the article can handle so it could be included as a link. If the wiki is about a space shuttle and is administered by vendors or manufacturers of NASA and contains info on the components of the space shuttle, it’s a judgment call based off the content of the wiki. If the wiki is open to the internet and is edited/administered by individuals collecting information, I do not link to the wiki but use it to find additional sources of information or links to include in the article if any. More often than not, the open wiki is a mirror of wikipedia articles. --] 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That wording is misleading and can be wrongly interpreted as encouraging links to unsuitable material. I propose this wording:''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory.'' and leaving the detail of what to link and what not to link to the more elaborate sections below. ] <small>]</small> 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What is misleading about "which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below" or would encourage people to add inappropriate links? I don't like this last wording - my response to reading it is, if information is accurate and on-topic, why not just add it to the article instead of linking to it? The previous suggestions (and the current revision) address that. --] 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem with your proposed wording is that the "reasons listed below" do not address what cannot/should not be ''added'' to the article: What is listed below is what can and cannot be ''linked''. See the difference? ] <small>]</small> 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Except that some of the criteria for what can be linked is based on what cannot/should not be added to the article. For example, #3 and #4 in "What should be linked to". I would change Jesup's wording from "reasons listed below" to "as discussed below", or something like that. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consider this wording: ''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic that can add value to an article. A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory.'' The '''only''' reason for having an external link is that is augments the article's quality, not that diminishes it by linking to sites that do not add value. ] <small>]</small> 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Chester Wiki has only been going since 8 February 2007, so it's hardly likely to have reached critical mass yet. Of the 15 registered users only around 4 have contributed stuff to date. It is an open wiki - anyone can participate if they choose. Re existing content on there - of course there are more pubs in Chester and more of everything that hasn't yet been covered. Contributors are adding content in their spare time outside of holding down full-time jobs. One of us is a scientist/local historian/lawyer, one is a journalist, the others I'm not sure. It's starting to attract a lot of local readers, even though content remains thin at present. We hope it will grow organically and more people will start adding content. But give us a chance - 10 weeks is hardly a long time in the life of a wiki. | |||
| I think that we are getting finally to the core of the dispute. My understanding always was EL are there for only one reason: to add value to an article. This idea the we link to external sites because we cannot use the material on these sites in the article itself, is in my view incorrect and ''may'' be in contradiction with the spirit of our content policies. We are in the business of writing an encyclopedia, and ELs are useful only of these links add value to the article from an encyclopedic viewpoint. ] <small>]</small> 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 18:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is reflected in some of the misguided edits you made. Some external links have an unencyclopedic of detail. Put another way, a 1000 page website on a single person will have all kinds of details that are useful to a reader, but obviously can not be included in a one page article. Likewise things like very large amonts of raw statistics like a baseball player's batting averages, fielding averages, etc. While any individual fact from either of these two sites could be pulled out into an article, it should be obvious that huge volumes of facts can not. We don't have space. The level of detail is unencyclopedic; it isn't "lousy". External links are there to add value to the article, and one such type of link is a site with unencyclopedic level of detail. Another is detailed statistics. Another would be say reviews of every Alfred Hitchcock movie where there would be some POV that could be summarized as "he was a great director". ] 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The examples you gave may be examples what we ''should not'' link to, unless these sites are published by a reputable source. For example, a site with batting averages written by a baseball fan, should not be linked to as the material may not be reliable and thus dtracting from the article. The same content published in a team's official site, is different and it can be trusted as accurate. Reviews of Hitchcock movies posted on a personal blog, should not be linked to as these are only the opinion of a non-notable person, unless the blogger is a recognized critic/historian of Hitchcock's movies. The issues boils down to: does it add value to the article, or not. If it does, by all means add a link. How do we assess if a link adds value or not? By basing our assessments on our content policies of . ] <small>]</small> 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"The examples you gave may be examples what we ''should not'' link to, unless these sites are published by a reputable source." What does that have to do with it? "If it does, by all means add a link..." That is what we have been telling you. But no, it isn't by basing assesments on the content policies for articles. This is why we have A SEPARATE GUIDELINE. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. For example, suppose babeball-reference.com's Babe Ruth page had a line at the top that said: "In the opinion of this website, Babe Ruth is the greatest player who ever lived." That is pure POV, but it distracts not at all from the authoritative statistics presented. We have NPOV so we would not include a line in the Ruth article saying he is the best player ever. However, it is anti-user to refuse to link to baseball-reference.com anywhere because it states a POV that Ruth is the best player. That Ruth POV is not why we link to it. Similarly, if Magic Johnson wrote a 30 page website on "How to Play Defense Against Michael Jordan", that would be entirely POV, and we would not include in articles statements like "front him on his right side", but the site would be expert opinion that could merit linking. Likewise, a Hitchcock website could have articles by Martin Scorcese on every movie Hitchcok made and would would make ZERO difference if on one page of the site Scorcese said "In my opinion, Hitchock is the second greatest director ever." An opinion statement may not be encyclopedic content for an article, but a reputable web resource that has some opinion does not disqualify it from being valuable to the article as an external link. But more to the point, you removed wording about unencyclopedic level of detail. That wording was presuming reputation/quality/merit/trust/etc. You seem to be looking at these sentences as unrelated. You need to read what can be linked to. Everything considered has to fit that subset. If a site is thrown up with no reputation, reliability, or authority, it won't get linked. BUT, we are not judging by the same criteria of what goes in an article. The point of the level of detail thing is valuable material normally should be summarized and used as sources, but when there is far more material, external links are useful to users. ] 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Why are you using "we" are telling you"? Who is this "we"? As far as I can see there are competing viewpoints expressed in this talk page by a variety of editors. ] <small>]</small> 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * In my opinion the wiki itself would meet the criteria of ] for the article on ] (specifically it's level of detail unsuited to a general purpose encyclopedia). However, using it as a reference to verify factual information is unwise. If the ChesterWiki cites its sources, use those. --] 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My questions to you: | |||
| ::::# Do you agree that ELs should be added to an article only of they add value to an article? | |||
| ::::#If you agree, what would be the measuring stick for "added value"? | |||
| ::::] <small>]</small> 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The criteria in the guideline... merit with level of detail, expert opinion, raw stats, and so on (including official presence). I'm not exactly sure what your issue is here now, but it seems to me mostly you are both not reading the guideline as a whole document, and also not recognizing that while articles need to conform to strict policies, a 1000 page website that is linked to add value can have some stuff on it that our articles can not and should not. These are other people's sites that also seem to be valuable. They are not the Misplaced Pages. ] 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It would have helped to this discussion, if you answered the questions, rather than skirt them. ] <small>]</small> 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What a comment. I answered the questions very directly. Several editors have explained things to you in multiple ways that you should be able to understand, ] most recently. Instead of trying to antagonize everyone, I hope you'll read the comments and try to learn from the explanations your fellow contributors have taken the time to offer you. ] 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Perhaps you don't understand what the word "directly" means. The issue is not with "understanding explanations", but with lack of direct answers. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::How exactly is "merit with level of detail, expert opinion, raw stats, and so on" not direct? Sure, he didn't answer the first one, but I think it's obvious the answer is "yes" since the second question was contingent to agreeing with the first one. Would you feel better if 2005 spelled out "YES" for you to number one? --] 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think part of the issue here is that most of us (I think) believe that an EL can point to something that would '''not''' meet Misplaced Pages's content policies for inclusion on wikipedia and may not meet '''all''' of the requirements to be used as a reference, but does provide a starting point for further exploration, detail, etc. The exact determination of whether it's appropriate, adds value, and doesn't detract from the Misplaced Pages page (but instead adds to it) really is up to the editors, with this guideline to '''help''' them in their decisions. For example: We suggest people include dmoz links as ELs, and so help avoid the inclination to make Misplaced Pages into a directory. Dmoz links are probably not WP:RS per se, and they certainly would not meet guidelines or policy for inclusion as a page on Misplaced Pages, but they're definitely useful in many Misplaced Pages page's EL sections. | |||
| :::I do think we should consider suggesting to people lower down that in many cases, if an EL link '''does''' pass WP:RS and WP:V, they should consider converting it into a reference and making use of that in the text, if possible. In some cases it isn't possible or just doesn't work, and in those an EL is the way to go. An example of an EL that is appropriate (IMHO), but which may not meet all the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V (partly due to it being maintained off a "personal" page), but which does make a useful EL is , linked to from ]. (And yes, ] needs more EL cleanup - I've already done some.) | |||
| :: I'm sorry for being quite stupid here, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying: Is it that you think adding the link could be viewed as appropriate according to ], or that it could not be? Reading ], point 12 (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.) would seem to suggest that the link should not be added, but perhaps others aspects outweigh this, if you meant that the link's inclusion could be viewed as appropriate? Sorry. ] ] 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I apologize for being unclear. I think a Wiki dedicated to a specific subject makes a very good external link for the main Misplaced Pages article on that subject. I suppose, then, that I disagree with point 12 of ], though I consider myself to be on board with the general concerns voiced in that guideline. My comment was intended to distinguish using the Chester Wiki as an external link from using it as a reference. --] 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I could also point out that the article on Chester Wiki about Chester Castle is far more in depth than the one on Misplaced Pages, which contains inaccuracies (the one on Chester Wiki has a lot of links to verified sources even if they are not cited as references. And also say that by removing the link to Chester Wiki, you are actually preventing more people from a) finding it, b) reading it and c) ultimately adding quality content to it... If you're so fixated on links, why not remove the one to Chester: A Virtual Stroll while you're at it? CAVS, incidentally, is not only one of the best sites for Chester history, it's about to be taken down forever due to lack of funding. | |||
| :::: "Starting point for further exploration" is only good as the link we are linking to. If the site linked is not a good starting point, we should not link to it, right? So it all boils down to "adding value", and yes, the good judgment of editors is always needed to make that assessment. ] <small>]</small> 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : And therein lies the issue, I'm afraid, as I see it. The reason we don't like to cite or EL from open wikis is that anybody could write anything - even a false history of the place, so it wouldn't be correct to use that. If the writers on the Wiki cite their sources, then we could cite those same sources in the WP article, right? Either way we wouldn't need a link to the Wiki. The argument that having the link to WP prevents people from finding doesn't hold water, either - WP is not a place to publicise other sites. The fact that it is a fledgling Wiki and has great promise is a good sign for a future EL - if that Wiki becomes a reliable complete source of information. But for right now, given what I have seen, it should not be used. Thanks. -- ] | ] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ...I certainly hope it doesn't boil down to "adding value," as that is as subjective as "not crap," and is furthermore lame corporate-speak like "think outside the box." Further reading/further exploration doesn't need a "value" attached to it in the guideline. Trying to legislate prescriptive value judgements in generalities is never going to work--"value" is a matter of editorial judgement; it only exists in the judgement of editors. Even if you put something like "don't put crap in Misplaced Pages" or "only add links which add value," the same editors who think fancruft makes good ELs will be certain you are not talking to them, that the fansite they want to add is totally not crap and adds tons o' value. ''You cannot upgrade the judgement of editors with a guideline or policy.'' | |||
| ] 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :How does your response helps this discussion? I would appreciate it if you tone down your comments, as you are only escalating this rather than helping resolve it. "Adding value" falls within the same judgments needed to assess NPOV, doesn't it? But we have NPOV as a core policy. So, can you please provide some ideas on how to address the concerns expressed? I am not asking to "legislate prescriptive value judgements (sic)", I am trying to find common ground given the very different viewpoints expressed so far. ] <small>]</small> 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jossi, I think everybody agrees that the purpose of external links is to add value to the article. You seem to be suggesting that the only way to add value to the article, in terms of EL, is by adding links that meet ] and other content policies for material added to encyclopedia articles. My understanding, based on the discussion here and in the past, as well as previous versions of the guideline, is that one of the main purposes of EL is to provide links to things that add value ''and'' can't be incorporated into the article. I think some of the other editors have made this point pretty clear. The determination of what "adds value" to the article should be made by that article's editors. Do you really believe that we should only link to information that could otherwise be incorporated into the article? Because it seems to me that would encourage lazy article-writing. In the guideline, I think we ought not encourage people to add external links to things that should be sources. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can I ask some other questions, if I may? Why the animosity? Aren't we all interested in creating a great encyclopedia? Aren't we all interested in a good guideline that can help editors do their job better? If so, why cannot we attempt to find common ground? ] <small>]</small> 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You may want to consider your previous comment, "How does your response helps (sic) this discussion?" Please ]. I see no reason to believe that folks here aren't interested in finding common ground and advancing the project. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 06:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Since this is a small wiki than can be quickly scanned, I did so, and I find that the content looks useful but there are few or no sources. I suggest making this proposal again if, at a future time, reliable sources are provided for most of the information. For now, we should not link to it, except possibly on a one-time basis from a single article like ]. I agree with ] it should never be cited as a reference for factual information. ] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think there's any opposition to the idea that ELs should add value to the article, in fact, it's mentioned in both the current version ("Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links") and the proposed versions. And the "measuring stick" is definined by the rest of the guideline, it's all the criteria listed. | |||
| Ok - Thanks for all the comments. I've also got a new view from a fellow ] members. In the light of this, I've included the link in the ] article on a "one-time basis". This can be reviewed at regular times in the future if required. I've also invited the identified deficiencies in the ] article on here to be updated, in wikipedia style with proper referencing, by the people who feel it is deficient. ] ] 11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To get back on topic, I like the last proposed revision, here's a slight tweak, and an addition to the second chunk: | |||
| Thanks for the apology on the Chester discussion page. It's appreciated. Hooligan says that he's more interested right now in updating the Chester Wiki rather than the Misplaced Pages entry for Chester Castle, but if anyone from the Cheshire project wants to use the Chester Wiki article on the castle and cite all the references, he says they are very welcome to do so. | |||
| ''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory.'' | |||
| ] 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Exception for photographer credit == | |||
| ''Some external links are welcome (see below), but it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; external links may not be necessary in every case. If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first. Refer to the citation guideline for instructions on citing sources. This guideline refers to external links other than citations."'' (this doesn't contain wikilinks due to copy/paste, we'd obviously want to include these) | |||
| If a professional photographer releases a picture under an appropriate license and someone uploads it, I think it's reasonable for the image description page (i.e. not articles where the image appears, but the image itself) to provide a link to the photographer's website. Does this sound fair? I'm pretty sure we do it all the time already, as it's usually required for copyright reasons. ] 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It seems like we're close to having consensus on a revised opening, let's see if we can get a revision that can be agreed upon. --] 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Definitely — this guideline applies only to articles. By the same token, it's fine to link to your personal webpage on your userpage. <b>]</b> 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I like that quite a bit. ] 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Linking to sites that list illegal files == | |||
| :I am still uncomfortable with the formulation. Here is another attempt, which also summarizes the last sentence of the first para with the sencond para: | |||
| Please see discussion on ]. --] 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, and that expands information available in the article. | |||
| == Outside opinion wanted on external links == | |||
| ::''"A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; external links may not be necessary in every case. If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first." | |||
| Editor has added quite a few links to various pages, to a website called ourstory. I removed these because of the seemingly spammy nature of the mass linking, but he is insisting that they are useful information not contained in the article and has added one back to . I'd appreciate outside opinion on links to this site. Thanks. --] 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"This guideline refers to external links other than citations, for guideline for instructions on citing sources see ]. " | |||
| The sites are biographies generated on a graphical timeline, provided by service called OurStory.com. The timeline's are collectively maintained, but monitored by the user who started them. I didn't post that many links, and I only posted links to biographies that either I started, or am participating in creating. They are not complete works, but ongoing projects. I added my link back to Melinda Gates, because there is not much info in that entry. But, some of my other biography timeline projects are more filled out, and I hope to contribute them to the associated entries. My whole response to Minderbinder is below (he left out some of the parts of my intent and reasoning, so I am including it). I will be offline from here on out for the weekend, so if you need more info, I will respond on Monday. | |||
| :] <small>]</small> 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| My previous Reply to Minderbinder: | |||
| :::I do think we need to at least mention that ELs can be used for sites that cannot be used as sources/citations. Either something as has been proposed above, which gives some examples, or perhaps ''"If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, and it meets the ] for a citation, consider using it as a source first."'' This last might be combined with a paragraph deeper in the article giving examples of good ELs that can't be used as sources. ] 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am new to posting on wikipedia, and you recently deleted all of my links that I have added. I have read the links you posted in my talk section, and appreciate your concern and commitment to keeping the external links on wikipedia relevant and non-commercial. I support you in that effort. | |||
| ::::Sure. Here it is again: | |||
| However, you mistakely assumed I am associated commericially with OurStory, which I am not. Additionally, none of the links I posted attempt to earn me any money. The timelines I manage are freely open to the public to browse and reference. | |||
| ::::''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, and that expands information available in the article. | |||
| I am a biographer by hobby, and am using the OurStory service beacuse I like the timeline they provide. It is a service that I couldn't find else where on the web, and as a history buff and biographer, I think it is valuable. I run a number of profiles on their service, which are told collaboratively with other people on the site, and I particpate in other people's biographical projects. | |||
| ::::''"A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic; external links may not be necessary in every case. "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, and it meets the ] for a citation, consider using it as a source first." | |||
| I do respect the fact that external links should provide information that positively adds to the discussion, or provides valuable information that is not already in the entry. And I understand that in some cases the information on my timeline projects does this and sometimes it does not. So, in respecting this, I will only add my links back to entries where I think my timeline provides valuable (or missing) information on that subject, for the wikipedia user. You can see my comments on those individual discussion pages. | |||
| ::::''"This guideline refers to external links other than citations, for guideline for instructions on citing sources see ]. " | |||
| :::: ] <small>]</small> 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| But, as a final thought, I hope that you can appreciate that, in and of itself, a biographical (graphical) timeline is a useful external reference tool. It is something I have been looking for for a long time. For example, when I created my biography on Barack Obama, in my research I could not find a biographical web source that provided dates for important events that make up his life (including the wikipedia entry, offical Illinois sentate, or US Sentate biographies, or even his current campaign page). There was nowhere I could go to get a sense of the major events in his life, without reading 3 pages of text. So, in a case like that, I think the timeline is an external reference that is contributing to the entry. | |||
| That doesn't mention that ELs can be used for sites that cannot be used as sources/citations, it looks like you just repeated it instead of changing anything. What are you uncomfortable with in the previous proposed version? --] 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you think it is best, I can alter the way I leave links, so that it does not say Our Story in it. I just followed the example that is widely used on wikipedia for external links to IMDB. | |||
| ::That is exactly the aspect I am uncomfortable with: EL section is ''not'' there to link to sites that cannot be used as sources. That is not the reason for the EL section. ELs are there to expand the article, provide a point for further research, etc. Otherwise what we are saying can be easily interpreted as "if site X is cannot be used as source because it contains extremist POVs, inaccurate OR material, copyvios, etc., please go ahead and add it to the external links section". But if we say "''"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, and that expands information available in the article. "'' we sending a very different and unambiguous message about the ''reason'' for having ELs. ] <small>]</small> 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"EL section is ''not'' there to link to sites that cannot be used as sources" If that's what you think, I think you're missing the whole point of EL. Where is that comment supported by WP policy or guidelines? ELs aren't held to the same standard as sources - if they were, what is the point of having a separate guideline for EL? The very existence of two guidelines implies that they are different things and have different criteria. Aside from that, I don't see how the previous proposed text could be read as condoning extremist POV etc, it specifically lists a couple examples and directs the reader to the rest of the text where the rest of the examples are spelled out. How can "because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below" be read as condoning POV? Or are you just assuming that people won't read the "reasons mentioned below" and will imagine their own reasons? --] 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you would like to further the general discussion, please post on my Talk page again. And, please engage me on the discussion page for the individual entries where I am adding the links back. If you plan on re-deleting them, please review the timeline first, and provide a reason why you feel it is not worthy of being listed. | |||
| I've been following this, and I think the wording can be tighted a little, I propose: | |||
| :"Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Misplaced Pages which are accurate, on-topic, in context and functional. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is useful for many articles. | |||
| ] 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon our cherished principles to ] to ]. A comprehensive index of websites is '''not''' desirable, neither does every article require external links. Before adding a website as an external link, consider whether it meets the ] as a source for the article, and ] instead. | |||
| :These timelines are verifiable, and I have seen people using Misplaced Pages as a source for the timelines. I do not see why not to allow linking, at the discretion of involved editors, if the timelines of these people are accurate and do not include material that may be objectionable as per ]. ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"This guideline refers to links placed in the "External links" section of articles. For instructions on citing sources see ]. " | |||
| :The site is effectively an open wiki (i.e. anyone can edit) so we ought to be more careful than we might with a time line published by, say, the History department at Cambridge University or some other site with a well known reputation for rigor. But that isn't to say the site should never be linked. However, it also seems to be the case that Biographyfan is involved with creating the content on the time line articles s/he is linking to and as such s/he should suggest the links on the talk page rather than placing the links directly on the article page. Since Biography fan doesn't appear to have made any edits to Misplaced Pages that are not connected to promoting these external links this appears to fit more clearly under the ] issue than external links. I support ] reversion of the edits. -- ] 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| --<font color="#06C">]</font> 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If there are COI issues the simple thing is to post a link to the site on the article talk pages for the article regulars to decide. If you go on a spree of adding links to a site you are associated with then it does look like spamming and you are very likely to be reverted. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like self-promotion to me, they shouldn't be there... we can't link to every wiki that shows up and wants free publicity, and the fact that it's a wiki means it's going to be less valuable/reliable than other sources. They should all be removed as clear spam. ] 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Trödel. I will go with that. ] <small>]</small> 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I looked at the entry for ]. It seemed to me that the OurStory link added little or nothing to the article, because the OurStory interface was so confusing. In any case it is a ] to add links to a site you are associated with to an article. I suggest that ] should be nominated for deletion. If the user keeps re-adding this link, without any Talk page consensus, I suggest that OurStory might be added to the ]. ] 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not happy with this wording, same objections as before. Please get a consensus before making changes, that's not one person agreeing with you. Any bets on how fast this page will get locked again? I also strongly disagree with a mention of anonymous websites. --] 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd be glad to see more discussion of the opening even if I don't have a strong opinion, other than I don't think "cherished" is a useful word to have there. ] 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for taking the time to consider this, and provide feedback. I saw the note on my talk page, and I will make sure that I post my links to the talk page for an entry, and not just add them. Like I readily admitted, in some cases the content on some of the timelines are comprehensive and useful, and sometimes they are not yet filled out. I will no longer "SPAM" links on the articles, but, if I feel like a graphical timeline would enhance the entry I will, as you suggested, add it for discussion on the article's talk page. I do want to make it clear I am not the author of the timelines. Some of them I monitor, and some of them I am the author of only a few entires on the timeline. Nevertheless, I understand that this could be considered a COI. Also, not all entries on OurStory are user generated wiki style biographies. The ones I happen to be involved with are. But, there are other people on the site writing as primary sources on various historical topics, or personal experiences. My actions shouldn't prevent their contributions from being considered a viable reference for an article. Thanks. ] 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No problems. If you are not happy with the wording, please propose a modification so that we can move this forward. As for the anonymous sites, it will all depend on the wording of that sentence. ] <small>]</small> 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is a major problem. If YOU are not happy with the wording previously in the guideline, YOU need to gain a consensus to change it. Clearly many editors do not approve of your wording, and even more clearly you need to stop rudely changing the wording without a new consensus. ] 09:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Is there a specific process to get independent review for links? == | |||
| One more try: | |||
| ''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to further resources that are accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory.'' | |||
| I am wondering if there is any formal process for calling in outside link reviewers (i.e., neutral parties) to get independent examination of links to determine if those links comply with the <s>policies</s> guidelines for ]? I see this as a specialized type of peer review. We have a ], but is there a ''League of Link Reviewers'', or do we just post individual requests to look at pages here? In some articles there is bickering about whether a link should stay in or go. Calling in a neutral specialist just to look at compliance with <s>policy</s> guideline issues is what I am asking about. ] 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I strongly agree with a strong statement like ''Misplaced Pages is not a web directory'' up front. I don't think the ''consider using as a citation instead'' should be here. The EL section is generally much more prominent than citations, and occasionally a site used in citations will be well suited for listing in EL as well. Although I realize this may be a different issue, I disagree with the either-or approach to citations/EL. '''∴''' ]…] 04:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] is not policy. Please be sure you understand that a guideline is something different. (In particular, as I see it, only policy could overrule a consensus of the article's regular editors). ] 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the clarification of terms. Do you know if there a process for getting reviews against the guidelines, or do we just post requests here? ] 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since external links are usually more of a content issue, as opposed to an enforcement of official policy, it can be a little tricky to get truly neutral feedback. | |||
| :::One of the goals of ] was to provide a neutral forum to review external links, but it never really got going for some reason. The members of ], including myself, do some of this, but their primary efforts are geared toward stopping major, commercial link spammers. | |||
| :::Many times, a posting here will get some good feedback, and, if the article falls under the umbrella of an active, subject-specific WikiProject, such as ], you may want to try their talk page as well. As a last resort, major disputes over links are usually taken to ]. Hope this helps. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The closest thing to a process is to post the question right here, or at ]. If you want to add a link to a page that is watched by some project, you could ask your question in that project's Talk page. What I have often heard in the past is that the consensus of the editors working on a particular article's Talk page should be respected. Your query about a 'neutral specialist' sounds like a concept that doesn't exist on Misplaced Pages. I've seen some disputes where a link clearly violated ] but the editor persisted in adding it. Unfortunately that will turn into a user conduct RFC before you can get to a widely-supported verdict. There is always the ] for difficult cases, and don't forget ] which is a very low-weight process. ] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] and ] are policies. Things also change. In the recent past wasn't ] policy? (] 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :The statement '' but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below'' is totally misleading. It is stating something that is in contradiction with established policies and unacceptable in a guideline: (a) it implies that you can link to copyvios in contradiction to ]; (b) It implies that editors can add links to spurious websites on the basis of "cannot or should not be added to the article in contradiction with ], ]. or ]. The lead should avoid getting into these details and only explain ''''why do we want/need links'''. ] <small>]</small> 04:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"only policy could overrule a consensus of the article's regular editors"'' This is nonsense, and a recipe for votestacking disaster. Most of the "only guidelines" are far more important, more tested, and more consensus than whatever any group on an individual article page would like to think. ] 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No contradiction, ] ''External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright.'' We want links because they improve the article by providing, ''further resources that are accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below''. '''∴''' ]…] 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See also ]. '''∴''' ]…] 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::ANother formulation that hinders rather than helps: We do not link to copyvios, period. That is different than copyrighted materials: All reputable/reliable websites '''are''' copyrighted and we do not have a problem linking to them! The reason why we link is because these links are useful, contain reliable information and augment the article's content. So there is no need to explain that. It is a given... ] <small>]</small> 04:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed Guideline for other wiki links == | |||
| Jossi, please change the wording back to the old. I prefer the old wording as well as Milo, and apparently a few others. I'll wait for you to revert yourself. '''∴''' ]…] 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See ] for this proposal, which is currently in a development phase. ]<sup> ] ]</sup> 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, but I will not. The formulation is in contradiction with established policy, and a guideline cannot bypass policy. ] <small>]</small> 04:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering just how at odds with the current External links rules on wikis, instead of discussing it over there you should probably see if you can get the wording changed over here first... and I don't see that happening anytime soon. ] 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Open Directory Project== | |||
| ::I have partially restored the previous version, removing the disputed statement. ] <small>]</small> 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I removed this for discussion: | |||
| <blockquote>Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the ''']''' (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See {{tl|Dmoz}}.) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{tl|Directory request}} on the article's talk page.</blockquote> | |||
| Thank you, I found the change disputed. That said, I'll support the attempted revision with minor changes. Strike 2nd sentence redundant. Change our to wikipedia's. Change cherish to central. Strike last sentence, not either-or see ], no need to disuade the link via ]. | |||
| I'm curious to know when this was added and who agreed to it, because it seems that we're throwing ourselves on the mercy of that project's editorial judgment and policies rather than our own. I saw it misused today where it seems it's being added because it contains a link to a highly POV blog-style entry about a contentious issue. Is there widespread consensus that this project should be linked to? ] ] 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Misplaced Pages which are accurate and on-topic. <s>A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is useful for many articles. </s> This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon wikipedia's central principles to ] to ]. A comprehensive index of websites is '''not''' desirable, neither does every article require external links. <s>Before adding a website as an external link, consider whether it meets the ] as a source for the article, and ] instead.</s>'' | |||
| :That should not be in the guideline. DMOZ does not have a policy by which they chose to add websites to their directory. It is done by volunteers (I have been one a few years ago) and that guidelines for inclusion are very loose. Allowing links to DMOZ contradicts the "Links to avoid section" in this guideline. ] <small>]</small> 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If feel the second sentence is important, add it back in. '''∴''' ]…] 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::DMOZ is also not always the best link to use - there's a discussion in the beer articles and project about the use of links to BeerAdvocate.com, which provides better and more thorough coverage of breweries and beers than DMOZ does, or probably ever will. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :One more, keeping cite as an additional option: | |||
| :''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Misplaced Pages which are accurate and on-topic. This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon wikipedia's central principles to ] to ]. A comprehensive index of websites is '''not''' desirable, neither does every article require external links.'' | |||
| :''If you would like to add material from the research to the article, you will also need to add a full citation as detailed at ]'' | |||
| :'''∴''' ]…] 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm OK with the revision that's up as of this writing: . Does anyone besides jossi object to "can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons mentioned below"? He/she seems to be the only one misreading it as far as I can tell. This is supposed to be built by consensus, you shouldn't put it back in unless there's a number of people agreeing with you. --] 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree that a DMOZ should not be used blindly. Note that the text says "should consider" - not "they should" - that means that editors should look at the corresponding category and see if it helps enhance the WP page by providing an alternative to the EL list. WP is not a list of links, and this provides ONE alternative, but not the only one. I have no problem with the wording as stated. (Full discloure: I am a DMOZ editor) -- ] | ] 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would agree with ] wording. It is not an issue of "misreading", Milo, it is a in an issue of having a lead that it is not reflecting the content of the guideline, and that is misleading in its formulation: we do not add links because "can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail". ] <small>]</small> 15:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's precisely why we add links, and it's in sync with policy. Unless you can get more people to back up your opinion, quit revert warring over this, it's how the policy has been. And if that's not the reason to add links to an article, then why do we add links? The version you want gives no reason why links should be added at all - if you can't think of a reason why links shouldn't be added, you should probably reexamine your reasoning. --] 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nonsense. We add links to articles that contain useful and reliable information not currently in articles. Period. The ideal would be to require no external links at all, just notes and references. Until we reach that exalted state, external links are an interim compromise. And it's rather tiresome and hypocritical to hear you and User:2005 preach to others "stop revert-warring" even as you revert-war. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You should read the guideline. We certainly don't add external links based on what you said. For example, we normally will not a link to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a featured article. ] 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"Nonsense"? I think you missed my point. The current version doesn't address why we add a link to an article instead of just putting the information at that link in the article. --] 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Milo, I believe we've moved beyond your preferred version. If Jossi honestly misinterprets the intention, that is enough to assume many others will as well. Do you have any constructive comments on the latest above revision that Jossi finds agreeable? Jayjg, comments/revisions on the last stab above? '''∴''' ]…] 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He doesn't misinterpret the intention. He doesn't agree with it, which certainly is not the same. ] 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Seems like the wording could be misleading to suggest that you can use the EL section as a dumping ground for information that should be incorporated into the article as refs. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The recent discussion is irrelevant. The wording in question is out for a number of reasons. I've yet to hear any concerns with the latest attempt. Any issues?, or can we put all this behind us -- if only momentarily -- and accept this version as a new in-article starting point? | |||
| ::''Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Misplaced Pages which are accurate and on-topic. This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon wikipedia's central principles to ] to ]. A comprehensive index of websites is '''not''' desirable, neither does every article require external links.'' | |||
| ::''If you would like to add material from the research to the article, you will also need to add a full citation as detailed at ]'' | |||
| ::'''∴''' ]…] 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its not irrelevant. How do you figure that talking about the consensus text is irrelevant? It covers what needs to be covered, which is the important concept that external links are for content that can't or shouldn't be in articles. Content that should be in articles should be in articles; linking to redundant websites that offer nothing beyond the article should not be linked to. ] 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please don't inappropriately remove things from the guideline without gaining a consensus first. There has been a ton of discussion on this. Using a Dmoz link on articles with potentially dozens or even hundreds of valuable external links is a longstanding good solution to the problem. The fact that some sites linked from Dmoz wouldn't qualify as Misplaced Pages external links is totally silly. No Dmoz category is likely to ever have every site be one that would merit an external link from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and we need a practical solution for when there are dozens of valuable links possible, besides whining and reverting and pissing matches. ] 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This was removed as it contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either. ] <small>]</small> 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It doesn't contradict the guideline. In fact it is a part of the guideline that has a longstanding consensus from multiple previous discussions. Do not completely arbitrily change the guideline without gaining a consensus first. We went through this before. You know the process. Please don't be rude. ] 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, but ODP is. So it seems reasonable to let ODP handle the list of links and Misplaced Pages the article content. It indeed seems popular. Your say "I saw it misused today" and that makes it sound like you ]. // ] | |||
| ===New articles vs. mature articles=== | |||
| *It may be popular, but the point of our guideline pages is not to advertise popular websites. ] 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think we have lost sight of what, I believe, is the real point of "which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article", which is that if the information ''can'' be added to the article, it ''should'' be (though re-written); it then becomes a ''source'' for the article. In other words, links should not be to pages that are, in themselves, good, encyclopedic treatments of the subject. | |||
| :: Popular to use ''in Misplaced Pages''. That should prove that it indeed has value. // ] | |||
| Now, this is all very well for a Misplaced Pages article that is well along in it's development, though when an article is stubby, this notion is not especially realistic. I have been debating whether we should introduce language into the guideline dealing with this new-article/mature-article difference-- it has some potential to open the gates to a lot of links that will become inappropriate as the article matures. Any thoughts on how or whether to incorporate such an approach? -- ] | ] 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So its safe to remove these when found? - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Combining two strains of thought=== | |||
| I believe the following incorporates the current consensus text with text some editors want to add to the introduction, so I propse we make the opening: | |||
| *Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to accurate, on-topic, in context and functional web pages outside Misplaced Pages that contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. The criteria for such linking is below. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article. ] 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I think that a discussion on the Talk page would be appropriate before removing them. The policy here says they are acceptable, so just removing them without any comment would not be appropriate in my opinion. One Edit summary made a comment that Google Search results and a DMOZ category are the same. I would like to hear more about your opinions on this, since in my opinion they are completely different. I don't believe that it is germane to talk about how much it has been done - that doesn't make it right or wrong. The EL policy says it can be done. -- ] | ] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe this covers both phrasing people have been talking about. Perhaps the "the criteria..." sentence could be better worded, but I think this includes the different concepts editors have voiced support for. ] 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that dmoz (love the site, for what its worth) is a collection of links back to other external sources. From that respect simple linking to individual dmoz pages while a potential convenience to readers is a complete end-run around all our rules for judging who and what we link to. Adding a dmoz link to a subject that the article covers in and of itself I would say is completely unneeded. Nice, but unneeded. - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No. It does not. ] <small>]</small> 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Ah Denny, I see you already went ahead and removed 16 of them... :-( -- ] | ] 20:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please delete... == | |||
| ::I thought about it for a long while, and actually did remove those specifically since they weren't adding anything to the article. :( - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree with some of them, and have reverted others - some of them had 30, 50 or 111 entries, which in my opinion do add to the article. I left the ones with none or only a few as deleted. Sorry to be skeptical, but according to your logs you asked the question here and then 6 minutes later started removing links. It would have been nice to give people time to answer first :-) I am not saying they should be kept, necessarily, but I am suggesting that there should at least be a discussion first. -- ] | ] 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Misplaced Pages with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.'' | |||
| This is unneccessary instruction creep. Some people use Misplaced Pages with screenreaders. Should we avoid linking to any site that is not compatible with screenreaders? This is just ridiculous and doesn't help our mission...] 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :May I suggest replacing it with something along the lines of "refrain from linking to large documents and web pages where a reasonable alternative exists." ] 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why? Why should the length of the page come into it? Misplaced Pages pages themselves are frequently enormous, it seems utterly arbitrary and pointless to discourage linking to such pages. We should link or not link on a case-by-case basis based on the value of the link - not on some arbitrary condition. ] 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to suggest that if after reading the Archived version of this discussion (which has been had twice since I became a WP editor) and presumably before then too, we talk about changing the policy, and not doing mass-deletions of DMOZ categories. Previous discussions are: ], ], ] (that one was about me), ] - you will see that the issue has some passionate advocates on both sides of the argument. -- ] | ] 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :The guideline is very clear: avoid linking to search engine result pages. If you want to link, then you need to explain the reasons why you want to link and the benefits to the article. The EL section is ''not'' a dumping ground for a collection of on-line sources that, per policy, should not be included in an article. ] <small>]</small> 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So... should we have a general DMOZ link to an article's given topic, or is it safe to remove it? As we can't ever guarantee any editorial oversight I would think 'no', and would be happy to do drudge work of removing frivilous DMOZ links if that's the right thing. - ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry if this is not entirely the correct place for posting this. This article on an old ] DOS game contains IMHO an inordinate amount of links to download sites for the game. This type of thing is not not what EL's are meant for and IMHO should ALL be removed, but I thought I'd post here first to get a response and maybe pose a question: should the guideline include specific mention prohibiting posting links to download sites (for the sake of the argument assume copyright is NOT the issue i.e. only freeware, open source and shareware is linked)? While it may be ''useful'' for the reader to download an old game/program he's interested in, in terms of the ''encyclopaedia'' the link does not provide "information that extends the article". Thoughts? '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::DMOZ pages are not "search results pages". Please act in good faith. If you want to change the guideline, then get a consensus. Clearly the overwhelming consensus is contrary to what you want as many editors have voiced support for sometimes using Dmoz categories, and many more have added them to articles. ] 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here is a quote from the ] section titled "Links to be considered": | |||
| :This Talk is mostly for discussing the guidelines, not if a page meets the guidelines - that should normally occur on the Talk page of the page in question. However, you're asking if the guideline should specifically mention download sites. I'm not sure - certainly that particular page has too many download and other ELs (though a couple of them are ok) - "Misplaced Pages is not a directory". But I wouldn't rule out all download links per se. For example, the Emacs page could reasonably include a link to a download of Emacs (it actually has an EL to a page that maintains a list of implementations, but you get the idea). I'd say discouraged in general, but not absolute ban. Whether that should translate into any wording in WP:EL... I'm not sure, IMO. ] 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"A ] category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories." | |||
| :No, they shouldn't be there, especially if they're links to copyrighted software. "Abandonware" or not, we don't have the right to unilaterally violate licenses. Our goal here is also not to promote software, merely to describe it. ] 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] results are not the same as a ] page. Such as a category page at the ] (dmoz). There are many web pages that list relevant links by topic. Each link list, directory, category, and subcategory page should be considered on its merits in my opinion. If the editor of the directory or topic list is putting in relevant links, and is not including problematic links for the most part, then it could be a useful external link for wikipedia. | |||
| == Fraternities and sororities == | |||
| I suggest we add some kind of clarification such as: "If the category page has more than a few problematic links that violate wikipedia guidelines, then wikipedia should not link to the category." --] 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| What do you all think of the massive amounts of external links that are contained in a traditional Misplaced Pages fraternity or sorority article such as ], ], ], or ]? Is this appropriate at all? ] 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no difference between DMOZ and or ]. We should not link ''any'' of these. ] <small>]</small> 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally, no - ]: ''Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages.'' Huge lists of chapters and alumni isn't appropriate. Some notable alumni would be ok, or a category for alumni. Long lists of chapters and dates (and probably extensive lists of alums) should be on their own pages; that's not encyclopedic content. IMHO. ] 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not think that DMOZ should be used, as there is no editorial control over it. ] 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Obvious commercial links on user talk pages/user pages == | |||
| '''Alucard''' and '''2005''' are right. There have been numerous discussions and consensus building regarding Misplaced Pages's use of DMOZ as an "unofficial" link repository. In addition to the four discussions listed by Alucard, also see ] and ], both of which resulted in a clear "Keep" results and solid support for our use of DMOZ. | |||
| I just removed a commercial link added to this talk page (which seems to me to miss the point in really quite spectacular fashion) but I find the editor has on their talk page the same link: listed about five times in succession with different comments, so apparently an attempt to promote something. This policy doesn't seem to apply. Can anyone suggest a different one that does? ] 11:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *We have ], among others, and ] an advertising service. This user seems indeed to be missing the point. I've deleted his page as a copyvio, by the way. (]) 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thus, I would strongly oppose any blanket removal of the DMOZ templates in articles, and I fully support its mention in this guideline. It has an established, albeit weak, consensus for use, it is ''not'' a search engine result, and it has just as much editorial oversight as we have here. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My personal talk page == | |||
| :there are new arguments, Satori Son, and this discussion proves that the consensus is disputed. ] <small>]</small> 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Am i free to link to commercial site from my home page? exmaple (link removed) or (link removed) --] 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If the links are not contributing to the encyclopedia and are not linking to something about you, I would personally take the view that they are only there for advertising and are not permissible. --] 09:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your personal page is yours to do with whatever you wish that does not disrupt wikipedia. Links are not disruptive. You can link to anything you wish. ] 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::In this case, be careful. see ]. Blatant advertising and spamming -- as this site has an established reputation for on wikipedia, is not welcome anywhere. user pages included. I've removed the links above. '''∴''' ]…] 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If the link constitutes advertising, it should be removed, notwithstanding Wjhonson's opinion. --] 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do we really need to go through this yet again. Just because you don't now agree agree means nothing to the consensus achieved. If you want to get something changed, GET A CONSENSUS. If you don't get a consensus, please do not edit this guideline for substance. Edits for typos and clarifications are fine. ] 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent change? == | |||
| :::I fully agree with your principle. Unless there is a clear and wide consensus for adding the DMOZ part, we should not do so. If there is such clear and wide consensus somewhere on this Talk page, please point me to it. Thanks, ] 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Scroll up. Additionally the text has been there for about six months. ] 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did, before posting. I see major disagreements about DMOZ and no consensus for adding it. ] 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was added late October, if it has been in that long that's the consensus you're looking for. If you want to remove something that has been stable for so long, you should have consensus for the change, and until there's clear consensus it should stay in, not be revert warred over. Not to mention that it's a bit dishonest to call reverting back in something that has been there for months changing the policy. --] 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Let's ] about 'dishonesty'. I missed the fact that this change was added in October 2006, but I still feel there is no consensus for it. Was there consensus for the change when it was added? If so, where can I find it? ] 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please read the above. There was an entire "workshop" rewrite of the guideline discussed for literally months. There is no pithy little two sentences to refer to. There was four months or so of give and take where the guideline was made more coherent and focused. And just for the record, as you could see from the threads, I don't like the template part of that paragraph, but accepting it is what happens in achieving a consensus, people accept some non-perfect stuff. They don't just ignore the wishes of the significant majority and remove stuff just because they personally don't like it. ] 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) Since the DMOZ text has been there for quite a while, and multiple discussions about removing it have not reached a concensus, I really think that a proposal to remove should be the subject for an ], and see if there is a concensus to remove. But please do not just remove it without reaching that concensus. If there are new arguments then they can be stated at the intro to the RfC, and then all interested parties can read them and consider whether that warrants a change or not. Essentially calling something "revert" that has been there so long is not the way things should be around here. -- ] | ] 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :From ]: ''"Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.'' It's unreasonable to look at an edit months ago and insist that other editors produce evidence of other people stating their agreement. If there wasn't agreement, it wouldn't have made it into the policy and stayed there for months. We can certainly discuss and see if there's consensus to remove it - if there are objections, I'd also suggest proposing improvements to the text that would fix those objections instead of just removing it. --] 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was not involved in the discussion to allow DMOZ as EL. I guess I am very confused. Am I the only person here who thinks that allowing DMOZ essentially points our readers into the equivalent of a Google search? Even if volunteers somewhere maintain it, we as Wikipedians have no control over the link collection. So please enlighten me - since to me this seems to be in direct contradiction to the rest of WP:EL. ] 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Crum, that very point was brought up in the discussions that I and others referenced earlier. There have been arguments made on both sides during those discussions. I don't feel that a link to a DMOZ category (or a category of any other suitable directory that we can all agree on) is anything like the results of a search engine. -- ] | ] 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seems to me to be a link into a linkfarm, over which we as Wikipedians have no direct control. I feel that unless there is wide consensus for this kind of change, it should be removed. If there is such consensus, I am still waiting for a pointer to the relevant thread. ] 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As you have noted, the change was made months ago. It was not reverted. The "Silence equals consent" part of ] means that after this much time, there doesn't have to be a referencable thread. There needs to be wide consensus to remove it, in my opinion. -- ] | ] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The problem is that as of now, this guideline is self contradictory. I am not at all sure that people are aware of that. I will wait for more comments here by others before acting. ] 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There is no contradiction. Just saying there is one, and making the rather wild claim that a hand chosen directory list is the same as results from the search engine really does not give anything for people to respond to. Dmoz categories are sometimes a great link for broad topics that could have hundreds of valuable external links. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and it is soemthing that wants to make valuable articles for users. A directory link can serve a good purpose, and that idea (one directory link) has been in the guideline for years. It has only been refined now to eliminate somejunkdirectory.com from consideration, and offered a bit on info when a directory category is a good idea. ] 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Crum375, I took part in some of the DMOZ discussions last year and we included some of the editors from DMOZ. The one distinction you need to remember between a DMOZ directory and a Google search result is that Google makes no judgement about the content reliability or accuracy. It simply applies a computer algorith based on links and content and then ranks websites based upon a specific search term. The famous "Miserable Failure" search term clearly demonstrates how its results can be manipulated. With DMOZ, there is a set of human eyes that evaluates each site for relevance, content and quality before its added. Although this is a human process that has all of its shortcomings, it is still a valuable one. | |||
| :I do not believe DMOZ should be used indescriminately, but it has clear value when used to fight spam. I've used it a dozen or more times, and each time, when used with an appropriate message, link spam was dramatically reduced on an article that prior to its inclusion was a haven for frequent spamming. As such, I've always viewed DMOZ as an asset to WP. ] 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| On the project page is a template "There was recently a change in policy or guideline on this page.", but when I click the link, I'm not directed to an appropriate talk page section... Which recent change was meant? ] 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Combating spam should not be a criteria for using DMOZ, as we could apply the same for Yahoo Directory, or other directories that are "human driven". The concern is that, as there the editorial process for these directories is opaque, we are relying on unknown criteria and in violation of WP:V and contradicting the wording of the guideline. ] <small>]</small> 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact that there IS an editorial process by an individual(s) that has some knowledge associated with a DMOZ category puts DMOZ ahead of Yahoo! or other directories that are more concerned about format and style than knowledge of the content. Yahoo! doesn't have experts in every category where it places websites. Pragmatically, using DMOZ to combat spam in selective instances works - why remove such a valuable tool? ] 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a DMOZ editor for several years, and I can assure you that the editorial control is haphazard , at best. There absolutely no proof that directory entries at DMOZ are any different that other directories such as Yahoo directory. This idea of linking to DMOZ is simply not sound, in addition of being contradictory to the language on the guideline (Links to avoid section) despite arguments about consensus, that obviously is being challenged in this discussion. ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It doesn't contradict the guideline. If you think so, say why. The consensus on this matter is clear. There is no "challenge" to consensus because some people disagree with it. That's just leads to the childishness exhibited trying to force a change when they see there is no consensus for change. Misplaced Pages has some goofy policies in my opinion, like letting unlogged in users to edit articles, but that IS the way it works here. You want to change something, get a consensus. Personally I'd prefer voting, but that isn't the way it works. Neither is rudely making changes not supported by a clear majority of editors time and again. It's plain there is no consensus to remove the passage now, so accept that... and try to PERSUADE people to change their mind. Don't try and steamroll your opinion over others acting in good faith. ] 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is clearly no consensus to be using this policy to advocate for driving traffic to DMOZ. Please persuade people to change their mind instead of adding a contested endorsement of another project to a Misplaced Pages guideline. ] 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The burden is not on me. The burden is on you to get a consensus for a change in the guideline, and clearly there is none, so either make a case or move on. If you don't get a new consensus, the existing one stands. You are saying that there would be no consensus to have any external link guideline at all because you don't agree to it. Consensus doesn't work that way. ] 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Denny nails it. This is an end-run around the NOT clause. Those who are stating consensus is required for changes need to get consensus to change ] an indiscriminate collection of links before there is any validity to any argument to keeping DMOZ. It conflicts. It conflicts with ], ] as well. So, go get consensus to change those three, and there will be a point to this. Otherwise, no. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have just reverted the edit made by ] that removed the entire section, and invited him/her to join in the discussion at the foot of this page before making changes to ]. -- ] | ] 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You should not be using the rollback button, popups, or valdal fighting tools for these reverts. Revert if that is what you want to do, but add a proper edit summary. Using popups, rollback, or vandal fighting tools should be limited to reverting vandalism. ] <small>]</small> 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I assumed that the note that I left on the edit, the message that I posted to the user's talk page and the note I placed here was enough explanation of the actions I took and why. I assumed that as this was reverting an edit, that the simple revert button was the best way to show that it was just that. If I made a mistake I apologize. -- ] | ] 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Your assumption was incorrect. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In order to try to make sure whether what I was doing was sound or not, I did some digging around and want to share the results with you: The first time the EL page was changed to say that linking to the ODP was ok was added to the article was in dated 26 October 2006 and the note on the edit was ''Paste in from the workshop'' - which implies that it was a part of a larger discussion. The workshop referred to can be found at ]. So this change has been in place for 6 months - a lifetime in the world of WP. I am not in favour of simply removing a section that has been there so long and was the subject of a workshop without some discussion (which I have tried to start further down this page). Given the latest coments, it appears that I am out of line with my comments here. I will withdraw from the discussion. -- ] | ] 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "wikimyspace" == | |||
| :(after edit conflict) The edit which led to the ] was in place for four months before anyone noticed. That this contradiction in policy was not noticed promptly is regrettable, but does not confer some kind of protection to it. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a member of Wikiproject Spam I have included referral to DMOZ as part of spam cleanups, and I agree that it has been helpful for that purpose. However in cases where I have content knowledge, when I have checked the links at DMOZ I find many of them that I would never approve as a content editor, including many commercial sites that do not cite any ] or otherwise fail tests for ]. Various criticisms of DMOZ are noted at ]. An example of a web site specifically critical of DMOZ is . For an example of a specific criticism of Misplaced Pages over-use of DMOZ see . Alexa, an independent rating service, gives DMOZ only a midrange rating based on its . None of the web sites I provide links to are authoritative, I present them only as examples of the fact that DMOZ is controversial. ] 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have made a proposal on the ] on this issue. It would be good if we could get people to give comments (but make sure all talk is there, or at least in one place). -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| DMOZ doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for external links; the fact that it was incorrectly inserted into the guideline months ago, without people noticing that it contradicted policy is unfortunate, but not a license to keep it here. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
=== The Disputed Open Directory Project section === | ||
| Since we now have a disputed tag on the section, probably best to actually start the discussion again, rather than just referring to all the old ones. | |||
| As I understand it, the motivation for doing something like this is a combination of the official policy of ] and the desire to provide readers with further reading about the articles. ] says that ''Some external links are welcome,... but it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.''. So we end up with a dilemma which has been seen on many WP pages - links get added and added until it gets too much, someone removes them, there is an outcry and sometimes a long and heated debate. The fact is that wince WP is not a directory, we can not list EVERY site that may just be useful, and thus it becomes a subjective judgement, and subject to a lot of argument. | |||
| There seem to be some changes going on, and I don't wanna edit the page at all. This is just an FYI that a References section needs to be added (or the cite.php removed from the "Hijacked Websites" section). --] 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So the idea was to find a directory that COULD be linked to *as an exception to the rule* so that readers of the article could have a place to go to find many, many more links than Misplaced Pages would ever have in its article. That way we satisfy the needs of the users, and hopefully keep debate down to a minimum. | |||
| == No consensus == | |||
| So far, so good (hopefully). The big question is what should be linked to? Obviously it has to be a directory that has categories that could correspond to WP pages, otherwise there isn't any sort of correlation between them. Hopefully it is a directory which comes as close as possible to mirroring WP's philosophies - you can't pay for inclusion, limited or no ads, etc. The Open Directory Project (or DMOZ as it seems to be known by others) seemed at the time of the previous discussions were had, to be the best one out there that fulfilled the most of those requirements. It's far from perfect, and has a lot of flaws, but at the time there was nothing better. | |||
| The formulation that user 2005 keep reverting back to is ''not'' a consensus version. This guideline was substantially changed in the last four weeks, as per the disclaimer tag. ] <small>]</small> 05:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Would you provide us with what you consider to be the last consensus text? Or are you reverting back 4 weeks? The lastest revision to the intro above has received no comments. Add a reference to ] if you must. 2005, comments above? '''∴''' ]…] 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So, as I see it, this boils down to two questions:<br> | |||
| :You know that is not true. Shame on you. The consensus text is plainly available, having been there for a long time before Jossi decided to ignore everyone on the planet. (The word "anonymous" is nowhere in the document in June or February. That is the reality.) Jossi your behavior is unfathomable. Just because YOU decide you don't agree with something doesn't mean there has not been a consensus, and it certainly does not mean YOUR opinion is the one that should be placed in a document just because it is YOUR opinion. ] 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Should we use the approach of linking to an external directory in order to direct users to further material on a topic? If not, how are we going to combat the wave of useful sites that feel they just HAVE to be added to the EL section of the articles? This is non-trivial, in my experience.<br> | |||
| 2. If we do decided to continue adding a link to a directory, then is there one out there that is better than DMOZ, in terms of the sort of characteristics that matter to WP. (I certainly understand that some of you do not like the ODP, but if we are going to link, then we need something better than the ODP to link to). If Misplaced Pages had a directory sister project that was extensive, then that would resolve the issues of the directory having the same standards and control as WP. If they don't have one that is that extensive, then none will be 100% according to the WP philosophies and a compromise must be found. | |||
| Hopefully this will help structure the discussion somewhat. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am am ODP editor. I have tried to state the case here as neutrally as I could, though. -- ] | ] 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will obviously not respond to your uncivil comments. ] <small>]</small> 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::], if you want to create your own version, please get consensus for it on Talk. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The version 2005 has reverted to isn't "his version", it's much closer to how this page has been for a while. The version jossi keeps reverting to has new material that to my knowledge has never been in the guideline, and has minimal support (and in the absence of consensus for change, it should be left how it was previously). Besides jossi and Jayjg, who supports that version? --] 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looking at the history, a number of other editors, including MusicalLinguist and SlimVirgin. Aside from you, who else supports 2005's version? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::SlimVirgin supports the mention of anonymous sites, but as far as I can tell, never commented on the opening passage - that makes three, hardly a consensus when at least that many oppose it. MusicalLinguist didn't mention the opening or anonymous websites so I'm not sure why you even mention him/her, the comment was about blogs, which are generally forbidden in either version. --] 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Perhaps you missed by Musical Linguist, which puts your various claims in perspective. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, and it seems yet another administrator opposes 2005's version, as he has just reverted you. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me dispel some myths. There is a misguided perception that "linking is good, this is the WWW after all'. Not so: External links in an encyclopedic article are useful only when these links are of good quality, do not contain objectionable material that otherwise would not be added to the article, do not violate WP:V, etc. The main principle is "EL section is not the dumping ground for material that could not make it to the article due to violation of our content policies." This is a guideline, and guidelines cannot trump policies; rather, guidelines are there to assist editors with ''understanding'' and ''applying'' policy. Inviting a loophole and making the suggestion that DMOZ (or any other web directory for that matter) is a good thing, is in contradiction with the wording on this guideline ("links to be avoided" section). ] <small>]</small> 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Milo: solid arguments have been presented for the inclusion of a statement about anonymous websites as well as for a small adjustment to the lead. Can these be discussed on their merits? ] <small>]</small> 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What fascinates me is that all the longer-term editors and administrators support the current version, whereas a couple of newer, non-administrators support User:2005's version. What do Milo and 2005 make of this? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I still don't see either of those two supporting the edit to the opening. Is there anyone besides you two in favor? And I don't see the significance of whether someone is an admin or not making their opinion worth more. I'm trying to discuss this on its merits, look at the page above. What policy forbids linking to anonymous material? It keeps getting argued that the reason for the addition is making it match "policy". So where is it? --] 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Numerous arguments have been made showing why the anonymous section makes no sense but you continue to not comment on any of these and instead rudely keep adding text you have refused to discuss. Until you present any rationale for adding a completely new concept to the guideline, you need to offer some logical reason, and then get consensus on it. Just to be clear, the addition of this clause had absolutely ZERO discusssion before it was added, repeatedly. ] 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::User Jayjg, what is the point of you making up this nonsense. The edit history is right there to be seen by anyone who chooses to act in good faith. the anonymous section was never in this guideline... which is a Misplaced Pages guideline, not "mine". At this point you seem to not care about the dozens of editors who have contributed to this guideline over time, or those who worked on achieving a consensus again recently, but no matter how much you hate it, other people's opinions count. Other people matter, not just you two. Learn to cooperate, and learn to respect the view of others. You want to change a longstanding guideline, then make a case, don't just make up nonsense. ] 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Characterizing the opinions of others as "myths" and "misguided perceptions" does not seem particularly helpful to this debate. I would prefer to discuss specifics. For example, which of the 13 items listed under "Links ''normally'' to be avoided" (emphasis mine) do you think the Open Directory Project violates? Also, which official ''policy'', as opposed to guideline, do you think it violates? Honestly, I'm not really sure I understand your objections. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Where? easy. A Misplaced Pages article needs to contain verifiable and good quality information, is it not? After all this is an encyclopedia. Can you tell me how can we assure our readers that a website that we are linking to from an article on ], for example, contains solid, verifiable and accurate information, if we cannot assess the website's author knowledge, relevance, authority on the subject? If you disagree with this, could you please explain in which cases an unverifiable anonymous website in the EL is good for an article? ] <small>]</small> 19:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was not characterizing opinions of other editors that have commented in this page. I was referring to a misguided perception in general. As for the specifics: Links to normally avoid is pretty clear on what we ask contributors not to link to. DMOZ can contain listings of sites that can be assessed to be a "link normally to avoid". For example, let's imagine an editor WANTING to add this external link to ]: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/ . Most certainly it will be deleted from the article, citing ], right? But it will not stop that person to adding the DMOZ category http://dmoz.org/Society/History/By_Region/North_America/United_States/Presidents/Bush,_George_Walker/ that contains a link to that site. See the problem now? DMOZ does not have any policies about NPOV, verifiability, and the like (thankfully), because they are a web directory and not an encyclopedia. ] <small>]</small> 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: And by the way, in case t=you missed it, this guideline ''does not forbid anything''. It simply provides some basic non-binding guidelines about which links to include and which to avoid. ] <small>]</small> 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But how does solely linking to the DMOZ site ''itself'' violate any official policy? Aren't you discussing sites that might be linked ''from'' DMOZ? I'm not playing word games here - I think that is a very important distinction. | |||
| *The page has been protected because of the edit war mentioned in this section. Please discuss it here. (]) 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do we really have to follow all of the links on a potential site to make sure they ''also'' comply with all Misplaced Pages policies? And what about the sites linked from those? How far down the chain do we go? | |||
| ::Wasn't that obvious, I'm not sure why the page was unprotected in the first place. It's a shame that people have to edit war over it instead of getting consensus for changes. --] 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand you have some very valid concerns regarding the holy triumvirate of ], ] and ], and I truly am not being dismissive of those. But I just do not think those concerns are critically relevant unless the sites are linked to ''directly'' from here. Otherwise, we become content cops for half the web. | |||
| :::It's a good thing that you recognize your actions as edit warring. Note: it takes two, not one, to edit war. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We are not allowing the ODP editors to control what ''we'' link to directly from an article. Obviously, that would be an improper abdication of our responsibilities and I would strongly object to it. | |||
| ::::So would you care to weigh in on the guideline itself? New voices would be appreciated. --] 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The {{tl|Dmoz}} template is not a perfect solution, but it is the best one we have at the moment. Alucard saying that the link spam issue is "non-trivial" is a polite understatement. He knows how bad it is because he, I, and many others are hard at work at ] trying to keep the 'pedia free from of it. Unless and until we have access to an even ''better'' link repository, this is an extremely valuable tool for us, and Misplaced Pages is of a net higher quality because of it. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why the mischaracterization? It is not an "edit war" to ask for consensus on the wording of a guideline that says it has consensus! Let's stay on track here. If any editors want to fundementally change the wording of a wikipedia guideline, on a page that says it has CONSENSUS, they need to actually get a consensus. Enough of this silliness. This page should be reverted to the stable version that had a consensus, permanently protected, and any changes to it should only be made after a consensus is achieved for a change. ] 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) As my previous input apparently was discarded as not actually participating in the discussion, since it has twice been suggested by Alucard (Dr.) that I "give input" - beyond that which I have already given? bah. I re-post it here, in teh hopes that Alucard (Dr.) will trouble her/himself to read it if it is in a section to her/his liking. ''"Denny nails it. This is an end-run around the NOT clause. Those who are stating consensus is required for changes need to get consensus to change ] an indiscriminate collection of links before there is any validity to any argument to keeping DMOZ. It conflicts. It conflicts with ], ] as well. So, go get consensus to change those three, and there will be a point to this. Otherwise, no.''" ]<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Since we were asked to comment at ], here is my opinion when comparing the two versions in . Regarding the first sentence, I prefer the version on the right (after Crzrussian's revert) better because it's a better summary of what external links are appropriate. However, I'd prefer "web pages" above "research"; the latter seems too narrow for me (it excludes original texts, for instance). Minor gripe: if we stick with "research", I think that "are" should read "is" as the subject is "research", not "links". | |||
| :You're right, of course, that we are not an indiscriminate collection of links. But what official policy states we cannot ''link to'' an indiscriminate collection of links? None do. By your argument, there would never be ''any'' external links of any kind, because what doesn't strictly qualify as article content cannot qualify as a link. Or even a link from a link. ] controls what Misplaced Pages is, not what Misplaced Pages can link to. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| On the item refering to blogs in the "links normally to be avoided" section, I'm not so sure about it. I agree with excluding anonymous sites: I thought about it and I can think of very few actual exceptions (DMOZ is apparently one of them). Personal sites are another matter, because there are quite a number of those that add value. To me, the fact that an external link is to a personal site, is only a minor concern, less than most of the other things in the list. Saying that one should avoid linking to personal sites unless they strictly satisfy ] is too strong, and I don't believe there is a consensus for it (though consensus is perhaps changing faster than I'm aware of). I'd much rather that it says that sites written by experts are preferable, and then leaves it to editors to decide whether it adds value. Additionally, it seems inconsistent to allow links to open wikis with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors, and to disallow links to personal sites unless they satisfy WP:V. Minor gripe: if this version remains, it should be clarified what part of WP:V this refers to (I assume ]), and of course ] applies. -- ] (]) 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not clear to me why there's a lot of discussion about this. If Misplaced Pages wants to partner up with some other project by advocating linking to it throughout our articles, it should be a project that offers something really remarkable. DMOZ is a list of links, something we're expressly ] interested in. So, really, what is our incentive to drive traffic to that particular list of links again? ] 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Anonymous websites == | |||
| ::C'mon, this is too illogical. We are NOT a collection of links, but we link to such things some times. We are NOT a reliable source, but we link to reliable sources. We are NOT and official site, but we link to them. Etc to infinity. Let's stay on topic here. We link to lots of stuff we are not. lol, It would be obviously stupid to just link to WHAT WE ARE! That isn't the point though. The question is whether linking to a directory on those occasions there are far more valuable links that could be used than we can list. Maybe more to the point that you are avoiding, we link to Dmoz on occasion so we do NOT become a list of links. ] 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For those who wish to remove it, what do you propose as an alternative? If an alternative isn't offered, the default alternative in most cases is that editors see no external links and start adding them, in many cases spamlinks. I can understand the argument for removing it, but taking it out causes other problems. --] 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It was asked for examples of websites that could be anonymous yet still verifiable (true/accurate). Here are a few hypotheticals that come to mind: | |||
| #A website that cites the sources for all information it contains. For example, a page with a collection of bible references about a particular topic, each with chapter and verse. | |||
| #A website with information on a work of fiction, whether that is plot summaries, character info, quotes, etc with page or episode numbers referencing the original work of fiction as a source. | |||
| #A website comparing statitics originating from different sources (whether it's a sports team, finanacial info, etc), with the sources for the original info given. | |||
| #A website with a collection of recipies for a certain food, linked from a wikipedia article about that food (which is forbidden from containing a recipe). | |||
| #A website with definitions or documented sourcing of slang or neologisms. | |||
| #A picture gallery that illustrates a topic (wikipedia considers images an exception to WP:NOR and allows uploading of images by anonymous sources to the encyclopedia itself) | |||
| #A directory of links on a topic (this very guideline recommends linking to DMOZ, which is edited anonymously) | |||
| #A website containing a digital copy of public domain material, which can be verified by comparing it with a hard copy of the original material. | |||
| #A download site for anonymously produced open-source software. | |||
| I'm sure there are plenty more possibilities. Why would any of these be objectionable (unverifiable?) on the grounds of anonymity, assuming they met all other criteira of WP:EL? --] 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Verifiability comes from looking at sources that are themselves verifiable - summary sites like this may be convenient but they take us further down the "information food chain" and are probably unwise to partake of. --] 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **It's true that most would be tertiary sources instead of primary or secondary. But does wikipedia policy or guidelines say anywhere that tertiary sources shouldn't be linked to? With all due respect, your comment sounds like a gut reaction instead of something supported by wp policy. Misplaced Pages itself is written by anonymous people and is further down the food chain. Do you consider it unwise for other sites to link to it? --] 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Numerous examples have been listed here and previously why anonymous websites will sometimes be fine external links, some types of photography pages being an obvious example. What remains unstated is why anyone would want to prevent anonymous websites? What is the reasoning? We have had a lot of hubub without any reasoning stated. Why does adding "John Smith" to a site add anything to its external link value. Of course it doesn't. What DOES matter is what we have in this guideline: merit, some sense of stability, unencyclopedic level of detail, and so on. In other words, anonymous sites will almost never be linked BECAUSE THE DO NOT MEET THE GUIDELINE in terms of VALUE. Some editors need tostart thinking about the value of external links to articles. If, for example, an anonymous website NEVER were to merit a link, then the guideline prevents linking to it. Why is that hard to udnerstand? On the rare occasions an anonymous website has the quality/merit/reliability to merit a link useful to our users, why precicely do some argue we should not link to it. It doesn't make any sense. Focus on this guidelines hurdles on content. Focus on the merit wording. Just pulling some arbritrary concept out of the sky that does not consider merit is AT BEST redundant. (And besides that, what on Earth IS "anonymous"? Have people here actually not considered that just adding John Smith to a site does not make it "better" in terms of linking? What, exactly, would someone advocating this this anonymous text HOPE to accomplish?) ] 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : This list reminds me of the answers that raise red flags when interviewing someone for a job. Anyone can think of a good example of what they "would" do or what they "should" or what an example "could" be like. But failure to give concrete examples of actual events means they haven't really done the activity that they claim they could do. All these look useful, but they should exist in real life. Are there any examples of existing websites that meet this criteria - that would be much more useful than hypothetical examples. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A quick look at ] turns up external links to a wiki recipe site which seems to be mainly anonymous recipes, and a recipe blog that isn't anonymous, but seems to belong to an average person instead of an "expert" - it contains some recipes that look like they were submitted anonymously. ] has a link to an anonymous recipe on wikihow. Is this apple pie recipe somehow "not verifiable" since it's anonymous? If you stuck "Betsy Jones" to the end, would that somehow make it more verifiable? Do I need to go through the whole list and provide examples, or can you just explain why the links in the list above shouldn't be allowed? --] 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :An alternative what? An alternative list of weblinks? I'm not really following this "vaccination" argument you're making. ] 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would offer http://history.rays-place.com/index.htm, an extremely useful site for town histories; we presently have 409 links to his pages. I have no idea who he is, or what, if any, are his credentials, but his site is solid. He publishes public domain material from long out-of-print sources, apparently using OCR on old books. -- ] | ] 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any alternative. On articles that have many potential links, a link to a directory like this can substitute for a long list of links. Are you OK with having a bunch of links instead (or constantly fighting to keep the list short) or do you have an alternative to propose? --] 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How do you know anything on any of those pages is accurate in any way? Is there someone I can contact there to find out the website's sources of information, the reliability and credentials of its author, and its editorial oversight process? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There is no need for an alternative. Too many links are unacceptable, period. Either you use the content of these links as sources, or you use just a few links that are significant. That is what this guideline is stating. ] <small>]</small> 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That is not supported by WP:V at all, did you just make it up? WP:V says: ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source." Clicking at the first link I saw at ray's place, I came to , which says on the page "Published in the Connecticut Quartely Apr. May & June 1897". So if you want to verify that page, get a copy of the Connecticut Quarterly from that date, which is the reliable source that published the info, and verify it. As defined in WP:V, that page, although anonymous, is unquestionably verifiable. So why is the anonymity of the website a factor in linking to it?--] 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages is not a directory of links... but often a directory of links is one of the things we SHOULD link to according to WP:EL ("unique resource no appropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages"). DMOZ was chosen because we are an open project and we -should- have a systematic bias for open projects. DMOZ is not the only choice, but if quality is equal it should be preferred. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Anonymous websites are OK for a few things where the content speaks for itself. But in terms of providing guidelines, suggesting that anonymous websites are generally a sign of a site to be avoided seems to be appropriate. My big concern with them is much less about verifiability (although that's a big issue with some sites) as about NPOV. A site that does not provide provenance may provide entirely accurate and verifiable information, but in selective way. Provenance, of course, does not negate this risk, but it provides a basis for understanding (ad investigating) the POV pressures - whether that POV is of an industry or political group masquerading as a helpful presenter of "the facts", of a website trying to gain the most click throughs on their google ads, or of an embittered ex-employee with an ax to grind. | |||
| :::This guideline spells is out: we do not link just for the sake of linking. And that includes web directories such as DMOZ. If there is a problem with spam, adding a link to DMOZ is a poor solution. A link should be assessed on its value, and we should not encourage or suggest linking to DMOZ (or any other web directory) in this guideline. If an editor wants to ad a DMOZ link, let the editor discuss this in that article's talk, as you will need to do in many instances when discussion ''other'' ELs. There is no need to carve an exception for DMOZ, as ''many'' of the DMOZ categories are not maintained well, or not maintained at all. ] <small>]</small> 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"we do not link just for the sake of linking." Nobody suggests that. Please don't make strawmen. "''many'' of the DMOZ categories are not maintained well, or not maintained at all" and should not be linked to, as the DISCUSSION AT THE TIME made clear. Strawman #2. Why don't you address the issue instead? What should we do if there are say 100 links of approximately equal value that could be added to an article? Randomly chose five? Have endless pissing matches about which ones should be included? Have no links on articles that merit the most links? Enough of the irrelevancies please. Contribute something constructive and specific about what should be done when there are 100 possible very valid links? ] 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::DMOZ doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for external links; the fact that it was incorrectly inserted into the guideline months ago, without people noticing that it contradicted policy is unfortunate, but not a license to keep it here. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think there is a big difference when linking to photo and recipe websites compared to anything that provides any sort of authoritative treatment of a subject. Photos and recipes are almost always a "one of many" type deal, photos and recipes are rarely a problem in terms of needing some sort of voice of authority behind them. But when we link to sites that make assertions we normally ought to be linking to sites with some sort of authority in their field. With incredibly rare exceptions, anonymous sites do not hold that authority because they cannot build well founded trust. | |||
| :::::Unfortunately, that does sometimes happen, and of course something inappropriate shouldn't stay just because nobody took it out at the time. ]] 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I also think we need to distinguish between anonymous websites where the owner/publisher is anonymous, and websites where the publisher is known but allows anonymous posters. I'm more concerned about the former than the later. Problems in the latter case are, in my opinion, dealt with by the points against forums etc. If a publisher can develop a solid reputation publishing articles by anonymous authors I think that's fine, though I can't think of an example we'd link to. | |||
| :::::There was lots of discussion. There was no incorrect assertion. Please try to act in good faith. Additionally the text about linking to any web sirectory was there for a very, very long time with much discussion about it. Making patently false statements does not help your cause. ] 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There are no "causes", 2005. If material was added to a guideline that contradicts the guideline, and editors raise concernd as some of us have done here, you cannot only dismiss these if you provide a counter-argument that is different than "it has been there for a while". Address the concerns expressed, please. ] <small>]</small> 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"If material was added to a guideline that contradicts the guideline..." It doesn't. You STILL have not even made a claim how it does. You also didn't answer my question. What should we do? No more arm waving please. You want to remove something that offers a practical aid to editors when in a difficult situation and is widely thought well of and used. You have suggested NOTHING to deal with the problem. Be constructive please and stop dodging the issue: when there are 100 approximately equally valuable external links, what should be done? Write something. Make a proposal for pete's sake, maybe people will like it. Saying you don't like something is no proposal, and offering no counter suggestion for the problem being addressed is no help. ] 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :DMOZ adds something beyond the scope of which the article should contain itself. In this case, it is a list of links maintained by similarly motivated 'editors', as is wikipedia itself. I find it often a well deserved addition to an article and occasionally a partial solution to ] debates. I find the discussion about linking DMOZ as violating wikipedia policy unfounded and beside the point. I have long used odp links here and never found it contrary to policy, or had it cited as such. I have also dabbled as an odp editor and find the internals I have known as a suitable ally for the wikipedia community. '''∴''' ]…] 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You say: "In this case, it is a list of links maintained by similarly motivated 'editors', as is wikipedia itself". Well, not really. Editors at DMOZ do not have any accountability or formal editorial process to chose what is included in categories. Some categories do not even have editors allocated to them. Once you are an "editor" for a category, you pretty much WP:OWN that category. There is no formal review process for adding links to a category, and other editors do not have much of a say on what a category editor decides to include or exclude (beside some forum discussions if happens that a category have more than one editor). Yes, DMOZ is volunteer generated content, but that is where the comparison stops. ] <small>]</small> 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If, as you say, you spent time editing at dmoz, you already know that's not the case. The : | |||
| {{cquote|The ODP follows a peer review process, so no individual editor owns his or her category. Even if you are the only editor listed in a category, there will be other editors who will be able to edit and add sites to your category. These editors include parent category editors, editalls, metas and staff.}} | |||
| :::The directory also has very specific . I'm uncertain why you persist on spreading disinformation. It's not a search engine and the template doesn't violate any guidelines or policies. Many people find adding dmoz links to appropriate for some articles. As others have noted, nobody's saying that it should always be added, but in many cases it can be a valuable source of additional information. - ] 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While I was an editor at DMOZ, these guidelines were followed loosely at best. Metas and staff did not get involved much at all. Maybe that has changed now, but the fact is that many categories are under-staffed and not well monitored, and most importantly the link inclusion criteria at DMOZ differs from Misplaced Pages's. That is the main issue at hand. Nevertheless, the concern is about an encouragement in the guideline to link to a specific web directory, when actually the guideline itself has already a good explanation about what to link and what not to link, and should not carve an exception for DMOZ. Let editors discuss a specific link to a DMOZ category, on its merit, rather than encourage blanket linking to DMOZ as in the disputed wording. ] <small>]</small> 05:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder if we don't spend too much effort on trying to craft these particular bullet points because we don't do enough to emphasize the collective responsibility editors have to consider the external links section as a part of the article as a whole. Too often it seems editors are happy to let the section become a directory or a dumping ground for POV rants. We might spend a little more time focussed on the idea that all editors have a responsibility to care for these sections and think of their encyclopedic value. -- ] 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :All good points. But if a site suffers from NPOV issues, that's grounds for not linking to it. Being anonymous isn't really relevant. And as you pointed out, corporate, political, and news websites can have NPOV issues as well, and it can be just as hard to try and investigate the POV pressures behind it. If NPOV is really a big concern for linking, I think expanding on that would be much more useful than a blanket ban on anonymous or personal websites. As you said, anonymous websites can be OK for some material - so why not explain in what cases it isn't acceptable instead of saying you shouldn't link to any? --] 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not arguing against refining the language. I'm just saying I think our readers will be better served if we do have guidelines that discourage anonymous websites in many situations. I think anonymity is correlated for good reason with ulterior motives when it comes to publishing information. Provenance speaks not only to what is on the site when a link is added to wikipedia, but also to how content can be expected to change. It's one part of judging a website's reputation. Reputation for authority, for accuracy, for thoroughness, for POV, for being up-to-date. It might be that is best covered by a "What to look for when assessing a site" section, instead of straight avoid/include lists. -- ] 20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"generally a sign of a site to be avoided seems to be appropriate"... which is the whole point. Before the flurry of undiscussed edits, the guideline emphasized concepts without "instruction creep". The wording trying to be added makes a useless, unthinking blanket statement, which as the numerous examples offered here shows makes no sense. A further line warning about anonymity would be a fine addition since anonymity offers nothing positive. It's a warning sign, but it is plainly NOT a death sentence to merit. We want links to recognized authorities, which means we will seldom link to anonymous sites. But on rare occasions anonymous sites to rise to the occasion of unique authority, mwanner's example is a good one. ] 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Take sometime and explore some categories at DMOZ and compare the links there to the ones we would accept in Misplaced Pages. A good example: http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Fascism/ vs. ]. ] <small>]</small> 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"Anonymous" could have too many different meanings (for example, as SiobhanHansa pointed out, regarding owner/publisher vs. "posters") to be really useful as it is currently formulated in this guideline, and it also seems to contradict, for example, #12 regarding wikis. Why can't we stick with something about "recognized authority"? And again, and as has been repeatedly brought up on this talk page, how are we going to sort out how to apply ''content'' policies to external links to other sites, which are by definition, not part of Misplaced Pages? <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very good points. Anonymous (as well as "personal") are useless words unrelated to merit and that do not clarify anything. Some folks apparently not getting that "external" means "external" should not be a problem but unfortunately is. We don't stand behind these links. They are not a part of the Misplaced Pages. POV is an obvious example as mentioned previously. One sentence of POV on a brilliant 1000 page website is no reason to not add a link. ] 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have to say I'm not a fan of mwanner's example (rays-place.com). I don't know the subject well, so the site may have an established reputation among experts in the field. But on the face of it I'd be worried by a site like that in the external links section - almost entirely because of it's anonymity. It's not clear what the site's purpose is, how have those particular articles been chosen? What POV do they represent? What articles have been left out? How might the content change in the future? He may just be going through public domain journals and posting them for the world - but there's nothing about the site to make me think it's anything other than an expression of his personal take on the subject. And if he's not a recognized authority, that's not something I think we should be linking to. | |||
| :::I agree one sentence of POV in a site shouldn't invalidate it. In fact I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with a POV site in many circumstances, so long as that POV is clearly labeled, it's not an attack or rant site, and other external links provide the balance necessary for an NPOV article. --] 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think sites like that are generally linked to via a specific article, not a link to ray's entire site. If there's a link on wikipedia to the single article , how would a single article, written in 1897 and published in the Connecticut Quarterly, be an expression of his POV? And for argument's sake, if the Connecticut Quarterly had an official website and it contained the same text, how would that be any different? The decision to link to that particular article is made by wikipedia editors, who don't have to be recognized authority - if there's POV by the selection of that article, it would be POV on the part of the wp editors who linked it, and whether the site it's hosted on is anonymous or not is irrelevant. A google search showed a mention of the article on the US army website, showing that the article existed, and that they thought it was relevant. But as far as I could find, ray's place was the only site that had an online copy of the actual article - should wikipedia readers be denied a reference to an article from 1897 (including five scanned photos, which I didn't notice until now) just because the guy who put it online doesn't have "credentials"? And it would somehow become more acceptable to link if "ray" was either not anonymous/expert/"offical" website instead of a personal one? --] 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Linking to the specific article as appropriate does alleviate the POV concerns. I didn't realize that was the case. I think of a site that simply provides an electronic version of a useful document as more like a photo site in that sense. There isn't really the same editorial control on the part of the publisher. It does require greater diligence on the part of the adding editor though. If they haven't read the document elsewhere, how do they know the site is accurate except by reputation? I do not mean to imply that a site that isn't anonymous is automatically better than an anonymous one - just that you have more of a basis to form an opinion based on reputation. Knowing a site's provenance is more likely to make me think it's not appropriate than that it is, because very few institutions have much of a reputation for rigor. --] 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with linking to a directory in some cases - that is, I don't think our guidelines should include directories as a straight category in "links to be avoided". But it does bother me that we actively encourage linking to a particular website with whom we are not affiliated rather than laying out what would make a good directory link for our encyclopedia. That way when dmoz is appropriate it can be used, and when it isn't (as in Jossi's example), it would not be receiving extra support from this guideline. -- ] 13:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree wit Siobhan Hansa's assessment. As for Schi's comment about external links not being part of an artile, I may disagree. While the websites themselves are not part of an article, the links we add in an EL section, are. ] <small>]</small> 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::So are you saying that all sites linked to must meet all wikipedia content policies and guidelines? That content can only be linked to if it meets the same standards as content included in the article itself? I don't see any support for that anywhere in WP policy. That certainly doesn't reflect current practice, and would be a major change to wikipedia, effecting thousands of external links. --] 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
:::::::Exactly. Let editors decided if a link to a DMOZ category is warranted in the same manner any other link is assessed for compliance. ] <small>]</small> 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::For heaven's sake, THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. It says "consider". It doesn't say "always link". My goodness, what a waste of time about absolutely nothing. ] 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I guess you need to clarify then. You've pointed out WP:V even though it doesn't say that it applies to content linked externally. So which policies/guidelines do you feel external content should meet to be linked to? WP:V? And I'm not sure where you get the whole idea that anyone is advocating EL as a dumping ground (straw man?), has ''anyone'' disagreed that linked content should be accurate and neutral? What exactly makes you think that people want to condone making EL a "dumping ground"? --] 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: That is an inappropriate comment, 2005. Editors that care about this project are having a vigorous debate on an issue they consider important. As said before, we do not need to tell editors on a guideline to consider violating the same principles explained elsewhere in the guideline. ] <small>]</small> 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(edit conflict) Jossi, you keep referring to the idea that the EL section is a "dumping ground" for what can't be included in the article. That's not at all what the EL section is, no one is making that assertion, and it's not helpful or productive to the discussion to keep mischaracterizing people's comments in this fashion. We all agree that the EL section should only include links that provide "relevant, useful, reliable information". It's however not the case (and I believe that it has been sufficiently proven) that the ''only'' links that would do so are those that would meet ''all'' Misplaced Pages content policies. Do you disagree with that? <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The formulation that I opposed, included the wording that the EL section is designed to "provid links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article". That wording can be ''to easily'' interpreted as "dumping ground for all the material we should not or could not add to an article." That has been my concern all along. ] <small>]</small> 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How? I think your problem is you read sentences, rather than the guideline as a whole. Content should be inegrated into articles. Sometimes it can't because of level of detail, expert POV, raw statistical volume or similar reasons. Those can be linked externally. The guideline needs to be read as whole, not a bunch of unrelated sentences. There is no way for external links to be a dumping ground given the previous consensus wording because we have a high bar based on merit. ] 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What about making an effort to understand the concern raised instead of make assessment on my "problem"? I am talking about the '''lead''' of the guideline, 2005. The lead needs to be as unambiguous as possible, that wording is ambiguous, misleading, and in contradiction with the rest of the guideline. ] <small>]</small> 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We're not even talking about the intro - while I don't agree that it can be interpreted that way, I'm letting it slide since it's addressed in the article itself. The wording quoted doesn't even apply to anonymous websites. We're talking about number 11 under links to be avoided, specifically "anonymous" and "personal" websites (whatever those terms even mean). --] 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have tried repeatedly, as have others. Maybe I could characterize it differently, but it is a problem to just go and make edits without discussion largely because it seems to me that you have interpreted four things in obscure ways. Once it was discussed, two of the things were easily addressed. In the case of the lead now, no one disagrees the lead needs to be unambiguous. Wording can always be improved, and we can discuss that. Similarly the anonymous/personal site point, as has been pointed out by many editors now, could have a different wording to emphasize merit and authority more. Both these subjects, especially the lead, could be addressed just by a clause in a sentence emphasizing what I just said above, that the guideline has to be read as a whole. Finally, it is easier to understand a concern when you raise it as a concern and discuss it, rather than repeatedly try to force it on other people. So, perhaps we can move forward by considering adding to the previous wording (in the intro) so the merit bars further down the guideline are emphasized more; and, similarly a warning about anonymous/personal sites have to meet a very high bar of merit to earn a link. (That bar is not a policy which concerns article space but one we define here.) ] 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Obscure ways? I have raised a concern that is not being addressed. Adress the concern with a good argument, if you could, please, rather than making value judgments on my understanding. ] <small>]</small> 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Jossi, your concerns, about the previous wording in the intro, and the idea of including links to pages containing information that does not belong in the article - which you allege is "ambiguous, misleading, and in contradiction with the rest of the guideline", have been addressed several times on this talk page and you haven't responded to them. I will repeat them here: | |||
| * ]'s example above is excellent, and demonstrates how EL is properly used without becoming "a dumping ground". Please consider reading it: | |||
| <blockquote>articles in peer review journals. The minute detail of how a experiment was performed it helpful for those who want more information, but is likely too much detail for an article aiming for a broad scope. Likewise, an author might release the first chapter of his new book on his website... the first chapter cannot be included because it would be a violation of his copyrights, but it could be of great value to someone who wanted to know more about the book.</blockquote> | |||
| * Further, I and others have, on multiple occasions, asked for you to articulate ''how'' such links would be in contradiction to the rest of the guideline and Misplaced Pages policies, and you have yet to address our concerns, except to say that you wish to apply Misplaced Pages content policies to websites outside of Misplaced Pages. This may be something you want to bring up at the various policy pages, for example ], but until I see something on ] that tells us how to govern external links to non-Misplaced Pages content, I don't think your interpretation is conclusive. | |||
| * "Misleading" - I simply disagree that the wording was misleading. I can allow that it perhaps should be included in a secondary, etc. sentence and not the very first sentence. However, I think it's important to include in the guideline intro. Otherwise, the guideline could be too easily misinterpreted as allowing EL to become a dumping ground for links that should be refs, which would encourage sloppy encyclopedia-writing. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I like the idea of the "recognized authority" type of yard stick. --] 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think instead of forbidding anonymous websites, maybe there should be a mention after "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Maybe something like "While all linked sites should be accurate, anonymous sites and personal websites should be given extra scrutiny since they have no editorial oversight. Anonymous sites should not be linked unless they meet the rest of this guideline and are the best available external content on a given topic." On the wordy side, but I think it's a big improvement over number 11. --] 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good start. ] 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree, good start. This may be quibbling, but I think "if" instead of "since" ("extra scrutiny ''if'' they have") and the term "anonymous sites" is still open to misinterpretation (for example, wikis in #12? Unless we can combine these two in a satisfactory way). I think I would still prefer the "recognized authority" criterion over "personal" or "anonymous"; as someone else (I forget) has said before, the guideline is coming across as if you can only externally link to huge-corporation-endorsed content. It seems as if the guideline is discouraging even the personal sites of recognized authorities. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrary section break=== | |||
| :::::Can you please tell me how a site whose author is anonymous can be a "recognized authority" on anything? If it is anonymous there is no feasible way to ''recognize'' anything, let alone'' authority'', is there? ] <small>]</small> 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, I saw this over at ]. The primary use of the dmoz links to me is to help curb linkfarming, which we are not. Frankly I don't care whose linkfarm it is, as long as it is reputable, and has high quality (non spam links). (which as far as I know dmoz is) I find it rather scary when articles have longer external link sections to a bunch of fansites then actual text in the article. If there are that many good sites, I highly advise using them as inline citations. In otherwords when we find the external link section getting long, its time to think about using a linkfarm. —— ] <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Memory Alpha is an "anonymous"ly edited website (wiki) considered to be a recognized authority. As I've said before and you have failed to address, your inclusion of "anonymous" is problematic in that it contradicts #12, regarding wikis. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Or better, please give an example on a non-trivial article that an anonymous website would be worth linking to. ] <small>]</small> 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Better yet, why don't you respond to my question about how you define an "anonymous website", and then I can have a better idea on how to respond to your question? <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sure. An anonymous website is a site whose author is not known. ] <small>]</small> 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for your response. Known by whom? <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sure, take any one of the 405 Misplaced Pages articles that link to http://history.rays-place.com/index.htm, say ] which links to http://history.rays-place.com/ny/brighton-ny.htm -- ] | ] 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks. Some questions, then: (a) How can you we be assured that the transcript of the newspaper articles are ''bona fide''? (b) Why not to link directly to online newspaper archives instead? (b) Why link to "Connacticut" (sic) to check biographies of ], rather than to a reputable published source, such as ancestry.com? ] <small>]</small> 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::(a) We can only assume, much as we assume that reporters from the New York Times are not making things up, or scientists publishing academic papers are not faking their results. This should be left up to the individual article's editors to evaluate on a case by case basis. | |||
| ::::::::(b) Because many of them, for example the (which links to a 1906 article in Connecticut Magazine; the only go back to 2002), link to articles that aren't going to be in online newspaper archives, or will only be available to those with non-free services like LexisNexis. | |||
| ::::::::(c) Because ancestry.com violates #4 of Links normally to be avoided: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". And actually, I can't initially determine how ancestry.com would provide comparable information to what's on the Rays Place link, even if it were an acceptable link. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Don't avoid the obvious. It should be obvious that we should link to the best link possible. If an online newspaper original article is available, of course we wouldn't link to some copy. However, if some 1897 article is not online, and a site run by an anonymous person is the only place to offer a screenshot of the original newspaper, there is no reason not to link to it. Also, we can't be absolute "assured" about nearly anything. We can make our best effort though. Even the most authoritative resource on a subject could possibly have errors in it, typos even. The point is not to make an obsessive guideline based on extreme fears, but rather rely on editors to use their heads and add appropriate, high quality links that there is plenty of reason to think are accurate. In this case, suppose fifty different newspapers or authority sites link to the anonymous site's screenshot of a 1897 newspaper. Of course the person who made the website could have printed something up and tricked those 50 newspapers and authority sites to think it is genuine, but we can't go back in time to get a paper ourselves. We can just make a judgment that the link meets the criteria to offer further reading to Misplaced Pages users. ] 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thank for expressing your views so eloquently. I think that we have a fundamental disagreement on what the external links section is for and how it compares with sources for articles. I do not know what type of articles you edit, but let me assure you that unless this guideline is firm and unambiguous it will be seldom applied in that spirit in those articles about which there are strong POVs at play. I would also argue against the premise that "we should link to the best link possible". We should link ''only'' if the link is useful. If links are not useful, we should not link just because there is nothing better to link to. Again, a big difference in understanding of what an EL section is for. Maybe what would be useful, rather than discuss this wording or the other, or this point or the other, is to have an open conversation about ''what is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article'' Once there is agreement on that, it will be very easy to build a guideline. ] <small>]</small> 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::"We should link ''only'' if the link is useful." Obviously. C'mon, you keep taking an illogical view based on apparently looking at every sentence without any context of a guideline! We should only link if a link is useful, but just because it is useful doesn't mean we should link! On some topics there are thousands of useful websites, but we aren't going to link to them. The point, again, is if some content deserves a link, then it should be obvious that we link to the best (original if possible) source of that content. You really need to read the guideline as a full guideline, not pick out sentences without understanding that other sentences impact on them. ] 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Why the repeated insistence that people want links that aren't useful? It's a strawman, let it go so we can have a real discussion here. --] 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === No concensus, put it back === | |||
| :::::::::::::Because people do, Milo. Most articles contain (a) too many links; (b) many of these links are not useful; and (c) many of these links diminishes the article's quality. Why would you call that a strawman? ] <small>]</small> 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::It's a strawman because nobody ''here'' is arguing that. Nobody here, nobody participating in the editing of this guideline, is saying that links that aren't useful should be allowed. So why do you keep bringing it up? --] 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| From what I can tell, there is no concensus leaning toward inclusion ( by numbers ). I assume that is reason to place this text back into the article. Similar text has been in this guideline since at least July 2005. A discussion ''leaning'' toward inclusion at this point is certainly no justification for removal, despite lack of consensus. Back to the status quo. Here is is back in: | |||
| == Discussion forums == | |||
| * , | |||
| * Sep 2006: ''A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories.'' | |||
| * Jan 2006: ''Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Misplaced Pages, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.'' | |||
| * July 2005: ''Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Misplaced Pages, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.'' | |||
| * Jan 2005: The article is only a few lines long (!) ... | |||
| '''∴''' ]…] 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no consensus to re-instate ''the current text'' either. The text was added, and now it is challenged based on new arguments that have not been responded to. We may need to find a way to address the concerns expressed. A version based on previous incarnations of the wording may be better. ] <small>]</small> 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I, like many people here, interact with WP as both a reader and an editor. My editing is not as prolific as many but I do what I can to help. I have been trying to see what is wrong with including discussion forums (even if I have no connection with them) in External Links. As a reader I may read an article. If I am more interested I will read the references and External Links. If I am yet more interested then I want to find discussion forums. I go to Google but they are sometimes very hard to find. As a reader, I would like to see a list of discussion forums. As an editor, I do not see a problem with listing them except for the guidelines here. WP is not a fixed, written encyclopedia but a constantly changing online encyclopedia. What is the problem with including links to discussion forums? Thank you.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>] 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The text was added months ago. If there's no consensus we stick with the stable wording, which is leaving it in. At AfD, if there's no consensus to delete an article, the article stays - this is the same situation. Since there doesn't seem to be support for removing it, I'd suggest proposing tweaks to the wording that address your concerns and trying to get consensus for a wording change. Otherwise, the wording goes back in. --] 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. Even if it's useful, if it's not encyclopedic, Misplaced Pages isn't the place. There are other sites like Everything2 that might be more helpful for you. --] 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the first poster, I see no reason why a forum shouldn't be included, particularly those that are established and provide sections of information that don't change and can be used as a reference. Is there a way of propsing this? or finding a debate that took place earlier to discuss this issue? ] 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Improv. An online forum is typically unmoderated and its contents are unpredictable. They may include copyright violations and unfounded personal accusations against people. Allowing these links would essentially open the door to include, via a single link, all the content that we try to keep out of WP and would defeat our effort to present a respectable encyclopedia, IMO. ] 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: A related problem is that many discussion forum are comparatively ephemeral. They're not archived at archive.org, sometimes they change to member-only, and sometimes posts expire. While this is true to some extent with any web link, I find that if I follow a link on Misplaced Pages, and it's a dead link, 95 times out of 100 it's a link to a discussion forum. So from a purely practical perspective, forum links place a higher maintenance load on our editors. That by itself is reason enough to prefer different sources. ] 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :To be fair, most forums (I visit) are moderated, and contain nothing I couldn't find either in Wiki' or it's talk pages. Any link posted here can take the reader in all sorts of directions to content that is kept off of Wiki', but that's there point. I thought (in my case) linking to the 4 largest forums on a subject, each with over a 500 members kind of kept the junk out of things. That's what I would be interested in, establishing some kind of standard for a forum to be included as an external link. Just a suggestion. ] 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would note that the forum exclusion has been in the guidelines since at least April this year, which means that it has been extensively discussed in these pages. Those proposing its elimination might want to look back through the archives. To me, the primary problem of including forums is low reliability and low density of information-- rather like the discussions here, you find opinions ranging all over the place-- it can take a substantial amount of time to get a sense of where a discussion is going, and frequently a thread will end not because a solid consensus has been reached, but just because people have tired of the discussion. In short, they are less ''reliable'' than other resources, which is the ''sine qua non'' of a good resource. -- ] | ] 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Improv. Online fourms are not to be linked to from wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is an ], ] a external link farm. If you like a certain fourm, then bookmark it. They are most definetly not a ], and do not meet ]. They are places for people with a Point Of View to go. Misplaced Pages is ]. If we are to remain any kind of respectable an encyclopedia, we can't start linking to crap. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''If it ain't broke, don't fix it!''. So far there are legitimate counter arguments, but not many examples of where the use of this clause has been abused. And in reality using DMOZ to fight spam works! Why take away such a valuable tool? There are no perfectly managed directories and there are lots of cases where DMOZ is not appropriate, but I only recall one incident where an editor went overboard. It was then discussed and his edits reverted with his agreement. Now compare that with the massive amount of SPAM that has been avoided by using it as a deterent. As mentioned by Minderbinder, this was discussed and agreed upon last year. There are no new arguments here, but there are fair minded objections. Without a clear consensus, the original text should be reinstated. ] 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Inline linking == | |||
| I do not see guidelines on inline linking. The top of the guide says external links should be at in the external links section, but then later shows how to inline link. Could the policy be made clearer and easier to find? ] 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. I've proposed to rename this article to ], which I will do shortly if no objections arise. Can add it more explicitly here after unprotection. Thanks! '''∴''' ]…] 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have always read our guidelines as saying we should not externally link other than as citations, or in the external links or footnotes section (though some info-boxes include official websites, and that seems in keeping with writing a reasonable encyclopedia article). I got that from ] which lists the three ways of including external links as: 1) an external links section, 2 ) as citations, and 3) in footnotes. The only one of these which is inline in the article is citations. This seems to be in keeping with the idea we should be providing a well balanced, verifiable article for our readers, and sending them to sites off Misplaced Pages is not really in keeping with that. | |||
| ::There is a clear consensus for inclusion of a directory link under certain circumstances, and the ongoing consensus remains. Obstinate disagreement does not invalidate an ongoing consensus, particularly since you have refused to state ANY alternative, and yourself said the point of the text was correct. The consensus text will be added back, and once again, if you have any objections to anything in this guideline, use this talk page to bring up a proposal and reasons for it. Removing or adding substantial text from a guideline that states it is a consensus of editors is supremely rude to your fellow editors. Please don't do it again. ] 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Flamesplash - where in the guidelines did you see an example for inline linking? I checked through but couldn't spot it. --] 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That said, it is certainly possible the wording of the section could be improved. So anyone can feel free to MAKE A PROPOSAL to edit its wording, keeping in mind the goal of a directory link is as a fall back for when there are dozens of possible links. Until such a proposal gains consensus though, the other wording goes back in. ] 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::First, I take exception on your characterization, and your tone of voice. There is no need to tell others "don't do it again", please ]. The wording needs to be tweaked as per the concerns raised. Stubbornly claiming consensus when there is a dispute related to the current wording, will not do. yes, the text ''may'' go back, but it will need to be tweaked to respond to the numerous editor's concerns raised in this discussion. ] <small>]</small> 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Two questions == | |||
| :::::Don't pretend you didn't do what you did, or that you have not done it numerous times before. The guide says the text is there by consensus, so please act in good faith based on that. This is not an article space article where you can just change wording based on other criteria. Changes here require consensus to be made. Now you have been told this many times. Please do not act otherwise in the future. Secondarly I am not stubbornly claiming consensus. That is nonsense talk. Consensus exists. Deal with it. Consensus is not "unanimous consent". I disagree with an aspect of that text, but that doesn't mean consensus does not exist. Even if significant disagreement appears, that does not mean that the old consensus does not stay intact. It does stay intact, until some other consensus replaces it. That means the text absolutely does not "need" to be tweaked. It means it is YOUR responsibility to convince a consensus of editors that your concerns have merit and should be addressed. Your confrontational style does little to lead to that conclusion, so I'd suggest a change in that, but the bottom line is if you propose something the consensus of editors thinks makes sense, then that will be a fine thing. However, if the consensus of editors does not want to address what you think "needs" to be addressed, then it won't. ] 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal=== | |||
| Hi guys, | |||
| "Dozen of links" can be paired down citing ]. As for the disputed text, I propose to go back to a tweak on a earlier version: | |||
| * When deemed appropriate, a link to ''one'' web directory listing can be added with preference to open directories. If no good directory listing exists, or if the directory includes links that do not fit within the criteria specified in this guideline, do not link to such directory. | |||
| This wording addresses the concerns expressed: | |||
| perhaps it is just me but I'm a bit perplexed by this: "There are two basic formats for external links. The most common is…". What is the other format? :-) Secondly, is the format currently used in ] correct? My reading of these guidelines suggests that in general there should be no headings within the list, thus that it should be reformatted as: | |||
| # It does not recommend a certain directory; | |||
| # It does not contradict the current wording in the guideline about "Links to be avoided"; | |||
| # It forces editors to assess the quality of the directory in the same manner as any other external link. | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This would be a major step backward in several ways. First, saying "one" directory will lead to 1) pissing matches about "link to my directory", "no link to this one." Directories are in general bad links, and they should not be linked to at all when there are other valuable links. | |||
| :*'''Description of the algorithms''' | |||
| :Second, "or if the directory includes links that do not fit within the criteria specified in this guideline" is totally absurd. You need to get over this. It's not our business to care about every link on pages we link to. For instance, we link to CNN articles that may link to some crap reseller site. It is foolish to not link to the CNN article just because a minor percentage of links are crap. The same with Dmoz. They have categories to regional business lists. We should not refuse to link to their Automobiles category because they happen to link to a car dealers among the many subcategories of automobile information. It makes no sense to hold sites we link to to the criteria of the Misplaced Pages itself -- and this is especially true when talking about something like a directory. If 95 of a hundred links on a page would qualify for external links on an article, but five would not, it would just be stupid to disqualify that link because of the five. Third, this is baffling: "It forces editors to assess the quality of the directory in the same manner as any other external link." I can't even imagine how you don't see that as ludicrously wrongheaded. ] 23:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :** (SHA0) | |||
| :** (SHA0) | |||
| :** … | |||
| :""Dozen of links" can be paired down citing ]" What is that supposed to mean? If there are 75 links of equal value, then there are 75. Why would the solution be to just randomly choose some? All that would do is lead to endless edit wars. The reality is 75 equal things are in fact equal, so none should be listed and one replacement that links to most of them is the best choice in light of ].] 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Cryptanalysis''' | |||
| ::See ]. It is all there and '''it is policy'''. ] <small>]</small> 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :** | |||
| :::We know that. We assume that. Why do you mention it? It is not relevant here. ] 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :** | |||
| :** … | |||
| :There are certain criteria that DMOZ satisfies that most others don't. | |||
| :*'''Implementations''' | |||
| :** … | |||
| :* DMOZ is established with a huge inventory of websites (if a website is notable, it is in DMOZ) | |||
| However a quick round of past featured articles doesn't seem to confirm that. —]] 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* DMOZ does NOT display advertising | |||
| :* DMOZ is not a self-inclusion, self-editing directory (editors control inclusion and content) | |||
| :* DMOZ does not charge for inclusion | |||
| :* DMOZ has editors assigned to each category with some knowledge of that category | |||
| :* DMOZ has established guidelines against advertisement-like submissions | |||
| :* DMOZ has in place guidelines controlling the management of the directory | |||
| :* DMOZ is not controlled by a small group of editors. There are a number of industry specific directories that are controlled by small groups whose own self interest supercedes the industry it serves. | |||
| :To me, these criteria closely parallel WP. DMOZ is not perfect by any means (we've already discussed this here AND in the past) and we should always be evaluating others, but right now it is the best available IMO. I highly recommend leaving the original wording as it was before these discussions were initiated. Any minor changes that make it better are always good, but trashing it, or opening it to other unnamed directories creates an entirely new set of problems as 2005 indicated. ] 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "official" media tie-ins and related products == | |||
| ::''To me, these criteria closely parallel WP.'' Not so. See ] ] <small>]</small> 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Many popular media products have "official" products, often available only from that production group or company. The website for those products would be primarily directed toward selling a product; but the product is part of the "official website" for the entity. This appears to place a "links normally to be avoided" #4 into conflict with "What should be linked to" #1. Thoughts? --] 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::C'mon, you can't seriously be pretending Misplaced Pages doesn't as much controversy as Dmoz. That's silly. There are plenty of Misplaced Pages haters, not coincidentally often the same people. ] 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"Dozen of links" can be paired down citing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY" What is that supposed to mean?''. Simple. Add {{tl|linkfarm}} and ask editors to pair down the number of links as per ]. It works. ] <small>]</small> 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You continue to offer no constructive suggestion. Once again, the ongoing issue is dozens of equally valuable links. Between two (or 100) EQUAL things, the only "paring" that can be done is random. And also your suggestion is for cantankerous edit wars for no useful purpose. It really seems that you need to give this more thought. Random changes and edit wars is not remotely a better choice than a Dmoz link. ] 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Random edit wars need to be dealt with the ] process. And a guideline cannot set policy, rather it should explain it. The policy that this guideline is trying to explain is ], and should not attempt to make allowances that contradict ].] <small>]</small> 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We know that. It doesn't. Let's focus on the topic please. ] 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ;Amended proposal | |||
| :That list of links to be avoided is prefaced with ''"except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article."'' So such a link would not be ''prima facie'' prohibited. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * When deemed appropriate, a link to a web directory listing can be added. If no good directory listing exists, or if the directory includes links that do not fit within the criteria specified in this guideline, do not link to such directory. | |||
| == The policy is too "positive" == | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **As stated above this continues to open the door to edit wars, inclusion of bad quality directories, and also adds a silly criteria, and which again offers trolls the ability to just be a nuisance. If a directory has 100 links on it, its totally silly not to link to it if 99 are great links and one is 404 or below average quality. ] 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I personally would not mind wording that said something like when there are too many links of near equal value that a directory link should be used "with a preference for Dmoz." This would make it possible to link to some niche directory when the Dmoz category is bad, but also allows the "trump card" we need by making it clear that if all else fails, and there is a decent Dmoz category, that is the end of the war. I really can't imagine why there would be objections to that, unless a person just likes edit wars on major articles. ] 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am concerned that the new updated WP:EL policy is too "positive". The overall tone of it seems to be, "External links are welcome and helpful!" instead of, "Don't add an external link unless it matches these criteria!" Specifically, try this example - pretend you want to add a link to your favorite anime fan site from the WP article about that anime; what part of the policy specifically tells you not to do this, and how far down in the policy do you have to read before you find it? - ] 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, sorry. This is a ''guideline''. As a guideline, it does not set ''policy'', rather, it should explain policy. If there are trolls and spammers that want to add 99 links to an external link section, slap a {{tl|linkfarm}}, and tell them to go are read the policy of ]. That is all you need to do. And if there are many good links in these, move them all to talk and ask editors to use these as a source to expand or better the article's text. ] <small>]</small> 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You may be right. Why don't you propose an alternative wording? ] <small>]</small> 18:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, we all understand that is how ''you'' would prefer to deal with this problem, but the solution that is preferred by a majority of editors, including many active members of ], is to use the {{tl|Dmoz}} template instead. And since, despite your vague generalizations, that approach is not in direct conflict with any Misplaced Pages official policy, the wording here at ] should, and did, reflect that preference. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I see your point, but I would argue against an argument for inclusion based on "preference". For example, my preference is to do what I said. But I do not impose my preference by means of specific wording in a guideline. Let editors use their own good judgment when to keep a link, remove a link, or add a link to DMOZ, Yahoo directory, Alexa, or any other web directory. ] <small>]</small> 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And a small request, please do not use the "we" form when you comment. Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::We know a guideline doesn't set policy. Again please don't go off on irrelevant asides not relevant to the discussion. And also please don't mix concepts nonsensically. We aren't talking about a troll adding 99 bad links. Bringing up nonsensical strawmen out of left fireld just wastes everybody's time. Please stay on the topic: what to do when there are far too many equally valuable possible external links; secondarily, given the widespread view that a directory link should be used in these circumstances, what sort of directory link should be used. ] 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Have a look at the way I worded it in my rewrite from late October. Somewhere along the way my wording was changed. - ] 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You should start changing your tone of voice, 2005. I take exception with the way you are addressing my comments. If you cannot engage in a discussion on its merits, I will not respond to your comments. Enough. ] <small>]</small> 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why don't we all assume a little more good faith here. There's no one editing on this page that doesn't want a good encyclopedia. We just have different ideas on some tactics and some of the value judgments at the peripheral of the main chore of developing good articles. Instead of lecturing each other (and I'm as guilty as anyone else with my last comment). Perhaps we should start trying to dig a little deeper into each others concerns so we can understand them and come up with a solution that addresses the real issues without leaving people who are doing good work feeling unsupported. -- ] 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Once again, please stay on topic. If you don't want to engage in discussion, then don't, but no one will waste time responding to you then. If nothing else, don't clutter this page with off topic comments. I've invited you several times to respond to specifics, and you never do. Fine. We can just move on from this topic since clearly there is no consensus to make changes. ] 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Links are only ever equal when the content and presentation is effectively identical - and then choosing randomly is as good a way to choose as any other. When there are lots of good links to add we should do the same as we do when there is lots of good content to add - use good editorial judgment. Prioritizing content is one of our major roles as editors and applies just as much to the external links section as to summarizing the lead. Pointing people to a directory of all and everything on a subject is not a substitue for actually providing them with a well considered list of a few good links (a service which can actually provide significant value to readers). I appreciate that the use of appropriate directories can also be useful, but I'm not a fan of using dmoz (or any directory) to fight actual spam. We should provide a link to an appropriate directory ''if'' the directory is pointing our readers to something valuable. If it's just pointing them to crap, I don't think we should include it. -- ] 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What happened, Brian, is that some editors took that "can't or shouldn't be added" to mean that External links could be any old garbage. Completely lost was the ''reasons'' behind ""can't or shouldn't", and we've been off and running ever since. I tried some time ago (see ]) to get things back on track, but without success. I would very much like to get back to something more like your version, only with an explanation of "can't or shouldn't" immediately after that sentence, but I've been distracted by other matters. You might want to try again in the ] section below. -- ] | ] 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well said, Siobhan. ] <small>]</small> 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I apologize for the tone of the above remarks. To restate my concern above in a less preachy fashion - I think this guideline needs to be careful about not compromising editorial decision making on articles. I see the idea of saying "If there are lots of links that meet the criteria they're all as good as one another - just link to something that links to them all" (which is very crude paraphrasing) as abdicating our responsibility as editors. I believe sorting through the information and making these decisions so readers don't have to is one of the main differences between an encyclopedia and a portal. And I really cringe at the idea that of using directories as a way to fight off the addition of link cruft. This may be because my understanding of the tactic is wrong. I see us providing a link to dmoz so all the poor quality sites get added there and are two clicks away instead of one. And I guess I see that as an unpleasant thing to do to our readers. | |||
| ::::I would like to add this sentence after the first sentence of the second paragraph of WP:EL: ''No page should be linked from a Misplaced Pages article unless its inclusion is justified.'' Or something to that extent, making the point that linking shouldn't be done casually just because there happens to be a site on the same topic as the article. (This sentence came out of the ] discussion, below.) - ] 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::On the other hand, I know when you're dealing with editors who are more use to adding to networking, fan and portal sites, it's much easier, faster, and ends up with fewer hurt feelings if there is a clear line to point to and an unambiguous standard. For those in favor of the "consider a link to a dmoz directory" wording, is this one of the main motivations? -- ] 04:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Of course it is often the case links are effectively identical. Let's be realistic here. "We should provide a link to an appropriate directory ''if'' the directory is pointing our readers to something valuable. If it's just pointing them to crap, I don't think we should include it." Well that's the status quo. Again, be realistic. No one is saying a dmoz link should always be used, or a link to a crap category should be added. That is not an issue. I hate to keep saying this, but all this going off topic really doesn't do anything but waste time. "We should provide a link to an appropriate directory ''if'' the directory is pointing our readers to something valuable." Saying that is embracing the text that has been there. ] 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was trying to talk about two separate issues here. When we're talking about lots of good links I think we need to embrace our role as editors and make decisions about which ones are best. In such circumstances a directory may be one of the best links to provide. The ''if it's just pointing to crap'' issue was in response to the idea I've heard in this discussion that having a dmoz link helps fight spam. ''In that case'' I think we are effectively just trying to push spam to another source and linking to that. -- ] 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ; Amended proposal: | |||
| :::::While this seems overly obvious to me, it seems okay to add... although I think it fits more strongly under Important points to remember #1: "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. No page should be linked from a Misplaced Pages article unless its inclusion is justified." ] 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * When deemed appropriate, a link to a web directory listing can be added to the external links section. Inclusion of such link should be evaluated on its merits and in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline. | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Some wording from ] could also be used in this context. ] <small>]</small> 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article? == | |||
| ::I would like dmoz to be mentioned by name, but am willing to compromise. Fighting spam is a secondary function of a directory link. First and foremost, it offers content that is not appropriate to include in the article itself. If a particular category on dmoz is found to be well edited and appropriate, then it is likely a good candidate for an external link. I am also confused as to why the pre-existing text has not remained in this guideline throughout this discussion. As of now, there has been no concensus to remove the wording from the article. Imagine someone over at ] beginning, ''removing A7 from article for discussion'', this is not how things work around here. Leave it in until you have a new version or concensuss to remove. | |||
| ::My rewording, trimmed a bit: ''Web directories may be linked when appropriate as a resource beyond the encyclopedia's intended scope. Directories should be neutral and generally evaluated in the same manner as any other link.'' '''∴''' ]…] 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Web directories should almost never be linked. Watering down the language is a terrible idea. if anything it should be strengthened to prevent directory links to be added. The most important concept is a directory link should never be included among external links if there are any more external links than official site ones. Dmoz should be called out specifically to prevent the inclusion of all the useless link lists out there. If no good Dmoz category exists, then a case could be made for another directory link on a talk page. A link to Dmoz or any other directory should almost always be the only external link on any article. Directories should be a very rare alternative, not a regular option. The language that has been there states that. If anything it should be even stronger. ] 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: : shrug :, I wouldn't say ''almost never''. I imagine this will be an ongoing discussion through the life of wikipedia and the various compatible web directories. The quality of the link is what matters, and I also find dmoz the often-best-option when a directory is appropriate. '''∴''' ]…] 08:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Linking to a linkfarm really isn't a good idea ever. DMOZ isn't any better then any other link farm and is often worst then most... just because it is run a little similar to wikipedia is no reason to give it preference, if anything we should suggest that editors look at a site like DMOZ to find individual sites to like to rather then spam... or even no external links at all, nothing wrong with that... also having a link to DMOZ isn't going to stop any of the spammers I've ever meet (threat of black listing works way better(warning 3 or 4)) --]-] 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's sometimes quite clearly the best idea. Dmoz isn't given preference because it is similar to the Misplaced Pages. Again let's stay real here. Dmoz is by FAR the largest directory in existence. Some people don't like it because they think it is full of oligarchal nutjobs, but that isn't really relevant. In specific situations, sure sometimes there will be other directories better. But it is the most comprehensive directory out there, which has to be the starting point. A Dmoz link should only be used when a directory link is the best external link solution available, which will be rare, but it does occur. When there are dozens of good links available, choosing no external links at all is too anti-user to be a reasonable solution. A Dmoz link is far better for users. Saying editors should "consider" a category link to the largest directory in existence in problematic situations seems a few miles short of a bad thing. ] 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't see being biggest as being a particularly useful guide here except that it is convenient because it is likely to have a category. But it says little about the quality of individual categories. I think the best directories for particular subjects are generally more likely to be found in practitioner communities than on a general directory service. By specifically recommending dmoz (or any other directory service) we automatically bias content. And we make it harder for editors to look at different possibilities and discuss them simply on their merits. This is where I believe the guidelines overstep into editorial decision making in a bad way. -- ] 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::''"I think the best directories for particular subjects are generally more likely to be found in practitioner communities than on a general directory service."'' - examples please. And ''"By specifically recommending dmoz ... we automatically bias content"''?? You just provided another argument for DMOZ where virtually all other directories fall short. This should also be added to my list above: | |||
| I invite editors to provide their views in one or two sentences about '''What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article?''' ] <small>]</small> 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* DMOZ provides an unbiased computerized ranking of websites and the order in which they are displayed. | |||
| ; Comments | |||
| ::::::::Practitioner community directories are probably the worst when it comes to bias and self interest. By nature, they are smaller, with fewer guidelines, and subject to the whim (and bias) of the hosting website and editors. Listings are often providing based on advertising ('''Featured Listing''') or affiliation with the host. None of this is true with DMOZ. | |||
| *A web site directly related to the subject of the article (typically no more than one) would provide additional information about the subject (e.g. if the subject is an organization, then the organization's web site should be linked) ] 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *To provide users with further reading of accurate, on-topic, in context and functional web pages outside Misplaced Pages which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article... (due to unencyclopedic level of detail, expert opinion or other reasons listed in the guideline.) ] 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **That's pretty much what I would have said. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Agree. Also, 1 article will often be too few, though the number should be limited to no more than a handful. Also note the suggestion in the current article to point users to dmoz pages. ] 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Just in my experience from editing ]: copyrighted media that can't or shouldn't be used under fair use (links to video, audio, and photo galleries); Unencyclopedic level of detail (making of timpani sticks, tribute to famous timpanists, timpani FAQ that is more technical). – ] (]) 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Again, where are the '''New''' arguments that are deemed significant enough to overturn the existing language that was published after consensus reached last year?. ] 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes! "Can't or shouldn't be added" is ''exactly'' the issue that we have lost sight of. What we ''don't'' want to link to is good encyclopedic articles, because ''those'' should be used as ''sources'' to improve ''our'' articles; they should ''not'' be used as external links (except when a Misplaced Pages article is in stub stage). We lost sight of that back when some editors started reading "can't or shouldn't be added" as implying that any old crap could be an external link. That was ''not'' the point of "can't or shouldn't". We need to restore that language, but put what we mean by "can't or shouldn't" much closer to the phrase, so there is no mistaking the intent. -- ] | ] 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Just read this and above sections... ] <small>]</small> 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Completely agree. I've always said it should explain why links should be made instead of just copying the linked info into the article. I think it's clear enough already, but the bit after "can't or shouldn't" may need to be even more detailed so that it can't possibly be interpreted incorrectly. --] 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There are several proposals on the table, and all I hear is an argument of "it was consensus". Why not to look at these proposals on their merit? The proposals does not disallow DMOZ, or any otehr web directory. Rather, it encourage editors to make good judgment when contemplating adding such a link, What is wrong about that? ] <small>]</small> 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :How could "a small selection of useful links that provide additional information about the subject of the article" diminish the article's quality? If they are useful, not too many, on-topic, and provide additional info, wouldn't they ''by definition'' improve the article's quality? Your comment sounds like "It should be good, and not be bad". It's redundant. --] 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: More than redundant, it's wrong. An official site for the subject of the article can be of terrible quality, but still a very important link. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may be misunderstanding "quality". When I speak of "good quality" I speak of good quality as it pertains to achieving the goals of the encyclopedia. Including a link to an official site is that. ] <small>]</small> 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Calltech - on the automatically biasing content issue, I'm not sure I understand your argument. You seem to think we aren't biased. But we are, and intentionally so. Our ] is explicitly biased in favor of significant opinions of experts in the field. Having something that lists everything written on a subject is not something that any of our policies aspire to. We should be favoring expertise. I'm also not clear on the "computerized ranking" comment. I didn't think dmoz worked that way, I thought it was up to the category editor. | |||
| * To provide readers with further information on the particular subject (or closely related topics) that '''would have been included and sourced in the article itself''' but for copyright and/or level of detail problems. Everything else should either be sourced (preferably) or left out entirely, EL should not be used as a "middle ground" for dumping "useful" links. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not suggesting we recommend community practitioner directories, I'm well aware there are plenty of terrible ones and I don't advocate for them. My pint is simply that we should not be trying to direct editors towards a particular directory or even a particular type of directory. We should be emphasizing the quality aspects that make a good link and leaving the decisions about particular links to article editors. -- ] 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for a ''very'' pertinent distinction. ] <small>]</small> 15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would also add the standard language about "...when it becomes a FAC". Some people use the EL as a temporary crutch, and this language protects against that (IMO bad) practice. ] 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Again, disagree. First, official sites can have lots of information that would not be included more than for copyright or detail problems - official sites can be spammy, advertising-laden, of questionable legality, or attack pages, and often are. Second, putting useful links in the article as a holding area is often the only thing that will stop a stub article from being deleted from lack of notability until someone adds their content to the article. Remember, the people at ] are not obliged to go look for references, that is the obligation of the person who wrote the stub. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Most, if not all, official sites of the subject of the article are used as sources in these articles, to present the POV of the author/company/political party, etc. so your point is moot. ] <small>]</small> 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Correct. AnonEMouse correctly highlights a common problem that many existing WP articles just have a bunch of text, then maybe a couple of links listed at the end as 'External Links'. This is obviously wrong, and is a systemic problem. What we need to do in each such case (assuming the article is otherwise OK) is to create an inline reference (I personally favor the 'cite X' template) and link to the same site, then create a 'References' section with <nowiki><references/></nowiki>, and remove the old 'external link'. This is fairly painless and will preserve the link, that we obviously don't want to just discard. But the issue in this thread is the left-over EL's, i.e. the ones that we are not using as direct references or sources. ] 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(edit conflict)I think AnonEMouse has a point about how articles build up. We generally discuss these guideline as they pertain to an ] class article. But most of our articles aren't and I think there is a tension between having a polished article and getting to that stage. The dumping ground approach (and I don't think AnonEMouse is just talking about official sites) can be harmful to an article and can encourage lazy editing, but it also provides a resource for editors. Guidelines shouldn't sit in the vacuum of the perfect article edited by perfect editors, we ought to take into account how Misplaced Pages works in practice. I'm not sure how we resolve these tensions in a way that encourages the best editing overall. --] 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, for articles in development, as Siobhan writes. 99.9% of our articles will always have room for improvement, that's the nature of the Misplaced Pages. I would guess that a third will actually be stubs. Note how this guideline is actually used: as a justification for deleting external links from articles, not for expanding the text. This guideline shouldn't be written so as to hurt those 99.9% of our articles that aren't FA. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, that is the difficulty, but I am sure we can present the subject in a way that encourages best practices for articles in different stages of development. Maybe that is what is needed. ] <small>]</small> 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Another round, revised my wording... | |||
| * I think there are a couple of different purposes - in general I think external links should be a guide for readers that leads them to (the best) resources that help them to research the subject with the same standards as we (try to) apply to our articles, but in greater detail and breadth. Linking to electronic media or data sets that we can't put in the article (for size, copyright, level of detail, media type reasons) is also very valid. I think it's easy for this to lead to a "portal" like approach to the EL section though, and I think at that point we're crossing a line that we ought to avoid. --] 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # When deemed appropriate, a link to a web directory listing can be added to the external links section. Inclusion of such link should be evaluated on its merits and in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline. | |||
| ::Thanks. That distinction about "the best resources that help them research the subject with the same standards as we (try to) apply to our articles" is very useful and sorely lacking in the current formulation. ] <small>]</small> 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # Web directories may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link. The ] is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{tl|dmoz}} template. | |||
| :'''∴''' ]…] 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems clear that there is no consensus on any of the proposals. I support the idea of having some sort of boilerplate language that helps with spam control, but I simply am not convinced that DMOZ is superior to any of the alternative directory sources. Alexa, an independent rating service, gives DMOZ only a midrange rating for quality. See: . The directory provided by Alexa is more likely to be meaningful than that of DMOZ because it uses an algorithm that includes traffic statistics and inbound links as part of the evaluation method. That said, I think that the language given above is moving in the right direction by saying that "a web directory" may be appropriate, but that other factors need to be considered as well. Are there any other web directories that have templates like the dmoz template? ] 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Reading the preceding, some contributors seem to propose that nothing should be an EL whose substantive information could in principle be added to the article, even if the content has not in fact been added to date. I think it would be counterproductive, where an editor says "this is a useful site with more information but I lack the capability to incorporate it into the article myself", to prevent such an editor from merely adding an EL. If it was added, (1) a later editor can do the incorporating, and then remove the EL or move it to Refs and (2) those reading the article in the meantime, after the first edit but before the second, will have access to the extra information. ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Alexa just uses Dmoz and then fiddles with it in a mostly obtuse way, so that is no solution. ] 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Allowing the use of EL as a crutch instead of a proper inline reference would undermine the quality of WP as a whole. If an editor cannot simply add the link using the simple, easy to use 'cite' template, s/he can ask for help in the Talk page: "I have this great link please help me include it inline". If no one is listening, surely some help desk can help. We already have a lot of work to do cleaning up after others, please let's not increase this workload by condoning a bad habit officially. ] 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree with Crum375; also, I have suggested before that perhaps we should add a line or two advising people to use the talk page to suggest links for ref incorporation. There are thousands of cases on Misplaced Pages where inexperienced editors make good faith contributions that are not in line with guidelines. Guidelines aren't able to ''prevent'' such edits, but they certainly shouldn't be formulated to encourage them. For example, ] is violated constantly, but it doesn't ''stop'' people from making style-related edits. Nor does MOS say, "If you're unable to use proper punctuation as explained here, punctuate however you want and someone else will clean up for you." <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreeing - talk page sounds like a good place for this stuff, maybe we could suggest a Research Resources section. Also pointing out that it isn't simply some contributors suggesting content that should go in the article should not be put in as ELs. The guidelines have stated this for sometime. Under ] 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. --] 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The merit of Misplaced Pages is the way it allows for incremental improvements. It is meant to a useful tool for readers ''now'', not a hobby for Wikipedians to craft to perfection in an ivory tower. If there's a lot of information at www.bolivianfoo.org that's not at ], a link to the site from that article will obviously make the article more useful to a reader who wants to know about the Bolivian Foo. Of course it would be better to incorporate (some or all) the information into the Misplaced Pages article, but for any number of reasons this may not happen the instant someone discovers the site. To deny the usefulness of the link as an interim measure is absurd. The fact is that most readers '''never''' read Talk: pages; they're mostly the preserve of active Wikipedian editors. I completely disagree with the criterion ''"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article"''. It seems to suggest that a perfect article is created by adding one component at a time, where each component is itself perfect when it is added. I believe that adding an imperfect component may still improve an article, though obviously further improvement occurs if that component is later improved (or replaced with a better one). Even an improperly punctuated sentence may improve an article: few editors would react to such an error by reverting the edit rather than correcting the punctuation. The question is, to what extent should guidelines encourage or discourage imperfect additions. I believe editors are not stupid. They do not need a simple good/bad do-this/don't-do-that list; you can say "this is bad, this is better, this is better still." By all means say: "Rather than linking to an external site, consider instead incorporating its information directly into the article, using the site as a reference". The original question was ''"What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article?"'' If by "encyclopedic" you mean "complete, authoritative, featured-quality", then I agree that there will ipso facto be no need for ELs which merely repeat some of the content of the article. However I oppose any guideline which is so phrased as to discourage editors from adding links which improve the usefulness of '''incomplete''' articles (which, at any given time, constitute the vast majority). ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::By your rationale, any link to any site that has any relevant information that could be construed as useful by someone would be allowed. In that case we might as well do away with ] altogether. We are all for incrementally building an encyclopedia, from mere stub to beautiful edifice. But given that we are almost perpetually in an 'under construction' 'work-in-progress' environment, we must define some reasonable guidelines and rules, so our readers won't think they are visiting a construction zone. The way to do it is to allow external links under some circumstances. For example, in your above example, for ], if boliviafoo.org is a good site and has useful data, by all means link to it ''as a reference''. All it takes is to find one reasonable shred of unique information in boliviafoo.org, add a sentence about it and link to it. It certainly takes less time to do it than for me to type this message. Then it moves out of the EL category (and into a reference section) and becomes moot for this discussion thread and this guideline. This guideline should focus strictly on the 'leftovers' - those links that cannot simply be used as references. Let's keep the focus there, since we seem to be drifting towards regular references. ] 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''One reasonable shred of unique information on boliviafoo.org'' does not make it a link allowed as a citation - boliviafoo.org could fail to pass WP:RS or WP:V but still be useful, at least for the current state of the page. Also, you say ''any link to any site that has any relevant information ... would be allowed'' — perhaps, though I think you're over-reading it. However, "would be allowed" is quite different from "would be encouraged" or "would stay on the page". There is an editing process, and to a large degree the determination of worth to the article is one determined by the editors. WP:EL is here to guide them in that determination, not to provide (generally) an if-then-else set of cases for ruling a link stays or goes. We give them advice to keep the list small; make them relevant, avoid certain things. But there are still cases where they most certainly are useful; doubly so for non-FA articles. ] 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with jesup. jnestorious, you said, ''Even an improperly punctuated sentence may improve an article: few editors would react to such an error by reverting the edit rather than correcting the punctuation. The question is, to what extent should guidelines encourage or discourage imperfect additions.'' I think the guideline should maximally encourage perfect additions, by, for example, describing that a perfect EL addition is a link that (among other things) should not otherwise be used as a source. This seems to implicitly discourage imperfect additions, but I don't find it excessively prohibitive, just as, for example, the Manual of Style doesn't stop thousands of editors from using incorrect punctuation in otherwise helpful edits every day. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To clarify, we first have to decide if a given reference provides useful information for the article. If so, we make a short statement and link to it ("Boilivafoo won the World Cup three years in a row "), and put the link in the References section, ''not'' in the EL section, so it's outside the scope of this discussion thread, article and Talk page. Only if it has nothing obviously useful ''directly'' for the article, would it require the EL section and be governed by its guideline. I may be missing something, but it seems to me some of the comments here fail to make that important distinction. ] 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but I think the concern is, at least on my part, that people put links into the EL section that should ideally be used as references. In which case, since it's shown up as an external link, in the EL section, it does fall under the guideline. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That is what I referred to elsewhere. In a case (unfortunately very typical) where the only source is in the EL section, all we need to do is link to it inline and make it a reference. Once we do that it leaves the scope of this EL guideline. This guideline and discussion should focus on the cases where that simple action cannot be taken, yet the EL item is still valuable for some reason and we don't want to just discard it. ] 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think you're right Crum375, and thanks for refocusing us. Editors ought to think about links the in the same way they have to think about assertions they want to add to an article. If you want it in there - while other editors may and should help you out, the real onus is on you to justify why it's appropriate for the article. I feel like I opened up something i didn't intend to by agreeing with AnonEMouses' point. I don't believe allowing the EL to be a dumping ground for links that "might provide good resources" is a seervice to our readers. I was acknowleding that it has been useful for editors - but using the talk page should work well for them. there's no need to dilute the encyclopedic quality of our articles. --] 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ;Hopefully a compromise proposal | |||
| ---- | |||
| Web directory links should be used only occasionally. They should only be used an an alternative, not a normal choice. That is why the current wording is superior to what has been suggested. Opening the doors to a directory link for any article is not a step forward. To try and address some concernes I'd simplify the current wording: '''On articles where many meritable external links exist, rather than creating a long list of links, editors should instead consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) if that category is comprehensive. If a topical directory exists that editors believe is superior to the Dmoz category, they should discuss using that directory instead on an articles talk page.''' No promotion of Dmoz other than as the largest directory it should be the starting point. Better directories would have the option of being included instead if a consensus supports it. And, to me, most importantly, a single directory link is not normally encouraged, but offered as a rare option. '''instead''' is a key concept. ] 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems to introduce the concept that where there are lots of links that could be added editors should not be choosing between them. I really believe that one of our major role as editors is about prioritizing information for readers. I don't see how a link to a directory ''instead'' of an editor vetted list is a good thing for us to be doing at all. -- ] 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please be specific in what you want to see happen when editors can not agree on a list of under ten (or choose your number) external links? This isn't about something besides choosing. Let's try and stay focused on the issue. So far the only option you seem to support is edit wars or (even worse) mediation and bad will. We are talking about situations where "choosing" has not worked or is extraordinarily arbitrary. You can't seem to get past the idea that sometimes sincere people have sincere disagreements where everybody is basically equally right. This "let's have edit wars" idea is a no starter. the current wording is obviously superior to that. ] 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey come on now, your crack about staying focused on the issue is unfair. I've been saying all along that this is about us doing our job as editors - about us making good choices, and about having guidelines that support that rather than having guidelines that restrict editors in doing that well. The external links section is a content issue. When editors can't agree they ''should'' follow the dispute resolution process (messy, drawn out and occasionally nasty as it is) as they do for any other content issue. There is nothing in our policies that support us preempting that process with a "if you can't agree, give up and link to this". I also think this uses edge cases as the basis for a guideline that should be useful for all articles. It's a very low percentage of our articles where regular editors can't come to a compromise if they discuss the issue. -- ] 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well then your suggestion is to insert a section about dispute resolution. Frankly I consider that terribly wrongheaded since this is not a "dispute" issue. The "dispute" is not the point, and leads to lawyering with the fanatics getting their way most of the time. You should reexamine this statement: "It's a very low percentage of our articles where regular editors can't come to a compromise if they discuss the issue." That's because in most cases now a Dmoz link is used! I'd suggest taking a look at the bigger picture. ] 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, that is not the suggestion. You may have missed the point. ] <small>]</small> 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As Jossi says, that's not my suggestion at all. I believe we should not be recommending a particular site in our guidelines. My suggestion is simply that we do not include a sentence that implies any individual directory is preferred. The vast majority of our articles do not have a dmoz link so your implication that we would have a high percentage of disputes if we didn't have a guideline recommending it is hyperbole. In my experience of cleaning up external links sections I can't recall having had to go to dispute resolution over any of them, whether or not a dmoz link ended up being included. If there were actual discussions about what might be a good selection of a few external links that were cut short (or not attempted) by someone pointing to this guideline and a replacing well chosen links with a link to dmoz, I think that's a disservice to our readers. The "big picture" is far more than the relatively small number of articles where there are actual disputes. Our guidelines need to help guide all our editors make good decisions, not ''simply'' be about providing strong statements to stop opposition. -- ] 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The purpose of External links are to provide the reader with high-quality information which has ''not yet'', but could be, incorporated into Misplaced Pages. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you are backing off your suggestion now there isnt anything to talk about. Arguing against clear guidelines to help editors without offering any alternative isn't constructive. On the other hand, if you are now (finally) stating that the passage is fine just without Dmoz, well, that renders your comments puzzling, but fine. That is a much more minor point. As for hyperbole, your sentence doesn't make since. You are the only one who advocated dispute resolution instead of a directory link. It's obvious that a dmoz link has helped end edit wars on many articles. I hope you aren't disputing that. ] 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: And when removing such a link there is no reason the person removing it can't put it on the talk page if it's relevence is obvious as a source. See ]. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Could you point me to a diff where I made a suggestion that I'm now backing off of? I'm not sure you've been reading my comments properly. I only ever said that dispute resolution is Misplaced Pages's process for content disputes and we shouldn't presume to change that. I've never suggested we need to incorprorate it into the guideline - we don't do it for any other section that might result in differences of opinion, why would I, or anyone else think we need it here? Why you find my comments puzzling when this entire discussion is about whether we should be explicitly recommending dmoz I'm unclear on. As to it being "obvious that a dmoz link has helped end edit wars on many articles." again, I don't think you are understanding my comments. In the big picture, a few thousand articles (which is how many dmoz links we have - not how many have ended edit wars) is not that significant in the million plus articles we have. In the cases where a dmoz link has been added (whether part of an edit war or not) when using dispute resolution instead would have resulted in a better selection of a few good links then I think the result is a poor one. If your desire to have dmoz in here is so that you can shut these sorts of situations down quickly without having to justify the benefit of the link to regular editors of an article (as they would apparently have to do for any alternative), I think you're misusing the guideline. -- ] 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That rules out the valid page with too much detail to be included, or links to copyrighted material relevant to the article. -- ] | ] 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"...is not that significant in the million plus articles we have..." The case for it is clear from both the perspective of this guideline and from the perspective of the spam project. If it isn't significant to you, then why are you not letting it go? As for rolling back to the old invitation to freely add directory links, that is different than merely saying we should not highlight dmoz. That should be another discussion. The current text clearly calls out a Dmoz link in ONE scenario, "rather than creating a long list of external links..." ] 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: And others, see above. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (resetting indent)Why I don't "let it go" is because I believe our guideline should be appropriate for the majority of our articles rather than the minority. Using hardcases to build guidelines is generally a bad idea and I think that's the case here. I do a lot of work on spam fighting. I know it's easier to point to a guideline or policy. But when the guideline is a poor one for good editors, and when it is a sop to spammers (we don't want your link but put it in this other site and we'll just link through to it) I'm very much against it. -- ] 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would accept a small modification to the suggested wording by ]: | |||
| == WebCite (Link Archiving) Proposal == | |||
| * Web directories may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline. The ] is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{tl|dmoz}} template. | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 00:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally changing the guideline to encourage directories makes no sense to me, but doing it without presuming Dmoz first is silly, unless an editor's purpose here is to engage in arguments. By their nature, directories are often almost exactly identical. Leaving the door open for people to spam their clone directories of dmoz is just a bad idea. ] 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The most important part of the existing wording is... '''Rather than creating a long list of external links,'''. Without that phrase, someone needs to advance an argument why we should have some random directory link in every article. I'm afraid I can't imagine why this rather sudden urge to allow random directory links in every article. ] 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Our guideline already suggests limiting the number of external links. "A few" right at the top. A directory ''can'' be one of them. There is no "'''sudden''' urge to allow random directory links". There has been a line in the guidelines suggesting a directory might be appropriate since July 2005. Suggesting we should have a directory ''instead'' of a few well selected links is new however. -- ] 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's six months old. You are suggesting to going back to the invitation to spam one directory link per article. The rewrite addressed that very poor idea, and stated when a directory link was appropriate, specifically "rather than" a long list of links. If you want to change that, please make a case for why a directory link should be allowed on every article. I certainly don't see a need to increase spam and edit wars for no concrete gain. ] 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A directory link should be allowed on any article where it is one of the best external links available for the subject and it provides encyclopedic value to readers of the article. Just like any other link. Because we should not write guidelines that arbitrarily limit editors or bias their decisions. I'd never seen the previous guideline as an invitation to spam, and I'd never seen directories as a particular problem on the articles I edited. But if that's the issue, how about we take out all mention of directories? They can be evaluated just like any other link. That addresses my concerns at least as well as well as taking out a recommendation of dmoz. -- ] 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The suggestion of having a directory '''instead''' of other external links was made by you yesterday () and is different from the guidelines' "rather than creating a long list of links" since an alternative to a long list of links includes a short list with one link being a directory. Perhaps the intention was ifferent, but the phrase does not provide a strengthing of our guidelines. In fact the one above can be considered to weaken them since "rather than creating a long list of links, editors should instead '''consider''' linking to" suggests that creating a long list of links is a viable alternative if editors reject the idea of a guideline. -- ] 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Stating that directory links should follow the rest of the criteria feels to me enough to address 2005's concerns. I do not believe the above wording encourages linking a directory, nor validates such a link without reservation. In general, almost all external links should be discouraged, which should be clear throughout this guideline. '''∴''' ]…] 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Directories never meet the criteria of the guideline so that's a non-starter. They never meet "What should be linked" points three or four. They are just link lists (directories that also have articles or whatever could be linked to but not necause they are link list but because the article would meet points 3 or 4.) If there are not too many links, a directory should be culled for useful links, not linked to. If there are too many links, a directory link should be considered. Again, why is there now this desire to link to ransom directories? What wording is being advocated to be added to "What should be linked"? What logic is there to have external links, and an external link to external links? (LOL) Sorry but dramatically weakening the guideline without any reasoning behind it is an odd idea at best. ] 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* 3) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. | |||
| :::::::* 4) Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. | |||
| ::::::::Directories meet both just fine. 3) excessive amount of detail. 4) review of links, meaningful relevant content ; If the directory resource does not meet 3 and 4, it should not be linked. I guess I wasn't around at the start of all this, but we seem to be close to recreating the language I see now under, Links to be considered: ''A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to ].'' (open directory link added) I like seeing the {{tl|dmoz}} template link as well, but don't feel strongly. '''∴''' ]…] 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If you are going to take the position that a list of other resources is "excessive detail", fine, but that just seems silly. Directories have no content of their own. Bending over backwards to have them fit criteria clearly not intended for them again begs the question, why do you want to link to link lists when a long list of links is not involved? Articles should have meritable links themselves. There is no good reason to include a link list rather than the meritable links themselves, unless there are way too many. ] 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I think we see directories on Misplaced Pages from very different perspectives. I tend to think that directories that ''may'' be appropriate for an article tend to fall broadly into one of two different types - 1) Lists to, normally "official", pages for relevant, specific but distinct entities (say association chapters, or laws on the subject) and 2) resource directories where the consensus of editors is that it enjoys a high reputation with practitioners or experts in the field, and it is suitable for the general readership of the article. In the first case we can provide a jumping off point to a wide range of similar sites where the readers' preferred destination might depend on something specific to them (their location for instance), but if the directory didn't exist, we wouldn't reproduce that list on Misplaced Pages. In the second case the site's reputation is part of what makes it a good link (with the expectation that it's link management provides value) and it provides a focused service while allowing for a broader set of links than Misplaced Pages can provide. And again, if it didn't exist, we wouldn't be trying to recreate it. | |||
| ::::::::::If I read your comments correctly, you seem to see directories as places that build up links because we link to them. That is, whatever their state when we link to them, part of what hapens is that anyone who would have added a link to the article adds it to the directory instead. Is that correct? And if so, is that because you think it's a desireable thing to be building up those directories from Misplaced Pages contributors (albeit not on Misplaced Pages)? Or are you simply looking for a quick way to push the long lists of links off Misplaced Pages and this happens to work? Or something else? -- ] 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I think the section "Longevity of links" needs some updating, including some hints to the relatively new ] archive, which is specifically designed to archive cited URls. | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not sure what you are talking about. Something like an official list of chapters has nothing to do with a directory, and is covered by the offical sites part of the guideline. Aside from that, a directory lists links to websites. There is no reason to ever link to something like that, unless an article has too many meritable external links. Again, what possible reason (except space) would we link to a list of links instead of the linked-to sites themselves? ] 05:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (resetting indent) I think there are plenty of circumstances where the official site section doesn't fit but a link to a listings directory ''could'' be useful, still I don't think that's an area that's holding us up on this. I think I am beginning to understand the difference in our views of this a bit better. I don't agree the only reason for not including a long list of links is simply space (though we don't want an article with more links than text either). We shouldn't include a long list because we shouldn't be sending our readers off on an unfocused journey. It is the job of editors to review, prioritize and present information so that readers don't have to and this applies to external links as much as it does to the rest of the article. If there are 100 meritable links a portal or directory might present them all, but an encyclopedia should choose the best selection it can that won't overwhelm the reader. I've always seen this as one of the essential value adds that we provide as an encyclopedia. Do others not share this view? -- ] 13:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It was not easy, but I am glad that we have managed to find common ground and fnd a fornmulation that addressed all involved editros' concerns. Thank you all for your patience, and special thanks to Siobhan for finding a version that worked. ] <small>]</small> 20:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So instead of simply saying "Similarly, be wary of citing an unstable page as a source.", we should say something like "Similarly, be wary of citing an unstable page as a source, and use archiving services such as ] when citing a URL.", followed by a more detailed explanation: | |||
| === Random section break === | |||
| ::When there are 100 meritable links, it is not our job nor decision to narrow that to an acceptable few. If we choose a handful of equal links out of a hundred, we are doing a disservice to the reader and those websites not chosen. A single link to DMOZ keeps WP clean, gives the viewer a list of websites and topics that HE or SHE may want to view, and allows the websites the means to be reviewed, included and displayed. Everyone wins, its democratic and fair, and the user gets choices. This is NOT a common occurence, but happens enough that a guideline was developed last year to ''advise'' editors. Editors can always arrive at a consensus to do something different, but when there is dissent, using the guideline is the fallback and provides the basis for a potential dispute resolution. Identifying DMOZ was the best directory at that time and is still now, unless someone can show a better directory, IMHO. ] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well stated. The guideline spells out what should commonly occur, then it also spells out an advisory for what is a good idea in rare/difficult situations. Edit wars to turn 100 links into 9 is a lot of things, but it is hopelessly unrealistic as a solution. A directory link makes sense in some cases. A directory link does not make sense in the vast majority of cases. Mentioning the by far most comprehensive directory also makes sense, although that wording could possibly be tweaked to make the point better. ] 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If "A directory link does not make sense in the vast majority of cases", then we do not need the text in this guideline. There is no need to spell exceptions in guidelines, rather, we describe common uses that ''explain'' policy, not exceptions that ''may be in violation'' of policy. ] <small>]</small> 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There will be 100+ meritable links for virtually every mainstream subject. Such a guideline would indicate that almost all our featured articles ought to have just a dmoz link and no others. This isn't the way Misplaced Pages works now, and there are no policies which would support that interpretation for our guidelines. And please stop implying anyone is suggesting edit warring is a way to deal with 100 meritable links (or spam come to that). No one has suggested edit warring. It's expressly forbidden by our policies (not to mention common sense). What has been suggested (at least by me) is that external links are a content decision that should be considered like any other content decision, by discussion and consensus building. Edit warring isn't an acceptable way to deal with any content dispute - external links included. -- ] 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I prefer the first of ]'s suggestions. But two is OK and Jossi's just change above doesn't alter it's meaning to me. -- ] 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::Just to test for what we mean by "directory", would About.com pages be considered directories? Now and then I see them on article pages and while I personally dislike about.com because of its aggressive advertising and popup ads, other editors have challenged me when I have tried to remove it. So what exactly is a directory? ] 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Citing Webpages and Webdocuments (URLs) === | |||
| URLs are inherently unstable and the cited material may disappear (]) or cited webpages may be changed, leading to the situation where the reader sees a different version than the author intended to cite. To prevent this, a webarchiving service such as ] can and should be used to permanently ] an URL before citing it (or archive it as soon after it has been cited). | |||
| ;Another Proposal | |||
| For example, to cite the URL http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html the citing author would go to , go to "archive" and create a snapshot of the cited page (or use the WebCite ] to cache the cited page). Then the citing author replaces the cited URL with the the ] URL, e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/5Kt3PxfFl. | |||
| :''Links to web directories are generally not recommended. However, as an alternative to adding a long list of external links that meet guidelines, a link to a directory, preferably an open source, is acceptable. The ] is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{tl|dmoz}} template.'' - ] 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A ] reference may look like this: | |||
| ::Caltech, that is ''exactly'' what prompted the challenge to the wording. A long list of ELs need to be dealt by asking involved editors to pair down the list to a few links based on ], use the material on these links as sources for the article, and applying editors; best judgment to these endeavors. ] <small>]</small> 15:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Plunkett, John. , ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, ] December 4th, 2006. | |||
| :::Jossi, I believe the specific reference to and recommendation of DMOZ in the guidelines was what prompted this discussion and subsequently the use of directories as external links. If you look at the first part of this discussions weeks ago, you'll see what I mean. I used your suggested wording of the use of DMOZ in the above proposal, but with a reversal of the slant regarding the use of links to directories in general. Further, there is nothing in this wording that prevents editors from paring a long list on their own. ] 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Very good. It addresses the points raised, and includes the previous consensus concept. I replaced the section added recently without consensus. We could go back to the consensus text, but this does address the concerns raised. ] 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, it does not. See ] to learn that there is no longer consensus when there are substantial arguments as presented challenging a previous consensus. ] <small>]</small> 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Read what you referenced. It doesn't say you can add text you want because you don't like other text, which you then remove. If no consensus on new text can be achieved, then EITHER the old text stays or the old text is removed. Adding completely different text that plainly has no consensus is ridiculous. ] 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I really believe that saying, ''Web directories may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline.'' addresses 2005's and Calltech's concerns. Again, almost no link are generally recommended -- directories included. Further the ''alternative to a long list of links'' implies that dmoz would replace the list, also inappropriate. A few key links plus a dmoz category is ''fine'', in my opinion, but should not be championed as recommended. '''∴''' ]…] 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We aren't going to have silly text in the guideline that says "sites of one kind should be evaluated like other sites." Duh, so let's move off that tangent please. Mindender's current edit addresses the issues. ] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::" Sayig "Duh" and saying "ridiculous" is not a useful way to present your arguments. There is no longer consensus on your favorite version, and we are trying to reach a compromise given the numerous comments on this page for such need. ] <small>]</small> 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Jossi, the top of the guideline says '''Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus.''' Please abide by that. The text is now at the last version that had a consensus. if you say a consensus no longer exists, add that it is disputed, but '''do not''' make changes to this guideline that you know very well do not reflect consensus. Please follow the instruction at the top of the guideline and behave in a resonsible manner. ] 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The wording by ] addresses the fact that DMOZ is suitable for inclusion. Let's not add ''directives'' to a guideline. Guidelines are there to explain policies, not to tell editors how to fight spam. ] <small>]</small> 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not sure I understand your objection to using a directory as an alternative to a bunch of links, what is it? --] 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::At this point there seems to be no objection other than apparent stubborn obstructionism. I've returned the text to the last stable version before this unfortunate incident began. ] 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't think Mindbinder's wording is great, but I don't think it's terrible either. I would prefer something that was clearer that long lists aren't acceptable (instead of this simply being an alternative) and that this is for cases where consensus building has failed. I appreciate the usefulness of having explicit steps in the guidelines for articles where editors are simply looking for any excuse to include links. -- ] 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::'''A web directory may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link. Since long link lists should be avoided, in cases where many external links meet the guideline one option for editors to consider would be to make use of a well-chosen link to a directory. The ] is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{tl|dmoz}} template.''' ] 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Sorry, but no. After all the discussions and concerns raised, you cannot just go back to the disputed version. I have restored the last compromise version. And I would also appreciate if you ''stop'' describing other editors efforts as "obstructionism", unless you want other to describe yours as "trolling". Let's continue in looking for a compromise version that we can call consensus. ] <small>]</small> 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Sorry but yes. After all the discussions you simply can not make these changes without getting a consensus. At this point your actions have moved beyond raw arrogance to bordering on vandalism. DO NOT CHANGE THIS GUIDELINE WITHOUT GAINING A CONSENSUS. Stop acting like you can just bully things to be your way. Others of us have been working on achieving consensus wording while you simply change and move and alter things however you please, despite having exactly no one supporting your position now. The guideline is being changed back, again, to the version that had been in place for SIX MONTHS. Please contribute to the discussion to change the wording, but not change this guideline without a clear consensus to do so. ] 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That could work too, it avoides the "alternative" wording, but implies that every article for which there are lots of links ought to have a directory. I also wonder if it really provide the sort of clear wording you need when working with entrenched link-adders? Could we consider leaving off '''A web directory may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link''', since this effectively says evaluate links in accordance with this guideline, site this under "Important points to remember": '''Long lists of links are not appropriate. Where editors have not reached consensus on a small list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory should be used until consensus can be reached. The ] is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{tl|dmoz}} template.''' -- ] 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Alternatively, in addition to the ] URL, the original URL might be given: | |||
| :::::::::::::Your text sounds fine to me. ] 03:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Thanks, Siobhan. I think we are pretty close. I would be happy with this tweak to your proposal: ] <small>]</small> 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{quotation|Long lists of links are not appropriate, ]. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the EL section with the {{tl|linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on a small list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory could be used until consensus can be reached. The ] is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{tl|dmoz}} template.}} | |||
| ::::::::::::::: Hey, that looks pretty good. Nice tossing in of the ] to stress policy. What is the definition of "a small list of links?" (] 07:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: I don't think we can define a "small list", it's going to be different for different articles. If we put in a number large enough for our bigger, mainstream articles it could easily be seen as a traget for articles that only have a couple of lines of content. If we make it small enough that even our stubs wouldn't be overwhelmed it will look ridiculous because our feature articles often have quite significant lists - but it's a small number for the article. -- ] 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::: I wasn't suggesting the addition of hard number. In this case it is probably best to be vague. I was just curious what others thought since someone in the future is bound to question it. To me a "small list" is less than 10 external links. (] 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: I think those tweaks are a good improvement. -- ] 12:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I asked this earlier but no one replied, perhaps the question was not seen. Just to test for what we mean by "directory", would About.com pages be considered directories? Now and then I see them on article pages and while I personally dislike about.com because of its aggressive advertising and popup ads, other editors have challenged me when I have tried to remove it. So what exactly is a directory? ] 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Plunkett, John. , ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, original URL: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html, ] December 4th, 2006. | |||
| ::::::::::::I don't consider about.com to be a directory. I think of directories as pages that list related entities of some sort and provide contact information for them (for most of the directories we're likely to use this is normally a URL). Those "entities" could be organizations, but are most likely to be informational websites about a subject. -- ] 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I don't think many people would describe About.com as a ]. The ] doesn't, and I can't remember ever seeing it on the ]. The site has some good content, but it may also have an objectionable amount of advertising. | |||
| Alternatively, the cited URL can also be retained as part of the link to webcitation, to keep the cited URL explicit and to allow easy reverting to the original URL should this be desired: | |||
| ::::::::::::I also think "should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link" is needlessly wordy. Every external link needs to be evaluated, so the addition is essentially meaningless. I prefer the existing "a web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article" wording. Including the word category is important, because it indicates that contributors should add subpages of quality directories, and not the front pages of unknown vertical directories - ] 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, ] December 4th, 2006, archived URL: | |||
| ==Adding news articles to external links== | |||
| ] ] some news articles (from yahoo, fox news, etc) to several wikipedia articles , without actually adding any text new to the article. I don't think we should be doing this. It just leads to a long list of external links. Instead, they should be added to the talk page or not added at all, if it doesn't tell the reader anything new. If they are used as references, it should be placed inline with the text. I don't know what the guideline says of this. Any comments? ] 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You got it right: If these are possible sources for an article, add them as sources. I would suggest you move these links to talk, and invite editors to evaluate them and augment the article's content based on these sources. ] <small>]</small> 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Note that a specialized service such as ] is recommended because archives such as the ] based on crawlers only archive a subsection of the web, and do so pretty randomly and arbitrarily, not allowing "on-demand" archiving like ]. Although the Internet Archive invites URL suggestions, it often takes as much as 6 months before the suggested URL is actually archived. | |||
| :: ] 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reliable sources often fall under the guideline of what we should be linking to. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Also note that caching on the Internet is frequently done and does ''not'' constitute a copyright violation (see also ). | |||
| I think news article links are certainly by their nature going to be better types of links than most links put on articles, so barring some other unstated reason (too many links already?) I can;t for the life of me see why you wouldn;t want them there. If they are falsely listed as sources and have not been used as sources, then don;t have them in a Sources section, but don;t removed news article links from External links just because they are news articles. That sounds backwards to me. ] 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That certainly does sound backwards to ]. Check his edit history. He regularly deletes large, informative, encyclopedic websites in favor of new articles that have little or no information found in the article and are often only a few paragraphs long. He's on a mission to clean out large numbers of external links that aren't news articles or professor home pages. ] 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| An increasing number of scholarly journals and publishers ask for web references to be "webcited" (replaced with a WebCite link) before submission (see for example ). | |||
| ::No, actually, I regularly delete large, websites that are UNRELIABLE, UNSOURCED, and often SHEER SPAM. The fact you continue to dispute these changes whereever they happen shows you don't understand the entire concept of the external links policy. If there are large sites that have actual RELIABLE and sources information, they certainly can stay whether they are news articles or sites by professors or whatever. But an encyclopedia simply cannot refer readers off to pages thrown together by people with no credentials or demonstrated knowledge whatsoever. It's completely irresponsible. ] 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cheaters Detective Agency == | |||
| ---- | |||
| References to information that doesn't exist on external links pages are being made up by ]. Please see ]. Is this the appropriate section to make that complaint? Can the ] and ] pages be locked from editing please? I don't know how to approach this and this person is destroying my first works on Misplaced Pages. ] 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] please? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alibond has had similar confrontations with others on ] when someone has attempted to contribute unbiased information, and he once posted a request for others to help him attack me. If you have time, please review the discussions on the articles mentioned and ] contributions on Misplaced Pages. Under these circumstances it is impossible for anyone to contribute meaningful unbiased information to ] and ]. | |||
| ::The information Alibond is referring to was pulled by me off of the website owned by Cheaters Detective Agency. It was changed on the company's website soon after Alibond first commented on it. | |||
| (new proposed section ends here) | |||
| ::'''I changed it from this''': Revision as of 00:08, 17 April 2007 Cheaters Detective Agency is a group of private investigators featured on, and licensed by the Cheaters television show. | |||
| ] 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''To this:''' Revision as of 12:11, 24 April 2007 Cheaters Detective Agency is a group of private investigators featured on, and licensed by the Cheaters television show.. '''The company is no longer actively accepting new assignments. Instead they are focused on providing business and marketing support to independently licensed agencies.''' My reference was the firm's website: http://www.cdacase.com/cda/License%20Interest%20page.html | |||
| :Two problems: | |||
| :*Who pays for it? From their FAQ:''<blockquote>Who is going to pay for this?<br>There are various possible models to cover the ongoing costs of operations. The most likely model is that publishers will pay a membership fee (similar to PILA/CrossRef membership fees) to have their cited webreferences archived. There is no fee for authors. Readers from publishers/journals who are WebCite® members will also have free access to archived material, unless publishers opt to charge their readers or to make this is value added service for subscribers only.</blockquote>'' | |||
| :*The original URL is lost in the process of citation. We should use something where we give both the webcitation/etc URL AND the original URL, and both are visible/clickable by the user. This allows us to handle webcitation/whomever disappearing or suddenly charging. | |||
| :The suggestion should also allow for other/future citation services. Note that the above FAQ entry strongly implies we shouldn't rely on them to provide free access without some negotiation. | |||
| : — ] 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Regarding the question "Who pays for it?": WebCite is used and supported by over 200 academic journals, as well as permanent preservation partners, such as libraries - whose primary mission really is archiving and preserving material. U of T library, which backs this project, will certainly be around for the next hundreds of years. The academic journals who are members of the consortium are using WebCite to cite URLs in their print and electronic journals and books, and they have a vested interest in keeping this service alive. Together, they act a guarantors and custodians for the service. Yes, you can wait 50 years to see if WebCite is still around, but then it is too late to preserve cited material. Besides, no harm is done in caching cited URLs prospectively beginning right ''now''. | |||
| ::'''This is how my reference read on the Cheaters' web site when I retrieved it:''' | |||
| ::*Regarding the criticism that the "original URL is lost", this is not correct. See . The alternative format www.webcitation.org/?url=URL&date=DATE can be used to link to snapshots, i.e. the original cited URL is part of the WebCite URL (as opposed to the short format www.webcitation.org/ID using the snapshot ID, which is used by print journals because they want to avoid too long URLs in the references). Using this format it can always be reverted to the original link with citation date ''should'' WebCite cease to exist. I made some changes to the proposal above mentioning the possibility to retain the cited URL as part of the link to WebCite --] 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*The webcite faq states that publishers will bear at least a part of the burden. Is webcite granting an exception in the case of wikipedia? If seeking wikipedia's usage, I would recommend a FAQ item be added directly addressing the wikipedia community. Widespread wikipedia usage would likely multiply webcite usage, yet payment is not an issues? | |||
| :::*Regardless, requiring or even recommending webcite is not likely to happen at this point in time. At best, a one-sentence reference to ] might be included somewhere in this guideline as an option for citations where a snapshot is sought. Why to prefer webcite over competing services such as Hanzo, spurl, etc is also an open question. I'm not recommending against its usage, but I do not support adding the above proposed recommendation for url citations. Does anyone think usage should be actively discouraged? '''∴''' ]…] 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Yes, Cheaters Detective Agency is Licensed, and in good standing, as a Private Investigative company in the State of CA under the CA Dept of Consumer affairs license# 2532. Although we maintain an active investigative license '''we are not actively accepting new work at this time, Instead we are completely focused on providing advertising, marketing, and investigative business support to licensed investigative agencies''' who choose to join the expanding Cheaters national brand, as independently licensed and operated offices.'' | |||
| ::::If we mention webcite-type services, we should indicate that some sort of standard format for citation be used that provides the user of Misplaced Pages with both the cached page and the uncached URL directly (not having to go in an hand-edit the URL). In most if not all cases, the original URL would be preferred unless/until the original URL no longer contains the information. Something like: | |||
| ::::*Plunkett, John. (), ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005 | |||
| :::: — ] 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* '''In response:''' ] is financially supported by academic for-profit print-publishers, who are using this service for their scholarly journals. Misplaced Pages is ''not in that category'' (and WebCite can give this in writing to anybody who asks, that there will be never costs for Misplaced Pages). I am not sure if Hanzo and Spurl allow on-demand archiving and linking to a specific publicly available snapshot the way WebCite does. In any case, I do understand that Wiki can and should not endorse a specific archiving provider (I wrote "a specialized service ''such as'' ] is recommended" just to highlight the difference between on-demand archiving and archiving with crawlers, which is what Internet Archive and Hanzo do). I also support the suggestion of making it more explicit how archived versions should be cited, independently from the archiving service (should there be others).--] 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''This is the same paragraph on the Cheaters' web site today:''' | |||
| :::::::I have no problem with editors caching articles via WebCite (or whomever) if WebCite indicates they encourage this. It could be a rather noticable strain on them, in theory. I anticipate that some WP editors will start caching all citations as a matter of course, especially when the source is in any way empheral (and the web is in general empheral, so...). So a) we shouldn't encourage use of a specific citing service without their prior acquiescence, and b) we really should create (under ]) standards for how to cite cached articles. As per above, we should normally give precedence to original URLs, and include the cache as a separate link. If the original URL disappears or the information cited goes away, we should convert our citation to reflect that and give precedence to the cache, but retain the original URL. | |||
| :::::::This discussion really belongs at ]. — ] 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've been causing ] too much trouble on this ;), based on ], but it is clear the intentions are good and the Misplaced Pages namespace is perhaps less strict for Conflict of interest. If a few other editors would weigh in on if, how and where to place guidelines on usage, I would support a limited guideline on caching pages. I expect Eysen can personally vouch for WebCite's interest. '''∴''' ]…] 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The criterion should be that, though we prefer OpenSource, that we use the most reliable method that does not involve expense to the users, and that if an Opensource solution is available that is of similar functionality, that we use it as well as sooon as it appears stable. ] 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW WebCite has expressed its commitment to Open Source a year ago, as follows: "How can scholars and publishers who opt to use WebCite be sure that the webcitation permalinks themselves will never be broken, that webcitation.org will never disappear? The answer is threefold: First, through the largest possible degree of “openness”: All WebCite code is Open Source, and all documentation is licensed under Creative Commons licenses. Secondly, through collaborations with libraries (...)" --] 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Yes, Cheaters Detective Agency is Licensed, and in good standing, as a Private Investigative company in the State of CA under the CA Dept of Consumer affairs license# 25322. '''Although we maintain an active investigative license, generally cases are directed to our nearest licensed office. We act as the headquarters office and also conducts most of the advertising, marketing, and investigative business support to many licensed investigative agencies''' who have chose to join the expanding Cheaters national brand, as independently licensed and operated offices.'' | |||
| == Recently Created Another Shortcut == | |||
| ::Google's cache still contains the text as I first found it: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ZM6mbWvAtlwJ:www.cdacase.com/cda/License%2520Interest%2520page.html+Yes,+Cheaters+Detective+Agency+is+Licensed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us | |||
| I recently created another shortcut link to this article called ] however, due to the recent editing dispute could not add it here. Once this dispute is resolved would editors consider adding it? Thanks.] <font color="purple">]</font> 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I referred to the same page when deleting a link to ] on ] and I explained why in the discussion forum for that article (in the section "Cheaters Detective Agency"). I also deleted an 800 number and a link to a Cheaters business opportunity that Alibond had placed on ], I explained why in detail on the discussion forum for ]. ] 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Update: Administrator ] took care of it.] <font color="purple">]</font> 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Ratemyteachers.com & Studentsreview.com== | |||
| ==solutions for WebCites== | |||
| Are there other services? Then we could more realistically say "such as " or could even use a device like the page for listing numerous sources. The advantage of being able to provide permanently usable link is so enormously great that it might justify some stretching of the usual criteria if necessary. I do not follow this closely enought to know, but, assuming goood faith, and recognizing that your solution has been launched as buch for the general benefit as well as the commercial, I ask Eysen whether there are good alternatives besides the two mentioned.] 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have been removing links to Ratemyteachers.com from school articles on the basis of criteria 2 and 11 in ]: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." and "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." | |||
| ==Malicious links== | |||
| Recently on ] there was a question regarding malicious external links (see ]). The anon reported that the site www.jt.org gave them spyware when they wanted Saturday Night Live (naturally I haven't tested the site myself but McAffee site advisor thinks it's ok however they hadn't tested any downloads so it may have spyware anyway). I did a linksearch and it gave 190 results. I'm wondering, is there policy on malicious links other than to just delete them as spam? If so I think it should be clear on the External links page. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Try at ]. These sites, if harmful, can be blacklisted (preventing these links from being uploaded into Misplaced Pages). -- ] 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, the site has been reported to the spam blacklist at meta. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A couple of times other editors have replaced the links, claiming that RMT.com is appropriate. I just don't agree with that and I wonder if I'm behind the times. I can't find any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline about it besides the two that I've cited above. Has this been discussed anywhere? Why do people think that it's more acceptable to link to than a blog? <span style="color:DarkGray;">...</span> ] <sub>]</sub> 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Templates with external links== | |||
| :Seems like a well founded decision to me. There is no reason to link this site from school articles. Carry on ;). '''∴''' ]…] 23:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sometimes users create templates holding external links and then include the templates in several articles. Some examples are ] and ]. I suggest adding a note in the guideline stating this is frowned upon. Although people think it makes easier to keep track and update external links, they are also a magnet for spammers, who can add their links to many articles with just one edit. In fact, external links should be discouraged from templates at all. -- ] 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A similar site, www.studentsreview.com, should alo be removed when found. -] · ] · 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Another Wiki Suggestion == | |||
| ::Agree. Here are the links: and . ] <small>]</small> 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have cleaned up a few. Seems that one editor added exactly the same OR sentence with a link to ratemyteacher.com. ] <small>]</small> 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I tend to disagree with this 'policy'. Criteria 2 doesn't seem to be met as I don't feel they fall in to the 'factually inaccurate or misleading' or 'unverifiable' category. How do you determine the collective information provided by these review sites is any more accurate or any less misleading than any information provided by the schools themselves? Same with US News & World Report and other review sources. These links can provide useful information about schools, both positive and not-so-glowing. They also are independent of the school, so not controlled by the school. Criteria 11 doesn't seem to fit, either. These aren't blogs, they're collective reviews and/or ratings. Would we also ban links to Consumer Reports because of their reviews? How about any reference to book, movie, music, or other reviews? In the case of some schools, there is little meaningful and useful information released by the school aside from the occasional self-promoting press release, so sites and sources such as these, USNews, etc. provide a useful service. ] 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I know wikis have been discussed above, but there appears to be a hole in the wiki EL restriction as currently written. | |||
| ::I'd agree with removing these. They aren't really a source of information, just a site where people can log on and make whatever comments they want, true or not. I don't see how these sites are any more relevant than linking to a forum or collection of blog responses. This isn't comparable to consumer reports or other published reviews, since in those cases we have an author/publication of the reviews - in this case it's just a collection of anonymous posts. --] 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reputable publications have their ''imprimatur'', while a collection of user generated content without an editorial process does not. We cannot attribute these reviews to these websites, as these websites are not responsible for user generated content. We can also not attribute the material to individual reviewers as these are anonymous. Thus, deleting these links is appropriate as per ] and this guideline. ] <small>]</small> 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." | |||
| :::] is about <i>inclusion</i> in WP and is irrelevant here. | |||
| ::::--] 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, note our policy of ]. The criteria for inclusion in WP is not "to provide a useful service", but to provide material that is verifiable and published in reliable sources. ] <small>]</small> 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There are wikis that are stable with many users that openly request self-promoting articles and appear to have minimal editorial review. These are primarily commercial wikis. www.voip-info.org is one of these - they actually discourage editing someone else's article if you are a competitor. I've seen numerous articles on WP with links citing this particular wiki, where the same author wrote the information in both places - not exactly NPOV. Perhaps an additional EL restriction might apply. | |||
| :::These are usefull sites for sure, but they arn't quite the things that wikipedia's school articles should be linking to either... --]-] 08:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * "Links to any self-publishing websites where guidelines are not in place or enforced that restrict the promotion of products, services or other websites. ] 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Surely this is a ''guideline''. As such, any local consensus of editors can override it, and people on link cleaning missions should respect that consensus, except where this guidline is a reflection of policy. I don't think this guideline gives editors authority to remove links favoured by a local consensus, no matter how neat and tidy it may be to remove all links of a given class, or to a given contentious site. Or am I wrong? ] 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The addition isn't necessary since the wiki shouldn't be linked on the grounds of advertising and POV. Just go ahead and delete the links. --] 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :But what do you mean by "local consensus"? <span style="color:DarkGray;">...</span> ] <sub>]</sub> 12:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it not the case that each article is effectively governed by the editors who choose to edit it and participate in discussions on its talk page, and that this is where a (local) consensus is formed; furthermore that this is the only consensus that counts (subject to policy)? ] 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Local consensus is just another way of saying people ignoring what should be done by vote stacking. Local consensus is nonsense. Consensus should always be based upon the overall consensus of the encyclopedia, when known. On issues that have not been brought up elsewhere, going with a local consensus may work for lack of anything better to do, but when a broader consensus and guideline and policy comes about, that always is what people need to follow. ] 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| These kinds of websites certainly do not ate mentioning in any article unless the existence or content of a page on one of them somehow because newsworthy related to the topic. For example, if some teacher sues some site about such a page, or gets fired because of it. Otherwise it's just pure unencyclopedic nonsense, and likely to be spam as well. ] 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wikivideolinks.org, cause for concern?== | |||
| :"Local consensus" means that people who have staying power in editing an article and who care enough to comment on the article's talk page probably have a better idea of which external links are most appropriate on a subject than does a drive-by editor on a mission to clean out all links that don't meet his personal interpretation of ]. External links are NOT sources and should not always be held up to the same standards as sources unless they are also used in that way (in which case, they should probably be deleted from the external links section to avoid duplication). Otherwise, we end up with great, informative and large websites deleted in favor of short, uninformative websites that happen to be BBC News articles or the rantings of some professor. People who regularly edit an article and are informed about a topic should have some idea as to whether an external link is a useful resource, unreliable bunk, or spam. ] 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Cause for concern? I recently an editor linking to a site called and it gave me pause. Given the stricter and stricter view about licensed content that ] is promulgating should we be hesitant to be linking to a Wiki like this where we do not have better control of what content is linked to? ''(]])'' 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, local consensus means a small handful of people whoi think they ] an article regularly ignore policy. And you're the prime example of this. And your wikistalking me everywhere is getting really annoying. ] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, let's run with this a bit. Suppose you or I remove an external link from an article, citing this guideline. It is consistently reverted by one of many of the regular editors of the article, who simply state "no consensus for change". Attempts to raise it on the talk page come to the same conclusion. What would your next move be? Is there some grounds for warning each and every one of the editors, and if so, what is the warning? Or is there somewhere we can recruit an angry mob to change the balance of consensus in the article? ] 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Talking about this in an abstract way, rather than in relation to a specific case, you might start by considering whether the consensus of the regular editors is appropriate and that this guideline should be over-ruled in that instance. There are no warnings for people acting in good faith who disagree with your opinion on what's appropriate. If you still think it's an unreasonable link, to the extent you're not comfortable with it staying, you can ask for a ], or post on an appropriate WikiProject or some other ''neutral'' place to get input. Of course it doesn't mean the new editors will support you over the regular editors. -- ] 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == City/State listings == | |||
| :Seems to be a new wiki, no owner stated, no disclaimers, no editors, etc.(see http://wikivideolinks.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30) I would consider that wiki to be one of these we should not be linking to, as per avoiding ''Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.'' ] <small>]</small> 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would like clarification on whether or not information links like Starting a Business, Small Business Community, Small business Administration, Office of the Secretary of State etc are valid links. for example: | |||
| :I have removed all links to that wiki from five articles. ] <small>]</small> 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks Jossi... I suspected that'd be the proper course of action. ''(]])'' 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Business''' | |||
| == Rewrite item 1. == | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| I would have thought no one would think not. But I was mistaken. Is this valid content? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| Item 1 of this policy reads ''Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.'' | |||
| :I checked your contribution history, and you appear to have added the same set of links to the articles on about 20 different towns in Minnesota. The above four links seem to have the common theme of 'starting a small business in Minnesota.' Since they have a how-to aspect, I would argue they don't belong anywhere, per ]. If they go anywhere, I argue it should be only in the ] article. Links to four articles on how to start a business don't help anyone interested in Rochester, MN learn more about Rochester. So they don't have encyclopedic value. ] 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That makes sense, I've submitted them to ] Thanks ] | |||
| I disagree with this. For many users the external links are the most valuable section of any article as it provides the quickest to find the most informative and authoritative pages on the web for that topic. ] means that Misplaced Pages itself can never be the most authoritative source on any topic. On most topics we are not the most informative either since we exclude non-encyclopedic information. | |||
| :Thanks for your response. I respectfully suggest that you remove these links from the individual towns. And would it be possible for you to put something on your user page, at ]? Since this page is blank, this makes your signature show up as a red link, which sometimes suggests inexperience. ] 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal on BAN of links to Political Party websites == | |||
| I would like to rewrite the para above as: | |||
| IO thought this up while thinking up a response on the talk page of ]. I'll make this quick and to the point: I propose a ban on all external links to political party sites, their affiliates/non-profits/caucuses/ect (with one exception, the parties article should have a link to a home page because that is relevant) . The reasons for include that parties (esp. opposition) are very likely to publish things against other parties, possibly fugging the details in the process. All in all, they are not ever a source of NPOV, and a link to a news site is better in every case. Anyone? Comments? -]<small>(]·])</small> 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''As Misplaced Pages is not generally to be considered a reliable source therefore links to the most authoritative and informative external sources should be provided.'' | |||
| :In general, this is a bad idea as a policy. Why should be intuitively obvious. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Links to outside sources do not have to be NPOV, the POV of the site just has to be apparent to anyone going there, which it definitely would be in these cases. A political party website is pro-their own party, obviously. Banning the very sites most directly representing the view of the topic of the article is a horrible, horrible idea. What's next, removing all the company home pages from articles about those companies because they are pro-themselves? IT's completely unworkable and not at all what the External links policy is about. ] 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I mean when parties publish articles on their website who's only purpose is to attack the other parties, then someone will go and put it in the article and reference it (and people should know that referencing to a basic propaganda site can't pass RS). Do we need to put every rumour that the Democrats post on their site about the Republicans on ]? No, of course not! We already follow this (for the most part) by not doing this. We might just want to formalize it so that newbies can understand right away that they can't (instead of politely asking them 20 times not to link to the site, followed by a block for linkspam). | |||
| ::And of course you link the party from the article (if you actually read my post and not just the title you'd see that). I have ''not'' proposed removing all links, just the ones not relevant to topics (like on ] saying "the Democrats say this and this about the Republicans). Now please go re-read this several times so that I don't have to repeat myself later and you accuse me of asking to ban external links from relevant articles. -]<small>(]·])</small> 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds like you are arguing not about removing links from External links but from not allowing biased sources as citations for claims of fact. Of course biased references should not be treated as factual, but they can be used to cite proof that someone has made a claim. Reporting that people make biased claims is not being biased yourself, it's just reporting the facts. Now of course some claims are minor enough that including them at all is "undie weight" per NPOV policy, but that has to be hashed out at the article level. Banning all political sites just is completely unworkable. ] 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Official websites == | |||
| Is there absolutely no exception to the inclusion of official websites. I know EL guidelines state, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity '''should''' link to the official site if any." (emphasis added), but is "should" all-inclusive regardless of what the official website has to offer. Either way, it would be nice if the guidelines were modified to clarify the issue. | |||
| I agree that for a comprehensive list we should refer to DMOZ however I think we should always have a '''Further Reading''' section and for most articles this should have links to '''selected''' wikipedia, online and offline resources. Even if the web page has no more information than the wikipedia page it should still be included if it is the most authoritative page. If there is another page with more information but less authoritative (e.g. a fan page or a gossip page) then I believe it should also be included if it is among the best of it's type. | |||
| The reason I am asking is that I recently found myself caught up in a dispute regarding an official website. Basically, I didn't believe a website that offers very little about a person other than promoting his/her products/services should be added to that person's '''biographical''' article. | |||
| I believe every external reference should have a short commentary describing what you can expect to find on that page and highlighting any drawback (''Example.com often has unofficial advance information about products from this company however it is not always correct''). I believe this requirement for half a line of descriptive text, stating why the link is relevant to that page, could be a big help in combating spam. ] 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Similarly, I don't believe the Microsoft official website should be on ]'s article, otherwise one could argue that the Microsoft website should be added to every article related to Microsoft, and doing so would add unnecessary redundancy — almost to point of giving a *spammy* feeling to wikipedia, which I know is not the intent. | |||
| :If "Misplaced Pages is not generally to be considered a reliable source", how could its selection of External links be reliable? I think you are missing the notion that, when we find a better article than ours, it should be used as a source to improve our article. | |||
| :That said, I think the idea that links should have an honest line of descriptive text associated with them would be good, though I worry about enforcement, not to mention edit wars over the description. -- ] | ] 15:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Anyhow, I am not trying to carry on the previous dispute here, as the matter was settled through consensus and I shall respect the outcome, but as I have mentioned earlier, I would appreciate if some clarification was made in the guidelines to avoid such matters in the future. — ] <small>(])</small> 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == External links dispute - probably resolved but with a disgruntled new user == | |||
| :If the site is the official site then I can see very few reasons why you wouldn't link to it from the article. In the examples you gave I would definitely link to the sites. That doesn;t make Misplaced Pages spammy, providing that the article isn't spam in the first place. If the article meets Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion then a link (one link, more than that, say to other parts of the same site, is spammy) is certainly called for in all but extreme circumstances (illegal content, etc.)<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| ::By "spammy" I meant in cases where the official website is attached to 100 articles, or possibly more. As mentioned, I know the intention by the individual poster was probably not to spam, but rather to make a seemingly very legitimate edit. Yet, taking all into consideration, it does feel like an ingenious method of circumventing our spamming policies. | |||
| ::Again, that is just my point of view, so if the consensus is to keep the status quo, it's fine with me. However, I would like, if possible, to have this reflected into the actual guidelines including the exceptional cases you've noted above so that it becomes easier to argue a point if a similar case arises in the future. | |||
| ::Lastly, if you feel this is an isolated case and that it's unlikely to recur, then I'm fine with keeping the current form of the external links guidelines as well. — ] <small>(])</small> 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If an individual has an official website then it probably should be linked to. Linking to the home page of the Microsoft website from articles on Microsoft products or from Bill Gates doesn't seem so appropriate - I'd say a link to a product's page (or page about Bill Gates - depending on its content) on the Microsoft site would probably be appropriate and a wikilink to the Microsoft article (which I would hope would be in the main body of text). If you're talking about a big organization, it's conceivable there are products etc. out there where the manufacturer no longer has any info on their website about it. In those cases I don't see the point in linking to the company's website if we have a Wikipediia article on the company - just wikilink to the company article instead. But I think those are uncommon circumstances and are best dealt with by building a consensus on the talk page about what is best for readers. There maybe respected fan sites or an archive that provide good info, or the company's site may be the best think for some other reason. -- ] 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == while we're talking about 'web directories'... botw.org == | |||
| Could an person experienced in handling new user's thoughts on addition of external links to Misplaced Pages take a look at ] and give some feedback on how this might have been handled better - or if it was at all appropriately handled? Thanks - I'm sure I will encounter this kind of thing again in the future and having some feedback on this incident would be useful. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What is the general consensus on the quality & relevance of ] ? It has been in existence for a long time, but has relatively few links here. Is it a possible alternative to DMOZ? I ask because over the last few days, it has been added to about a dozen pages by a small number of users ( ] ). This type of activity normally suggests the link in question is being spammed, but I'm a fan of "intelligent use of quality web directories" and most of the pages it was added to are subjects that(IMHO) could use a directory link. --] 17:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why? == | |||
| :I'm not in favor of allowing this commercial directory because it requires payment ($200 one time or $70/year ) to get your site listed and displays advertiser sites first. ] 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Here is one of the main link builders ] who today alone has added 14 links to BOTW. ] 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Why the immediate reversion after unprotection? ] <small>]</small> 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Because it was the previous consensus wording, which it should be obvious is the starting point for any changes, including the changes now being more productively discussed. ] 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Wow, that is some serious spamming. Looks like it is all cleaned up now. I've been sitting on the fence post about this DMOZ debate. There definitely has to be some wording about non-commercial directories or we are going to have more of this kind of thing. I can see it now, a spamming link farmer will point to ] as a defense. (] 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| I have attempte to merge the two different formulations. A bit wordy, maybe, but it hopefully reflects all points discussed. ] <small>]</small> 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Careful where you throw that "s" word around. I was merely adding relevant external links in a manner consistent with how other external links were being applied. Not some irrelevant links. And as I stated earlier (below), if there is a decision that this is no bueno, that would be the last you see of these. We are most certainly not looking to spam your project, or hinder your efforts in any way. ] 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe it is a bit wordy and could be tweaked, but it seems okay to me, though I continue to wish you would respect an orderly process and not make "un-consenused" changes to a page that says it is a consensus. In this case it seems wording similar to what you added has consensus but a couple days wait would have been appropriate. ] 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Sorry about that. Didn't intend to be throwing that "s" word around in front of, uhh, <i>exuberant linkers.</i> This ] page is for talking about the policy of <i>external links.</i> Someone should open up a botw.org thread over at ]. (] 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ::There was no such consensus. So rather than keep reverting, with the unfortunate consequence of the article being protected, offering a version that may be agreeable is a better option. ] <small>]</small> 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course there was, literally all year long until you started trying to force your opinion in the guideline. Just because you disagree, today, doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus, and a very longstanding one at that. Consensus is not something that can be invalidated because someone comes in and disagrees. You disagree with the previous consensus of the page, which briefly stated, does not include some text you want included. That means you now need to gain a consensus to include it, which again obviously does not exist since the majority of the comments on this page don't want to include it. So again, if some concept has not been in the document previously, you need to get a consensus before adding it back, especially again and again. The top of the page reads "The consensus of many editors...". Please respect that. ] 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :With the help of an assistant, I have been trying to add the listings in a manner that we felt added to the quality of the page. The BOTW directory has a lot of categories, and we are by no means attempting to add category pages that don't contribute as a resource to the wiki page. Additionally, we have been adding them to pages that already contain a relevant DMOZ listings as well, so the external link isn't coming from out of left field. Each of the BOTW category pages that were added as an external link went to a category that contains pretty comprehensive resources for the subject matter. And yes, we are a commercial directory - just as the Yahoo directory is a commercial directory. We do not require that you pay to "get your site listed", but we do offer an expedited review fee for those who wish to submit their site. On the flip side, we employ a team of editors that include tens of thousands of sites on a weekly basis at no cost to the site owner - simply to build a comprehensive resource of quality sites. As fellow netizens, we respect what it is you are trying to do, and certainly do not want to interfere with the project. We would love to be included in the "intelligent use of quality web directories", but should the consensus decide otherwise, I will of course refrain from adding additional links going forward. ] 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You may be misinformed. The wording about which I contend was not reflecting consensus was added circa October 22nd 2006. See the consensus version ]. ] <small>]</small> 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::You are by definition spamming the Misplaced Pages. Please read this guideline and stop adding any links to your directory. Any of the links you added should be reverted. ] 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Having looked at ] and the BOTW link that was added today to the ] article, I agree that all these links should be undone, per ], 'Links normally to be avoided'. ] 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The wording that was added on mid October was never in the guideline either. The current version, reflects the spirit of the guideline and reflects the discussions we had her over the last few weeks. If you believe that it does not, please propose an alternative wording. ] <small>]</small> 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Since you don't say what, I don't know what you are refering to, but regardless of what may or may not have been added previously, there is still no reason to add entirely new concepts not discussed in any way. That has been the issue. ] 08:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unclear sentence== | |||
| == How to link section == | |||
| I moved this from the links to be avoided section, because I can't figure out what it means. ] ] 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Quotation|Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a ].}} | |||
| I've recently started using the {{t1|cite web}} template even for external links. IMHO it is better than using the simple syntax because it enforces standardisation (which looks more elegant and professional), as well as providing the editor with fields such as author, title, work, etc. This encourages them to use the exact page title (or an abbreviated form of it) and to include as much detail as they can, which again looks more professional. Compare these two links for the ]: | |||
| * | |||
| * {{cite web | title=2007 S2000 - The Official Honda Web Site | work=American Honda Motor Co. | date=2006 | url=http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=S2000 | accessdate=2006-12-11}} | |||
| I think this suggestion should be added and IMHO strongly encouraged as a preferred choice in the How to link section. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I restored it, as there was no consensus to remove it. If you get people to agree it should be removed, THEN remove it. ] 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Stupid question == | |||
| :Slimvirgin - that sentence is supposed to stop people adding links in place of writing content (i.e. putting i a link to a brief biography instead of adding the bio details to the article). Can you think of better wording that would be more easily understood? -- ] 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| We seem to say right in the intro that "professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks" are classical examples of useful/permitted external links. | |||
| Can someone explain to me why? If the article is about an athlete, can't we cite his/her stats as a valid source? If it's about a movie/TV show or a star, why can't we cite the credits? And why can't we cite interview transcripts? And why can't we cite online textbooks? IOW I don't see why all of these 'classical' examples of valid use of external links can't simply be linked and cited as a normal useful reference. Sorry if I am missing the point, but I'll be happy to be set straight. ] 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe the intro is still confusing (possibly even more confusing than before). All of those can be cited. What it means is the info is linked to because the info can't be added to the article in its entirety. For example, we can add a single stat about a baseball player. But we would want to link to a huge list of complete stats instead of putting all those stats in the article. --] 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess I am still confused. If athlete John Doe has stats in reference www.sportsstats.com, and we say "Doe has broken the 1 mile speed record 3 times <nowiki></nowiki>". We have now included the stats as a regular reference. Why do we still need to include the link as External Link? What am I missing? ] 18:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This guideline applies to sites that are used as external links but not cited. Your comment brings up another question - if a website is an appropriate source for info, does it make sense to highlight it as an external link in addition to citing it? --] 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Only in the rare and fortunate case when we actually have too many references, and official sites would be lost in the flood. See ] for an example. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agree with AnonEMouse. And I guess this is related to the equivalent question about 'See also' wikilinks - when (if ever) do we want a duplication, in both cases. And should we make an effort to always use a linked site as a cited reference before contemplating using it as EL? And then we come back to the original issue here: what are the best examples of truly needed EL's? Even the subject's own official web site, a very typical EL on WP, can be cited and used as a reference. ] 18:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Another way of saying this, SM, would be, in the positive rather than the negative would be: "Link only to these sites that are factually accurate and verifiable". Which is already addressed elsewhere in the guideline. ] <small>]</small> 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are missing that sourcing something is not a reason to "give a link to" a valuable site. Sports statistics is a classic example. You could cite that Babe Ruth hit 37 home runs in 1932, but that is an entirely separate thing from offering readers an external link to the statistics of an entire career. You are going down the same road, in an opposite direction, as spammer thinking. The point is to make useful articles for users, not find ways to get a link on a page somewhere. Just adding a sentence to an article, like Babe Ruth's shoe size, just so you can link to a very deep resource is unhelpful to users. Sources are for citing significant factual-type information. External links are for pointing users to further reading or viewing that adds to the article. They have very different purposes and should not be used interchangeably. ] 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We already have a 'Further reading' section, which as I understand it, is distinct from EL. In your example, if there was a neat web site with lots of miscellaneous stats about "the Babe", would it not make sense to add it under 'Further reading'? ] 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::EL and "further reading" are the exact same thing. It's just a different name. --] 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Except further reading can include non-linked stuff, and is sometimes used strictly for that. Crum 375, when you say "...would it not make sense to add it under 'Further reading'..." sure, just as it would make sense under "external links". I'm afraid I don't get your point. ] 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My point is that I don't think that 'Further reading' and EL sections are identical. I have seen some articles that have both. In FR they have (for example) some books about the subject. In EL they have links to related web sites. As of now I am not really sure of the distinction between these sections, what goes where, and the exact criteria as to when EL is absolutely needed as a standalone link, in addition to it being already a cited reference. ] 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Broken wikilink in normally avoided #2== | |||
| ==Fan sites== | |||
| In #2, the "See Reliable sources" points to ], which no longer exists. The text that used to be there now seems to be at ]. I'd make the change, but I only lightly follow the action here, so I'll leave it to the regulars. ] 17:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == EL to be reliable sources: Possible? == | |||
| This guideline used to restrict links to fan sites, now it doesn't. Why was that restriction removed? Now when a user adds like 10,000 links to fan sites, I don't have a guideline to point to demonstrate that it's discouraged. It allowed one link to an official fan site, which is fine, but now any unofficial fansite can be linked to without restriction. The linking to of unofficial fansites should be out back in. — ] | ] 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fan sites ''are'' restricted by all the criteria on EL. Does the site provide significant accurate info beyond the article? Does it pass all the "links to be avoided" criteria? Is it self promotion from the fansite? If a site can't be eliminated by EL itself, then maybe it should be included. And if you end up with too many fansite links, just weed them down to the best ones, the guideline certainly is clear that they should be kept to a minimum. And I don't think the guideline ever said that only "official" fansites could be linked (which is an oxymoron). Fansites aren't inherently good or bad, they need to be judged by the EL criteria just like any other website. --] 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with Milo's explanation. Most likely, "Links normally to be avoided" #13 ("Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject...") is what can be most easily applied to crufty fansites. <b>]</b> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The guideline has many restrictions, so you need to reexamine your mistatement of that. One restriction concerns adding links to sites not clearly on the topic of the article. ] 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] currently states: | |||
| I agree with Frecklefoot - what happened to the restriction against fansites; why was it removed? The word 'fan' only appears once in the policy now, where it says that an article about a rock band shouldn't link to a web site about alternative rock in general. The problem is that without a clear prohibition against fansites, fans are going to want to turn articles into web directories of their favorite fansites, and every attempt to remove these sites is going to become a bitter argument. For example, say I'm a true blue fan of ], and I want to link to six Oh My Goddess! fan sites from that article (as it has right now) because they're all such really good fan sites and I just can't choose between them - where in the policy does it ''clearly'' say I shouldn't? - ] 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *''Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. '''See Reliable sources'''.'' | |||
| Does this mean each EL link has to be a reliable source? How is that even possible to determine for a website link? RS applies to the content of an article, not to an External link. Am I correct? There is virtually no article which doesnt have a "non-reliable" link on the EL section. The criteria should be ''relevance'' and ''quality'' of the Exteral Link. I'm having a debate right with an editor over a controversial article where he some of the EL's are not reliable sources. Thats only because they're telling another viewpoint of his faith with which he doesnt agree with. If he's asked he'll reply that the information on the link is not accurate or verifiable. I disagree. This is a problem for Controversial articles, as you can see. Whats the solution for this and other cases like this? --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 23:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What is it with these strawmen? Read the guideline. The nonsense you suggest (someone adding multiple junk links) is prohibited in the guideline. Additionally your comments speak nothing to fansites any more than corporate sites. ] 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"Does this mean each EL link has to be a reliable source?" No. That passage just states that factually innacurate and unverifiable original research that misleads ALSO can't be externally linked to, and instead of defining it again, it just refers to where reliable sources define it. ] 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. What should be done in the case of controversial subjects? One group of editors will say its not accurate, the others will say it is. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Accurate in what way? 2+2=4 or Islam is the one religion of the one God? Someone can say "it is factually inaccurate to say the world is round" but that assertion of innacuracy is not demonstrably provable. A link can say Islam is the one religion of God because that presents one point of view, and can't be demonstrably shown to be innaccurate. ] 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course it has to be a reliable source. Otherwise why to link to it? EL section is not a dumping ground for material that is not compliant with WP content policies. ] <small>]</small> 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Being a "reliable source" is not the same as ]. It obviously would be stupid to have two guidelines if one was supposed to be the same as the other. Misplaced Pages external links do not have to meet the same criteria as sources. That's the current fact. If you want to propose to merge ] with ] go ahead, but that is not the status quo. ] 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Just read the lead to this guideline. It is all spelled out there: ''Misplaced Pages articles can include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.'' ] <small>]</small> 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If a site contains material that is ''factually inaccurate'' (violates ] or ''unverifiable research'' (that violates NOR and V). Remember that RS is a guideline, but ] and ] are policy. ] <small>]</small> 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What about controversial articles like those on Islam? Half of the links are critical of Islam, half are not. Half the editors will claim some links are not accurate, while the other half will say they are. So I assume if we can prove that the site is accurate, then it should stay there, correct? Thats the only way to go about it? I'll change the title of my section here, did not mean to be that dramatic about it. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The discussion should not be framed around the critical nature of a linked site. Rather, it should be framed on the quality of the content, its accuracy and its reliability: | |||
| ::Hey - please assume good faith. I'm not talking about "junk links", I'm talking about links that can be defended as "accurate and on-topic," with "meaningful, relevant content." I do not see anything in the policy to which I can point someone and say, "There, see, this clearly tells you that it's not appropriate to link to six fansites from the article." Please humor me, and show me where you believe the guideline covers this. - ] 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.'' | |||
| ::: ] <small>]</small> 01:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you tell me the name of article in question, I can take a look and offer some assistance in the dispute. ] <small>]</small> 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please assume good faith. If you aren't talking about junk links, then please explain how your comment is supposed to be responded to? If six or eight links merit linking, then it is appropriate to link to them, or go to the option of using a Dmoz link instead. Really, your position is hard to make sense of, especially since first you said one thing and now another. Bad links can't get linked to. Stuff that qualifies under the guideline can be linked to. If an article could have sixteen or sixty appropriate, qualifying external links, then a broader solution needs to be applied, which linking to Dmoz is. If on the other hand, you are saying that you don't want to link to appropriate sites just because you don't like that they aren't owned by corporations, that's just anti-user bad editing. There is no place that says "it's not appropriate to link to six fansites from the article" because that is just a senseless, user-hating attitude. Perhaps you should keep in mind we are making articles for users. ] 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thats a good guideline. Thanks for the offer to help. Here are two examples (,) of people removing links saying these are not reliable sources. This is completely wrong and this is just one article. These links are critical of Islam but the editors who removed them do not agree with the viewpoints and they removed them now. Thats probably their actual motivation for removing them. How can this be dealt with citing WP policy? If what they did is against policy only then can this be easily tackled. This is a complicated issue for Controversial articles as you can see. All articles for Islam are spammed with links which may not be reliable. I take that if the content of a link can be verified that its reliable? But, how do we verify all the content of a webpage? This looks difficult. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I will take a look and comment on the article's talk page, if I have anything useful to contribute. ] <small>]</small> | |||
| ::::::Your mission is not to verify all contents of a website. That's a fool's errand. Misplaced Pages doesn't do that. Some external links would never make it as sources. For example, we could link to the Vatican's website from a variety of articles, and use it as a source for some things, but it could never be used as a source for: "The one and only God is a Catholic God." Obviously the Vatican's website does not have a neutral point of view about the true nature of God. But it is perfectly valid to link to the Vatican site (as well as others with conflicting opinions) from external links. ] 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You are mistaken. It most acceptable to use the Vatican website to assert that their viewpoint is "The one and only God is a Catholic God". You are confusing ] with ]. RS discusses the reliability of sources, ] discusses attributing significant viewpoints to those that hold them. What we are discussing here is the reliability of the linked site. Is the Vatican a reliable source for the ]'s theological viewpoints. Of course! ] <small>]</small> 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Just take the Vatican website and use the criteria established in ]. Is it a reliable source, or not? Of course it is. The take this EL http://www.americablog.com/ and apply the same criteria. Can that site be considered reliable for anything else than in an article about the blog? Of course not. ] <small>]</small> 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::In a nutshell this is where you get confused. Yes we can cite the vatican website that it is THEIR OPINION that God is a Catholic God, which you need to see is not the point. What we can't do is have this line in an article "The one God is a Catholic God." and then cite the Vatican site for that statement. Clearly they have a point of view and can't be a reliable source for THIS PARTICULAR statement. On the other hand, they could be a perfectly reliable source for "Pope Urban the XXV was pope from 1312 to 1325." On the other hand, we can link to the Vatican site's 500 page discussion of the nature of God from the nature of God article. Perhaps your confusion can be cleared up thusly: "External links need to be able to meet the criteria for reliable sources for something; they don't need to meet the criteria for the article they are linked." Another example would be the Reagan library site could be a fine external link on the Ronald Reagan article. It could be a useful source for his birthdate. But this line "Ronald Reagan was the greatest president ever" could not be added to the article with a cite from a Reagan library page saying that. It's an important distinction. External links have to be the sort of site that could qualify as an source in general, but not everything the site says needs to qualify as sourceable material. Again, in a nutshell, external links can present a point of view. Sources can not, except when saying it is a point of view. Citing "Ronald Reagan is the greatest president ever" does not make it so. Linking to a site that says that is fine. In terms of the issue raised here, if something on a site is demonstrably, plainly untrue in an objective way, it should not be linked. However something that says either "Islam is a false religion" or "Islam is the one and only religion" could be linked. ] 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::????? We are not talking about ''sources'' to support an edit. We are talking about the external links section in articles. ] <small>]</small> 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I occasionally come across articles about anime or Star Trek or various other kinds of fandom where an overenthusiastic fan has decided it's a good thing to use Misplaced Pages as a mini-dmoz and link to a number of fansites on the topic. It was my understanding that this is discouraged, but I'm tired of getting into debates with these people who say "these fansites are great! WP:EL says they're okay to link! I don't want people to have to use a web directory!" I was hoping that WP:EL would discourage fansites more clearly; that's all. I have no idea where you're coming up with "anti-user bad editing." - ] 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Um, exactly. I hope that clears up your confusion. The passage cited at the beginning of this section refers to reliable sources to explain something, but to answer the original question, every page on an external link most definitely does not need to qualify as a reliable source for that article to be listed as an external link. It should though qualify as something verifiable and authoritative in general. ] 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What else is to if someone wants to ignore what is best for users and cares about some irrelvant owenership detail? You've basically shown why there is no prohibition via another strawmen argument. The guideline talks about Misplaced Pages not being a mini-dmoz link directory, so once again there is no issue. ] 08:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Another way to summarize it is to say that someone can't object to an external link simply because they went through a linked to site and found a single sentence that was not verifiable or offered an opinion as fact ("greatest president ever"). ] 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: You are still missing the point, I am afraid. This is what I am referring to: ''Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.'' (From WP:RS)l and this from WP:V: ''In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves''. A website that is of questionable reliability, should NOT be linked to. That's all. ] <small>]</small> 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| All the guideline says about dmoz is that it's preferable to a "long list of external links," which is subjective. "Linking to six fansites is not a long list!" say the fans, in so many situations I've met. "These are all fansites about the same thing as the article! I want to link to them because they're all big fansites with lots of info and they're all really good and it's helpful to people to have Misplaced Pages be a web directory!" All I'm saying is that I believe that fansites shouldn't be linked from WP unless there's a much better reason than these, and I want the policy to clearly say so. I really don't understand or appreciate why you're accusing me of "ignoring what's best for users." Would anyone else please like to weigh in on the topic? - ] 14:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Well of course, and also not the issue. THIS guideline makes it clear what can or can not be linked to. WP:RS covers sources, not external links. Not-coincidentally they basically say the same thing, but the guideline to refer to when considering the reliability and worthiness of an external link is this one, not WP:RS. In answer to the original question, WP:RS was mentioned only so as not to say the same thing in two places. ] 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The criteria are spelled out in WP:EL. If a site meets the criteria, there's an argument for linking it. And EL does say to keep links to a minimum, but I think that setting a quota isn't in the spirit of WP. If the editors of a page feel that six is still a short list, and all articles deserve linking, than maybe that's OK. The same thing could happen with any kind of link, I don't see any reason why fansites should be singled out when they can be judged by the same standards as any other site. --] 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have to agree with 2005 here. I think WP:EL is much too strict. The criteria for a useful link should be very different (and substantially weaker) than the criteria for a reliable source. IMHO a link should exist when its likely to be useful to our readers. A source needs to be strong enough that we are comfortable putting their information into wikipedia's voice inside an article. ]] 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Once again, why are you singling out one type of site? You really need to take a step back here because you seem to have locked yourself in some sort of mental blinders. Saying soemthing like "Linking to six fansites is not a long list!" just doesn't make any sense, since you apparently are not caring if the person said "Linking to six corporate sites is not a long list!" and are not caring at all about the merit of the links. Instead, for reasons you have not stated, you oppose non-corporate sites that merit linking. That is plainly anti-user. The guideline on the other hand bases its criteria on merit, stability, value to users, appropriateness. It makes sites jump a bunch of hurdles before they can be linked. The guideline doesn't care if sites have a green background or are owned by individuals or corporations, and you have made no argument why we should care about irrelevant stuff like that. You should start thinking about user experience and added value to articles, instead of whatever arbritrary criteria you have. ] 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would agree with jossi on this. If wiki is to be a quality encyclopedia, then it shouldn't link to garbage. True that a link need not be ''scholarly'', but it should be reliable.] 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Why don't we argue about what's actually being advocated. Nobody is arguing for linking to garbage, what they are arguing for is linking to information that is useful but not necessarily reliable. For example linking a biographical article to a blog of the person its about. Not a reliable source of information but interesting for the reader of the bio. ]] 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ahhhh... okay, thank you; now I see the misunderstanding. I am not talking about web sites made by fans instead of by corporations; I'm talking about ], which are a specific kind of web site. Many fansites "do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article," which is point #1 under "Links normally to be avoided"; but the fans who add these kinds of links often insist that a fansite is authoritative and therefore should be linked anyway, and this has led to needless debates. All I'm asking is for the policy to explicitly mention fansites so I have something to point people to. - ] 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::As you said, "many don't". But since some do, it doesn't make sense to ban all "fansites". If they don't provide a unique resource, point them to that. Of course, "unique resource" is open to opinion and interpretation to some degree. Could you provide a specific example? --] 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::And again, if a fansite does not meet the criteria for linking, it should not be linked. If it does merit a link, then it merits a link. What exactly do you have a problem with there? People who add links to ANY type of site often insist they should be linked, so that is why we have this guideline. Again, you really need to rethink this because the guideline covers what any responsible editor should care about: inappropriate links without merit are prohibited. Appropriate links with merit are explained. Obviously fansites sometimes merit links, and just as obviously they sometimes don't. The guideline explains what should be linked to. ] 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::A a biographical article link to a blog of the person its about, ''is'' a reliable source. See ] ] <small>]</small> 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said above: "I believe that fansites shouldn't be linked from WP unless there's a much better reason than ." I never said anything about a ban. The problem I want to solve is that whenever I edit a WP article to remove links to fansites which appear to only be there to use Misplaced Pages as a web directory, I often get flak about it from contributors who read WP:EL and easily misinterpret it to believe it's telling them that fansite links are okay and welcome. Two examples of articles with several fansite external links are ] and ]. I'm hesitant to remove those links because I don't want to again get into the same old debate with someone about why fansites shouldn't be linked even though fans think they're so great; I want to be able to link directly from my edit summary to some clearly-worded guidelines for fansites. - ] 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The problem seems to be with your editing if you are removing some links for no reason other than you don't like who owns the sites. You should stop that. Comments like "remove links to fansites which appear to only be there to use Misplaced Pages as a web directory" are out of place because the guideline addresses that directly. You should get flak if you are randomly removing appropriate links. Fansites sometimes deserve linking. Any links that don't merit linking according to the guideline should be removed. Continually putting up strawmen without explaination isn't helpful, but if your mission is a fanatical desire to "keep fansites out" I suggest you reexamine your editing practices and the bold text purpose of this guideline. ] 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How is it a reliable source? It isn't peer reviewed, it isn't fact checked. There is no history to verify that what's said one day isn't changed. The person doing the writing is highly biased and motivated away from a NPOV. This is exactly the point of discussing this kind of link, from a RS standpoint its terrible yet from a providing information (that is not wikipedia's voice) it is very useful. | |||
| ::::::This has '''nothing to do''' with "who owns the sites." Please stop misrepresenting my position and taking potshots at me. - ] 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Of course it matters who owns the sites. Haven't you even read ]? "A fansite or fan site, is a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon." Fansites are sites owned and operated by fans. They are by definitioned owned by fans, not corporately. That is what they ARE. That is what defines them. What are you talking about if not this standard meaning of fansites? And, I've taken no potshots at you, but you have now taken two at me. Please stop it, and please either present SOME rationale for your position besides just avoiding presenting any rationale for your desire, or lets move on. ] 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You'd have a better shot if you didn't keep framing the issue as "why fansites shouldn't be linked". Some fansites ''should'' be linked if they meet EL. You just need to find specific reasons why specific sites should be removed (assuming there are some that should be removed). On the firefly articles, which sites do you feel are inaproppriate? Or do you want to remove them all? --] 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Another similar example would be a political speech. Linking to the full text of the speech might be useful for determine what was said but not for what is true. ]] 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for the level head. Let me go through the current set of External Links on ] one at a time. (I picked that article arbitrarily.) | |||
| ::Also, whatever concensus is reached, please change the article page accordingly. If the article says "'''See Reliable sources'''", then users will continue to interpret this as meaning ELs must satisfy the conditions imposed under the article ].] 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * and - Both of these sites only duplicate info that's already in Misplaced Pages. They do not appear to "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article." | |||
| * at ], , and '''' at the ] - three wikis which shouldn't even be linked in the first place according to item #12 under "Links normally to be avoided", but moreover, none of the three appear to have any information that's not already in Misplaced Pages and the first two links. | |||
| * on ] has news about Firefly fan events and what the actors are doing now. and are podcasts about the same sort of thing. None of these are particularly relevant to the article. | |||
| * is an article about whether the Firefly universe is plausible. is a web site dedicated to a DVD documentary about the fans. These are interesting sites, but I see no particular reason why they should be linked from the article. | |||
| * - a discussion forum, discouraged according to item #10 under "Links normally to be avoided". | |||
| *I only see two sites which appear to me to fit the spirit of WP:EL. provides "meaningful, relevant content" that "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to ... amount of detail", and is a web directory. | |||
| == Then link, by all means == | |||
| So, of the thirteen External Links on ], I believe that eleven are arguably or clearly against the criteria in WP:EL. Which raises the question: how did these links get into the article in the first place? And why have they survived in the article through weeks or months and dozens of editors, without anyone removing them? The answer, I think, is due to the misguided notion that fansites are Good Things to link from an article - ''simply by virtue of them being fansites'' - and editors like myself are tired of the reverts and the fighting that happens whenever we try removing links like these. If I were to go remove the eleven fansites I deem inappropriate, someone would inevitably put them back and tell me "it's useful to include some fansites!", and I'd have to explain that a site should meet the criteria in WP:EL before it's linked, and the reply would be "these sites are useful and on topic!", etc. etc. It's a debate I'm tired of having. ''All I want'' is for there to be a section in WP:EL which explicitly says something like: "Misplaced Pages is not a place to list fansites. A fansite should not be linked unless its inclusion can be justified by the criteria in this policy." - ] 22:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| >> "''When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a ]," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the ] policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.''" | |||
| :So 11 of 13 shouldn't be linked according to the guideline... so... well.. what does this have to do with the above? You seem to just have adopted some attitude that is irrelavnt to the point. The ownership of those sites, whether they are fansites or commercial sites, has nothing to do with their merit as links. Nothing, and you have aknowledged as much by presenting nothing to suggest otherwise. People add poor quality links all the time. If they don't meet the criteria of the guideline, then they should be removed. On the other hand, if you are out of step with the opinions of multiple editors about how the sites merit links, then you should step back and accept that. To be blunt, saying "A fansite should not be linked unless its inclusion can be justified by the criteria in this policy" is just plain weird because the whole darn guideline basically says "A SITE should not be linked unless its inclusion can be justified by the criteria in this policy" (though it is a guideline not policy). Really now, you seem to have some obsession here that you just need to reconsider. No sites (no corporate site, no fan site, no site of any kind, no site at all...) should be linked unless it's inclusion is justified. C'mon, this really can't be eluding you. ] 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Who wrote that? '''You''' explain to this guy at ] that ] does not mean any website that contains reliable content and is somehow related to the article topic has a right to get a link. And that it doesn't mean everybody who removes a spamlink is a cyber-bullying fundamentalist. ] 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''No sites (no corporate site, no fan site, no site of any kind, no site at all...) should be linked unless its inclusion is justified.'' Thank you - you hit the nail on the head. The guideline, as currently written, ''doesn't say this.'' Instead, the sense many people get from the guideline is the opposite: "Any site may be linked unless there's a good reason not to." The problem is that this makes it the responsibility of someone who wants to remove a link to prove that the guidelines say it doesn't belong, rather than the responsibility of the person who's adding it to make sure it does belong. Could we add that sentence of yours, "No site should be linked unless its inclusion is justified," to one of the first two paragraphs of the guideline? - ] 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::While forums aren't allowed at all (unless they're "official" ones), wikis are only forbidden if they aren't stable or have too few editors. While there seem to be sites that can be elimiated, saying that eleven of them don't have anything that's not already on wikipedia seems inaccurate. Looking at the sites, there seems to be quite a bit of info that's not on WP and shouldn't be (and would be attacked as "cruft" if people tried to add much of it). "I see no particular reason..." isn't the criteria - that's a matter of opinion, so the decision is made by consensus seeing a particular reason to include them. --] 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I believe that a site should not be added to External Links unless it specifically adds information beyond the content of the article - that is, a link to an unofficial podcast about a TV show doesn't belong on the article about that TV show, nor does a speculative "what if" essay. I also believe that it's not appropriate to link to a site which duplicates most of the information in Misplaced Pages with a little extra that Misplaced Pages doesn't have; in this case, the extra detail should be linked from a suitable place in the article, but it's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to link to information already contained in Misplaced Pages (unless it's being cited as a source). I believe the bar should be high for adding links to Misplaced Pages, to avoid the usual "that site got linked, this site should get linked too!" arguments. You seem to feel that the guidelines for external linking should be permissive, that any links are welcome as long as someone out there feels they're on the same topic, there aren't too many of them, and none of the links explicitly violate the guidelines. Am I understanding you correctly? - ] 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think you are. You previously said that the sites didn't provide anything beyond what wikipedia has. Now you are saying the sites offer some, but it's not enough for you. Obviously, any site on a topic will likely duplicate some of the info in wikipedia, but how much extra is required to make it worth linking, and how much extra a given site actually provides are both debatable. In regards to those sites, a quick look found unique info pretty easily, but I'm not in a position to judge which if any have "enough". I would assume that some sites have more info than others, and whichever have the most are the most deserving of a link. I also think it's unlikely that none of those sites have info that is more thorough than wikipedia (if that's the case, I'd be more concerned about cleaning the cruft out of wikipedia than removing links to fansites). I agree that the bar should be high, but whether a site meets that bar is a matter of opinion. It all comes back to consensus - there's no way to measure how much info a site has, so the editors of an article need to judge which sites best meet EL. --] 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was added a couple weeks ago by Jossi (April 21st). I don't see any discussion on that. ] 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Coming late to the discussion... I would have to concur with Frecklefoot and Brian Kendig above. Linkstuffing is a huge problem when it comes to popular culture articles. Since ] a web directory, it makes far more sense to have an absolute ceiling on fansites rather than hashing out the issues for every link in every article as if external links were on the same level as real content. If for some reason it's inappropriate to focus on fansites -- even though they are in my experience the source of about 90% of all EL-bloating issues on Misplaced Pages -- maybe we could have a ceiling of "no more than 2 sites that meet criterion 4." Or even "no more than 2 sites per criterion." With the usual common-sense exceptions, of course. This guideline, as it stands, is simply not adequate for the purpose of having a "Big Damn Board" to hit people over the head with; and unfortunately ''that'' is what we need.-- ] 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Besides being feature creep, wikipedia doesn't favor the use of quotas. Setting arbitrary maximum numbers shouldn't be a substitute for common sense. Not to mention that it seems biased to set a limit on one kind of EL but not others. --] 15:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::But this isn't instruction creep; it was part of the long-standing content of this page prior to the recent flurry of (to me) rather opaque changes. For example, it can be found in : "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." Strict, and wisely so; it is difficult for me to see how including more than one such site can ], and having to argue the point (or more likely, edit-war over the point) on page after page is silly, when the issue should be centrally addressed right here. -- ] 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If there are objections about the wording, let's discuss. I am under the impression that it is simply explaining policy, as all guidelines should. ] <small>]</small> 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's way older than that-- see , when it appeared under a section ""Maybe OK to add" as "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to '''''one''''' major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link." (emphasis added) -- ] | ] 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I think that section should be reworded to stress what the focus is. Maybe I'm wrong, but the focus to me seems to be how to get content in an external link to be used in an article. Isn't this what an article's discussion page for? The problem Femto mentioned that I'm having with my workforall.net nemesis is that they are interpreting this section literally as an open license to add any external link spam that they see fit. (] 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :::I like the new version better, the old one seemed arbitrary in that respect. Including more than one site is justified if they have unique information as defined by EL. I'm not sure why you'd put a quota on fansites, but not limit the number of other kinds of sites. --] 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, in case I came across a little grumpy, I apologize — but just read the abovelinked complaint by someone whose spam got removed to see what kind of reasoning this little paragraph is causing! In the eyes of those who desperately fight to get their links included it's a blanket permission. Against it, you cannot justify the removal of a link anymore. Even WP:COI and WP:SPAM become irrelevant because "what to link" seems to override the weaker "should avoid" language of later sections. The "What to link" section already refers to the "following guidelines" for further details; these explanations are simply out of place there and should be removed entirely. ] 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == consultant newsletter articles == | |||
| ::"Against it, you cannot justify the removal of a link anymore." I don't know what you mean by that. The guideline strongly prevents linking to garbage, and requires sites jump through pretty high hoops to be linked. I don't have an opinion I guess on out of place-ness and need for the passage, but the most important point is we have an entire guideline, not a bunch of unrelated sentences, and summarizing sentences are not specifics. If someone is adding inappropriate links, one sentence or passage here doesn't give them the licensce to do that in the face of the rest of the guideline. ] 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi - On many articles, the EL section ends up including articles from consultant newsletters in the field. This frequently happens in law articles; I also recently saw one on the ] article. The articles themselves vary: some are written in good faith, some are thinly disguised promotional pieces; some are high quality and add news about new developments, and others are simply client-newsletter filler. It occurred to me that it might be helpful to have a series of "case studies" for the EL guideline, to help users/editors evaluate these kinds of things. One such case study could be "consultant / private practitioner newsletters". Or perhaps there's a better way to handle it, or it already has, and someone could kindly point me that way. ... I scanned quickly thru the archives & didn't see this previously addressed; if it is somewhere else, point me to it? (being able to search the talk archives for a particular page would be helpful) --] 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::How do you defend against: "My links are fully compatible with the guideline. They're a useful resource, tasteful, informative, factual, and impossible to summarize in the article. You're a vandal if you remove them. They should be linked, ] said so right here." - Even ''if'' you eventually manage to get through to someone that in spite of the positive language in this section the rest of the guideline still applies, that's an exercise I'd rather do without. ] 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Should there even be "external links" sections? == | |||
| "you may then consider adding that link" is a major improvement over "then link, by all means". ] 23:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am tired of fighting linkspam, I believe the policy should be that any link to a website not directly used as a source or reference in writing the article should be summarily deleted. The policy is that ], so let's take it to its logical conclusion. Links should only be in the "Sources", "References" or notes section, or as in-line citations. Right now, the community is a process that will hopefully ensure that every article is properly referenced or sourced, which is a good thing. We don't need the external links section. While you are considering my comment, you might wish to check out the article by ] (sorry about the ad that comes up first). He argues that, in the medium term, wikipedia is in danger of being taken over by commercial spammers and marketeers. Let's put another roadblock to this. I think that if we established this policy, we would avoid a lot of arguments over blogs, fan sites, etc. We would not need to have a policy over certain types of web sites: the only question would be whether the site was used as a source in wiring the article. Let's simply eliminate the "external links" sections! I realize that this may be viewed as a radical proposal, but I believe it is essential for the long term health of this project. ] 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Aside from issues of losing links to useful sites, throwing out the good with the bad, I suspect that the result would simply be that people would still add links, they would just add them as citations (and we'd see way more bogus citations). --] 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it's a genuinely "useful" (whatever that means) site, then it should be in the references. Good point on the bogus citations, but they require more effort than just adding a link and we wouldn't have what effectively amounts to an open invitation to insert inappropriate links. Not everybody reads this page or other policy pages about links before inserting them, and much linkspam is added quite innocently. ] 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are plenty of examples of sites that provide useful external info but either can't be cited for various reasons, or simply don't need to be (meaning we get cites that aren't bogus but merely superfluous).--] 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: You know, we could get rid of all the potential problems with Misplaced Pages if we simply forbade editing it. :-). ] <sup>]</sup> | |||
| :::Well, that's ] solution. :-) ] 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it is a valid idea. I would keep the 'Further reading' (FR) section, though. Of course you may say that the FR section, if it includes uncited books for example, is no different from EL, so maybe we need a policy that each FR item ''must'' be explained, similar to the way many 'See also' wikilinks are presented. But overall, I agree that EL needs major overhaul, since I have yet to get a convincing response to my question above for an example of a clear case of EL that cannot be cited as a reference in the article (or included in FR). ] 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : That new wording would be a good improvement. Even better would be to mention posting the link on the discussion page and talking about it. Isn't "sourcing" the focus of that section of text? (] 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ::I don't think it's a good idea. Many websites are dynamic and though they might not have contained useful information (or further information) when the article was written, they might when a user accesses it. | |||
| ::I wonder if the paragraph isn't getting us into instruction creep - we should ask ourselves how useful it is to keep adding more text to the guideline and and what this bit is really trying to achieve. But if it's to stay, I like ]'s suggestion, and emphasizing using the talk page can also be good. Also we could begin the paragraph with ''"When assessing external links you need to '''start by asking''' yourself"'' instead of ''"simply ask"'', which should help emphasize there's not a simple test and as long as your link passes the test it's on the page. And I think we need to make sure the "reliable sources" description here is the same as elsewhere in the guideline? -- ] 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Plus, what about company's that have websites? How would we link to them without an external links section? Often a company's website isn't used as a reference for an article, but I don't think anyone denies that linking to the company's own website is a good idea. — ] | ] 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why would we link to a site that has no useful information? If in the future it has "useful" information, it could be linked then in a "references" or "further reading" section. On the company sites, if, in the unlikely event the web site does not have "useful" information in writing the article (i.e. it is just a point of sale), then I would argue that it should not be linked. But that specific exception can be made and the company site included in the "references" or "further reading" section. What I'm arguing for is the elimination of the section headed "external links", not the elimination of links per se. ] 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe that a company's web site (or equivalently an individual's web site) which belongs to the subject of an article is almost always an acceptable source. Of course the citation wording has to be carefully crafted, as such a source can only be used in a limited fashion. But if the point is to actually get the site linked to the article, I think there would be very few cases where it can't be done as a reference, and in those few cases it probably won't be possible to do it as EL either. ] 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thank you, that is an improvement. Why does this section of text encourage the editor ''twice'' to add the external link? In my experience nobody needs to be encouraged to add links, they'll do that on their own. Also, isn't this section about "sourcing?" Can't we cut out all that adding cruft and just say post it to the talk page? (] 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| : I provisionally agree that the kinds of material included within the "exernal links" section may be better handled in other ways. It has long seemed to me that "external links" unnecessarily distinguishes between Internet-sourced material and other types of material which get included under "Further Reading". A section called "Bibliography", "Further research resources", or the like, could include both links / citations to relevant content, whether available online or not. That takes care of #s 3 and 4 of "What should be linked to". As for #1 of "What should be linked to", the "official site" link should, IMO, be included near the top of the article in question. #2 ("online version available at") perhaps is the best justification for an "External links" section. --] 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If it's about sourcing I think it needs rewording significantly since I didn't get that when I read it :-) So it's supposed to make people stop and think "Is the link I want to add really further reading? Or is it something that would be a useful source to build the article from?" and then get them to act appropriately? -- ] 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : However, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that only works that are referenced directly or used as sources for the article should be included. Any encyclopedia should include a references section, including both references that are directly referenced in the article ''and'' references that are used, generally, in the article. BUT (1) articles should ''also'' include a "further reading / research" section for completely relevant information that is not suitable for the wp article. I just don't think that "further reading/research" ought to distinguish between online content ("external links") and books/journal articles/etc. (which are sometimes online and sometimes offline). ALSO (2) permitting ONLY links to be embedded in text or as references will encourage the spamlinkers to disguise their links in the body of the text in a way that is much harder to police and much more likely to generate long drawn out arguments. Giving people a reasonable place to add links to external content ("external links" or "further reading/research") lets it self-segregate in a way that is easier to see problematic links. --] 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If that section isn't about ''sourcing'' then what is it about? For sourcing purposes, why not let all the other WP:EL rules determine if it's a good external link candidate. No need for any special exceptions. (] 00:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ::I have to say that ] and ] have convinced me of the need for a "Further reading" or Bibliography"(?) section that includes references (both web and paper) that were not necessarily used in writing the article but pursue the subject in more detail (or from a different slant?). ] 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Our primary goal is creating great articles, not fighting linkspam. That is a secondary consideration, and should not be the point. Further reading is out if only because we link to videos sometimes. From a practical standpoint external links is a good heading because it helps control spam. Our problems with citation spam are small because spammers add their links to the external links section, where they can easily be dealt with by editors passing through. Doing things to encourage spammers to spam sources will make the tactical problems ten times worse. There is no downside to an "external links" labeled section, and huge benefits in terms of spam fighting and keeping articles of higher quality. I would hope everyone would agree that if a spam link was on a page that it not be as a source but as an external link. We need to control our problems sensibly, not encourage them to be worse. ] 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, I too have found it helpful in dealing with spam, and if there is any discussion over the nature of a linked site, it focuses the discussion. | |||
| ::There are also some positive puroses: there is almost always a link to the official or personal sites for whatever or whoever is the subject, and this provides one single convenient place to look. ] 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Speaking from practical experience, over time I try to incorporate ELs into the References section, to the point where there is no EL section any more. This has been successful on ] ] ]. The ONLY reasons/cases where this cannot be done are for things such as: copyright, level of detail, "how-to" and guidebook-like info, picture galleries/maps, legal software downloads (where the same page/site hasn't also been used as a source), etc. Misplaced Pages is not here to replicate Google search. Even official websites have no reason not to be used as a source, since they are considered reliable for statements they make about themselves. I've previously expressed the view that "External links" should not be named as such, but should be treated as on-line "Further reading" resources. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I made a about wording for another sentence that I think overlaps this one. If I'm right about what these two are supposed to mean, I think it makes sense to amalgamate them. -- ] 03:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Another type of external link that just can't be used as a reference is a link to real time data. Such data is changing continuously, so can't go into the text of the article. For a river, this might be a river flow gage, of which I added several to various rivers in ] a few months back. For an active volcano, it might be a geological service site on eruption status. For a public transit service, a link to current service disruptions on their webpage could be of similar use. I think the "External Links" as a spam magnet argument is good, and it is definitely nice to have the official site link very easy to find. ] 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd really like us to take a stab at rewording or eliminating this paragraph. Even with the recent tweaks I find it unclear and (I think) unnecessary. Do others agree it's basically covered by the ''Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.'' point in "links to be avoided"? If not, what is in this paragraph that isn't in that sentence? -- ] 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == external links as further references/research == | |||
| :I think just get rid of it for the time being. It was added without consensus and most editors in this conversation find major problems with it. Could be proposed later with different wording. ] 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree it's problematic and ]. No matter how refined the wording, you cannot adequately explain in one paragraph what this is trying to convey. Removed it. Let's keep something like "''When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.''" though. ] 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In the preceding discussion of "should there even be an external links section", it seems like the larger question has also raised the more limited question of, even if there is an external links section, what should be done with the external links that basically serve as "further reading". I'd like to raise that issue here, and get people's opinion on this as its own topic. (By looking at the discrete categories of stuff included in "external links" maybe we can come up with an answer to the larger question of whether the EL section should exist or not.) From reading the preceding section, I'm going to try to boil down the short comments on this topic (apologies if I mischaracterize your position; please feel free to edit): | |||
| : ] said "''If in the future it has "useful" information, it could be linked then in a "references" or "further reading" section.''" (19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| : ] (me) said "''..."xternal links" unnecessarily distinguishes between Internet-sourced material and other types of material which get included under "Further Reading". A section called "Bibliography", "Further research resources", or the like, could include both links / citations to relevant content, whether available online or not.''" (20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| : ] said "''I've previously expressed the view that "External links" should not be named as such, but should be treated as on-line "Further reading" resources.''" (14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :: I agree, Siobhan - I don't think it adds anything to the article, and we are seeing instances of editors trying to twist the wording in this EL document to get what they want and otherwise circumvent the WP common understanding of how things are done. Keep it simple. Femto, I agree to delete it for now. -- ] | ] 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The external link section is for links related to the article, but not necessary for article checking. The "further reading" section is a subsection of the bibliography, which expand the information found in the references. Both should be kept at a minimun. Pages like ] abuse the "further reading" section, spamming it with links that would otherwise be deleted from an external link section. | |||
| ::I suggest creating a template with something like "Some of the links found in this section may be better used as reference. Please classify them, and utilize inline citations to improve the quality of the article". -- ] 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Good solution everybody. It simplifies, it reduces some confusing wording, and it stresses ] policy by suggesting discussion. I like it. (] 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :See {{tl|ELasRef}}. Feel free to improve. ] <small>]</small> 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I tend to disagree with ReyBrujo. IMHO external links that do not serve the purpose of "further reading" should be deleted. "No ELs for ELs sake." EVERYTHING should either be a Ref (in an ideal world), or FR material if it doesn't/can't/can-but-only-superfluously be used as a ref. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Multiple official sites== | |||
| == Link to Dmoz? == | |||
| Can someone weigh in on the external links for ]? It's one of those articles where depending on how you look at it, there could be many "official" sites. --] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems to be an acceptable number of links there. ] <small>]</small> 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Care to explain why you find the links acceptable? --] 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Opening up the spam can of worms == | |||
| Isn't it time that Misplaced Pages stopped endorsing Dmoz as the sole guardian of the world's links and suggested rather that people should link to "a good site or directory of external links on the subject", e.g. http://dmoz.org or http://chainki.org As things are at the moment it forces people to use Dmoz, period, which I often don't think is the best source of links. | |||
| OK. I'm going to give this a shot. I'll probably lose but... | |||
| Currently the project page says: | |||
| : ''Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services...'' (#4 under to avoid) | |||
| I think this is too strong, or at least it is interpreted too strong. Most websites exist primarily to sell a product or service or to push a particular POV. Arguable the NYTimes websites exist primarily to sell their archives and columnist sections. I'd like to propose we weaken this to: | |||
| : ''Links to sites where the link's effect or purpose on wikipedia would be primarily marketing related, that is to sell products or services'' | |||
| So do I have any support for this at all or lone voice in the wilderness? ]] 22:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The current text is one of the clearest in the guideline so I'd leave it. ] 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. | |||
| ::: I agree it is very clear. I just think its incorrect. That plus bans on strongly POV websites if actually applied fairly it would kill almost every link on this site. ]] 23:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would suggest replacing this with something like: | |||
| ::Concur with ]. And you are right, it would open up commercial website spammers to all forms of creative lawyering. ] 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to: | |||
| ::I've always found that line to be quite clear. Unless I'm missing something NYTimes websites don't seem to be being removed because of the wording do they? -- ] 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*either a page of links on a specific site with the best collection of links on the topic, or | |||
| ::*a related category in an open directory such as the http://dmoz.org or http://chainki.org. | |||
| ] 09:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No NYTimes was meant as an extreme example just to show that the guideline as written (and rigorously applied) is a problem. But for example a few days ago a web app that walked a buyer through a well written comparison of various mainstream bike brands was deleted under this guideline. There is no question that was a useful link to our readers. And there is no question that the bike stores intent was for you to walk into the store with a clear idea of what you wanted to buy. But who cares? ]] 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I would only support a "best collection" option if there are specific criteria for disallowing. "Best" is very subjective and there are people who will argue, for instance, that categories that include significant amounts of commercial crap or advertise-influenced rankings will be "best". If you sayAnd perhaps the swording should be "best", you need criteria for what ''disallows'' consideration as "best". --] 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd probably care about that. Advice about a product from a place that is trying to sell you the product ought to be considered suspect by default - not necessarily in a mean way, they're doing their best to serve customers within the context of their business. But there's an inherent conflict of interest that ought to make this a non-default decision. If the link isn't added by someone affiliated with the bike shop and editors can agree the advice is unbiased you can probably build a consensus on the talk page to over-ride the guideline in the best interests of the article. -- ] 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::either a page of links on a specific site with the best collection of links on the topic, ''provided that the page has apparent stability arefrequency of updating.'' or | |||
| ::::We can't stop people reading things in obtuse ways, but the sentence seems as clear as it can be stated. Pages that primarily sell a product should not be linked to. The New york Times is a newspaper. Sure it wants to make money, but it obviously is not what is being addressed. of all the things in the guideline this is one that there almost never is a problem with. If a page is just selling DVD it can be linked to. If a page has a detailed review of the DVD that qualifies under the guideline to be linked, the fact it also sells the DVD doesn't disqualify it. ] 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Would everybody agree with that sort of wording? Something like, ''Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services... (4a) However, if an editor not affiliated with the commercial site wishes to add a link to such a site, they are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page. While there is an inherent conflict of interest in adding any commercial site, a consensus of editors should feel free to link to pages where the information is unbiased and useful to readers even if the site itself is not''? ]] 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Dmoz idea is a good one. I wouldn't go any further on link lists though than on rare occasions Yahoo. Since a zillion sites could just copy the same link list, there isn't any reason to link to anything else. (I assume the chainki thing was a joke, or at least i hope it was.) ] 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's just the wrong direction. There is no "inherent conflict of interest". There is only meritable material that qualifies under the guideline. Basically, does a page merit a link if the widget-selling aspect is ignored? If a Michelin site goes into exhaustive, authoritative detail about the automobile tire, the fact is what matters, not that they happen to want you to buy their tires. Do other reliable/authoritative/meritable sites consider the michelin site reliable/authoritative/meritable or not? Don't go down the instruction creep path. Have a clear statement in a clear guideline. Links that merit links get linked. What we are saying is a page that simply sells a product does not merit a link. ] 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: 2005 the people reading it that way aren't being obtuse, they are following the guideline as written. And that's the problem the language in the guideline is very strong, "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.". This addresses the site not the page. "Links to pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" would also solve the problem ]] | |||
| :::I really don't understand why we highlight Dmoz. The drive appears to be two fold - Dmoz supporters, and editors who want an easy way to stop people using Misplaced Pages as a directory. I understand both these positions, there are some very good Dmoz categories, and it can be tiresome to keep reverting links to every website related to an article, but I disagree with the idea we should promote Dmoz over other website listings. In general Dmoz seems to suffer from even more systemic bias than Misplaced Pages and isn't any better than suggesting people use Google. It's lazy to put the Dmoz category in just to stop people listing their orgs and it doesn't really serve our readers any better to send them to one site where the there are lots of un-prioritized and barely appropriate links than to have them on the article page. Since the new version of the EL guidelines came out I've seen editors come in to several articles that they do not regularly edit and remove links ''that have been discussed by article editors'' and replace with horrible dmoz links to categories that are very poor quality. I would much rather see us hold the line on the directory issue and only suggest linking to appropriate external directories when the majority of editors believe they provide a well rounded and well focused service for readers. --] 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A Dmoz link should be a last resort, not a first, and it shouldn't be used if the category is pathetic, which they sometimes are. (And of course it can't be used if there is no category.) Sometimes articles are so broad or popular that there is no way to be sensible with external links. Dmoz is the best general directory even though isn't very good overall, but it seems to be the best, and simplest, solution in many cases. ] 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The problem with ''"Links to pages ..."''' instead of ''sites'' is that a common spammer technique is to add links to seemingly harmless info-mercials that are just one click away from their goal. In the case of your bicycle website example, if the site was that great, then why didn't they just override ] with a ]? (] 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| These points against dmoz are all well taken but chainki sounds even worse. dmoz at least exercises some editorial control over its contents, pretty weak by ] standards but better than nothing. Dmoz also is closer to being an open project than chainki--its contents are under an almost-open license and database dumps are available so anyone can mirror it easily (Chainki in fact is initially populated from a dmoz dump--that's how it claims 400k pages). Chainki claims to be a nonprofit but there are no copying permissions in any obvious place and I don't see anything about database dumps. I may go poke around there some more though, it looks interesting and I hadn't previously heard of it. ] 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Because there are a lot of legalists who are concerned about creating a precedent for spammers. In other words there was a consensus that the link would be useful to the readers and there was a consensus that the primary purpose of the site (and the wizard) was to help people pick which bike to buy (from that store). It just so happens that helping people pick the right mainstream bike brand is actually fairly useful. | |||
| == ELs and ] == | |||
| :::: Now I didn't understand your point about harmless info-mercials one click away.... Could you elaborate? ]] 00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'm not concerned about precedents as much as I'm worried about spammers interpretering WP:EL incorrectly and using that against me. Simpler rules would reduce this problem. What I meant by ''"harmless info-mercials"'' is a funnel strategy, something that can slip by the spam radar but still get the PR juice. (] 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| Going back to "What to you is an EL?", how far do you think EL's should satisfy ]? IMHO ELs are simply ELs because of the ''type'' of content they have, not because of the ''reliability'' of said content. They should be references ''in potentia'' but not used as such because of level of detail etc ''ad nauseum''. The crux of my point: all ELs necessarily need to satisfy ] in the same way as references do, and the guideline should be appended to reflect this. Thoughts? '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We have gone through an extensive discussion about this subject, in the last couple of week. The current formulation is the result of these discussions. I invite you to read the comments in this page as well as the archives. ] <small>]</small> 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Shorter version=== | |||
| == emphasis that non-commercial sites aren't exempt == | |||
| OK howabout, ''Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services... (4a) However, if an editor not affiliated with the commercial site wishes to add a link to such a site, they are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page. A consensus of editors should feel free to link to pages where the information is unbiased and useful to readers even if the site itself is not" ? ]] 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This just seems like an unnecessarily fine distinction to make. If it is a great link, it should stand up to the process of consensus building (which could include reversions and discussions on the talk page.) This is just a guideline, after all, and there's always the possibility of "ignoring the rules" for the betterment of the encyclopedia. ] 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unclear sentence== | |||
| I've been dealing with several spammers over the past few days who say their self-links are not spam because they claim (incorrectly by any sensible standard) that their sites are non-commercial or nonprofit, as if being noncommercial confers an unlimited license to spam. I just added some typographic emphasis to the COI section where it says explicitly that the guideline applies to both commercial and non-commercial links, to help get past spammer spin over whether something is commercial or not. I hope my edit is ok, otherwise please revert and discuss. I think we should actually try to drive the point home harder since so many spammers try to use that line. ] 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I moved this from the links to be avoided section, because I can't figure out what it means. ] ] 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, JJay reverted because nothing else is bolded in the guideline. Can we crank up the emphasis by strengthening the wording instead? Frankly, bolding that sentence where nothing else is bolded makes it stand out even more, and I think that has a good effect regardless of the nature of the link someone is thinking about adding, since it expresses that the whole guideline is meant to be taken seriously. Does anyone besides me care about this? ] 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Quotation|Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a ].}} | |||
| ::It is a good concept, although it IS stated, and a case can be made that almost anything could be bolded. ] 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I restored it, as there was no consensus to remove it. If you get people to agree it should be removed, THEN remove it. ] 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I run into this stuff a good deal. I think the weakest language in this section is the "Use of Misplaced Pages to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is ''strongly recommended against.''" Why can't we change that lame "recommended against" to "prohibited"? Let 'em turn to the Talk page if they want to get their link on. It only makes sense-- no page owner or maintainer can have an objective view of the merits of their own page. | |||
| ::Don't restore such poor writing, please. What does it mean? ] ] 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::After all, ] reads, in part: | |||
| :::Maybe you just don't understand how things work here. DON'T REMOVE THINGS you don't understand. It has a long consensus to stay here, it is necessary, and if you don't understand then don't mess with it. Get freaking consensus BEFORE going ballistic all over the page. That's a simple, basic, fundamental concept here on a project page of this standing. I could understand if you were just some newbie who doesn't understand how things work, but you've been here for years. Taking it upon yourself to delete whole sections, especially when you KNOW people are opposed to their removal, us way, way out of being bold territory into acting like you think you just just up and make all the rules yourself and expect other people to just accept them. Knock it off. ] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"If you have a conflict of interest, you should: avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam)." | |||
| ::That would seem to merit a "prohibitted" on this page. Or if people are uncomfortable with using "prohibitted" in a guideline, how about "You should not link to a website that you own, maintain or for which you act as an agent." It's shorter, too. -- ] | ] 03:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like it. '''∴''' ]…] 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Slimvirgin - that sentence is supposed to stop people adding links in place of writing content (i.e. putting i a link to a brief biography instead of adding the bio details to the article). Can you think of better wording that would be more easily understood? -- ] 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sounds good. I prefer ''prohibited'' as it's a much stronger deterrent. Also include wording that such links should be discussed on the talk page (with a declaration of the inserter's COI) and, if decided so by the ''other editors'', ''someone else'' may place it into the article. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="orange">]</font>''' 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why would it always be a bad thing for people to do that, Siobhan? ] ] 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The reasoning that I've seen in the past is two fold: | |||
| :::* That throwing links into the EL section isn't an appropriate way to add content to an article from a "think of the readers" perspective. | |||
| :::* That, much as we're stricter on Fair use images than we have to be in order to encourage people to make available more free content, we should be stricter on the EL section to encourage people to create actual GFDL and encyclopedic content, since EL's are the least valuable content people can provide for an article. | |||
| :::Come to think of it, the "unique" wording was also important - in order to ensure we didn't get 5 links to (non-copyvio) videos of the people in a sailing boat, nine almost identical deep bios, or 233 versions of the same or similar interviews etc.. | |||
| :::I had a brief look through the archives but couldn't find the discussions I remember. These isn't my position 100% - so I may not have captured the argument entirely accurately. -- ] 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Adding links to one's own website is not inherently a conflict of interest. It is possible for even website owners and their agents to uphold NPOV. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but this is too broad for the external link guidelines. Notice that ] says: "''If you have a conflict of interest''...". It doesn't assume that there is always a conflict of interest, as seems to be the case with those proposing this change to ]. ] 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Another way of saying this, SM, would be, in the positive rather than the negative would be: "Link only to these sites that are factually accurate and verifiable". Which is already addressed elsewhere in the guideline. ] <small>]</small> 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S. I'm all for avoiding COI, but not all affected articles have "other editors" that will look at the talk page. ] 08:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. ] ] 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps it is ] that needs a change-- please explain how a site owner can be sure that they don't have a conflict of interest except by ''not'' adding a link to their own site? Their POV is, literally, that of a site owner. Seems to me that ] should read "When you have a conflict of interest..." -- ] | ] 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This line is more about encouraging people to add content, not ensuring the links are reliable (which as you say, is mentioned elsewhere). In fact it might be more like the section Jossi added that we've been ] - now that (I think) I understand that one... -- ] 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"When" is the same as "If" for me. "Conflict of interest" means that the interest of the site owner and that of Misplaced Pages are in conflict, so if the site really is the best, most appropriate link by objective standards, there is no conflict of those interests. You're basically claiming that website owners/agents are ''always'' acting in their own interest and that can ''never'' coincide with WP's interests, which is laughable. I understand that in problematic cases people will claim that they're doing it in WP's interest, but it's just not true to claim that they're always wrong. At the risk of appearing naive, I'd say you need to assume good faith. | |||
| ::::But it doesn't mean anything as written. Please don't keep restoring it. It's really bad writing. ] ] 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::An example is the case of a ] lyrics site owner that I've been dealing with lately. I'm advocating removing links to his site because of copyright problems, but if there were no problems in that area, I would not think that his additions were a "conflict of interest". His site really is the best source of these lyrics on the Internet, they're just posted without permission. I guess the fact that he wants to keep the links at the risk of exposing WP to legal trouble represents a COI of some sort, but he is adding the links in good faith, as evidenced by his extensive, beneficial editing of the related articles. The links would be good if their weren't legal issues; the problem is that he doesn't understand that there ''are'' legal issues, not that he's ignoring them and trying to act in his own interest. ] 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Others have found it to be useful. Please don't simply delete it. Would something else work instead? Like:''Links should not duplicate or significantly overlap content already provided, either in the article itself or in other external links. If the link you want to add contains content that ought to be in the article, please rewrite the content for Misplaced Pages (using the page as a source), rather than adding it as an external link.'' this feels a bit long-winded and clumsy, but I'm trying to start with clarity over neat wording. -- ] 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Whether "the site really is the best, most appropriate link by objective standards" is a matter of opinion. If a site truly is that, then an impartial third party will add it. While it's possible that the owner of a potentially linked website may be impartial and a neutral point of view, the potential for COI is too high. It's important to avoid not just COI but potential COI. Owners of a website can certainly make suggestions on the talk page. And if an article has no other editors beyond the person who wants to link to their own site, that's all the more reason they shouldn't do it. I support "prohibited" or a similar strengthening of the wording. --] 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This one to me is more about keeping people from adding a linkfarm, especially ones that are repeat info (both in other links and the article) and links that aren't ]. Mostly I think it is to discourge the EL section from being a link directory; no other item mentions such in the list. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK. This debate has been rehashed at ] too many times. I think I've made my position clear. ] 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What's with the deleting?== | |||
| It's really not a question of whether, theoretically, a site owner couldn't possibly have an objective pov. However ''any'' time a site owner adds a link to his own site he will ''appear'' to have a conflict of interest. If the site is, in fact, "the best, most appropriate link by objective standards", placing a message on the Talk page should get the link added. -- ] | ] 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Is there something else going on that I don't know about? A campaign to trim guidelines down, or a desire to go back to a ] of Misplaced Pages when guidelines were perfect? Why the deletion of sections that have been guiding editors for some time as well as recently developed consensus? Is it so unreasonable to expect a bit more communication and cooperation about significant changes? This isn't exactly a sleepy guideline. -- ] 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Some of the writing in here is really poor, and apart from that the advice is wrong, inconsistent with the policies in some cases, and written in a very patronizing style as if for children. The writing needs to be tightened considerably, and the wording made consistent with the policies and best practice. ] ] 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with this moderating voice of Mwanner. Misplaced Pages does not want to be "prohibiting" this, that and the other thing. If an site-owner is also an active editor, we don't want to be in the position of turning them into a vandal by mindlessly reverting every link they place. Rather the situation should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If Mwanner's position above, is explained to the editor, I'm sure a sympathetic co-editor could help place those links which are appropriate. ] 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This, for example: | |||
| :My only concern is that this will result in good links not being added to topics that don't receive heavy editing. If the talk page is not frequented by many or any editors, then the avenues for other places to ask for a third-party edit are not apparent to most casual editors. That being said, those same people probably also don't read ], so this guideline won't affect them one way or the other. Because of that, I don't see the point in changing the wording since COI only matters if it results in a WP ''policy'' being contravened, and in that case the links should be removed on policy grounds, not based on this guideline. I guess that means I don't object to the wording being changed after all. There's always ] anyways. ] 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::<blockquote>When assessing external links you need to start by asking the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it would never qualify to be used as a ] for anything," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the ] policy,", then you may link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is a reliable source", you may then consider adding that link as well. Better still, discuss in talk page with other editors about the appropriateness of adding any new links.</blockquote> | |||
| So are we at concensus? In ], replace "Use of Misplaced Pages to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against..." with "You should not link to a website that you own, maintain or for which you act as an agent..." I am avoiding "prohibitted" on the grounds that guidelines can't prohibit. Any further issues? (he asks, with a shudder) -- ] | ] 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I like it. Besides being stronger, I like that it is more concise. --] 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good. I think there are still gray areas when it comes to correcting existing links to one's website or adding an "official website" link to an article about a notable organization, but they are uncontraversial enough that this guideline doesn't need to address it. ] 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Frankly, I don't see any reason to change the curent wording. The proper place to deal with this is at COI. The new wording would be the functional equivalent of a prohibition. We need to avoid the trend to play off the various guidelines, i.e. forum shop, to make one more restrictive or inclusive than the other. Policy creep is getting out of control here. Let article talk page editors resolve whether a link violate COI. --] 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's just plain wrong. We link to all kinds of sites that wouldn't be used as a reliable source (except in an article about themselves, perhaps, but that includes just about everything). Also, there's no need to write as if two people are having a conversation. And we don't ("better still") discuss adding links on the talk page: if we had to do that, nothing would ever get done. ] ] 02:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but there are ''way'' to many pages with little-to-no activity on the Talk page for your preferred solution to work. And how is it "instruction creep" to bring ] more in line with ], while slightly shortening ] in the process? -- ] | ] 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd agree with that. I don't see how this change would conflict with COI or how tweaking a line that is already there is "instruction creep". Nothing this guideline says will ever be a "prohibition" since guidelines (and policies) by definition allow exceptions. But I don't think we should be afraid to say "Don't do X". --] 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Note that COI's wording includes mucho "avoids", "mays", "shoulds" and "strongly encourage" (it also has a lot of bolding, which is a bit ridiculous). It does not use the phrase "should not". The current wording of the guideline fits with COI. By policy creep, I'm talking about people who go from guideline to guideline, trying to tighten the bolts on their personal pet peeves. The comment on articles with no talk page activity is essentially a non-issue. Articles with no talk page activity are not being actively edited or read. Someone who wants to remove an EL from that type of article does not need a guideline in order to act. They don't need to play off a "strongly recommended" against a "should not". The guideline will make no difference in that case, whatever the wording. This is not my "preferred solution". It is the common sense way of editing articles. --] 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Agreed on this removal. ]] 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, it doesn't say "should not". It says "...you should: ...avoid linking to...the website of your corporation...". I suppose there's a difference in meaning, but if so, I'm having trouble parsing it. If you'd rather substitute that turn of phrase here, I would have no problem with it, though I'm having trouble seeing the point. | |||
| ::And it is certainly not the case that "articles with no talk page activity are not being actively edited or read." I have had, er, disagreements that went on for days without comment by other editors on an article that was being heavily spammed. | |||
| ::And the issue isn't that someone "who wants to remove an EL" needs "a guideline in order to act". Its that ''after'' you act, it is ''very'' helpful to be able to say "look, ''here'' is where it says you can't do that." | |||
| ::''Please'' try to understand that ''your'' common sense is not the only one going. -- ] | ] 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, if the wording is changed (which is not really necessary), it should be changed to "you should avoid". That is obviously quite different than "you should not". Beyond that, this guideline is already chock full of reasons or justifications to exclude links. But I would remind you that we are not dealing with "can't". Users can and will add links. Other users will remove them. This can and should be explained on the talk page, both by the link adder and remover (as you suggested above when you wrote: ''placing a message on the Talk page should get the link added''). I would expect that your previous multi-day "disagreement" involved messages from you on both the article and user talk pages. That no other editor responded would seem to prove that the article was not being actively edited (besides a link spammer). A user who continually adds an unsuitable link to a page without engaging in discussion (and I assume this is what you meant by "way" too many pages without discussion) will be continually reverted and eventually blocked. This is already fully covered by ] and ] and was sufficiently covered here. --] 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you. ] ] 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, I must be be dense. Would you explain the difference in meaning between "you should avoid" and "you should not"? If I tell someone, "you should avoid stepping in front of a speeding train" or "you should not step in front of a speeding train", what is the difference? TIA, -- ] | ] 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Without being a grammarian, it would seem to me that "you should avoid" is less prohibitive and implies that it may be expedient at times to ignore the warning. There are never times when it is expedient to step in front of ''speeding'' trains. Should you be called upon to advise someone about stepping in front of trains, I would thus advise the use of the "you should not" formulation. Furthermore, as you are well aware, "you should avoid" directly replicates the language in ]. --] 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The section is already being discussed on this talk page above. Deleting the section without commenting in that discussion is a poor model of cooperation. Your edits do not reflect consensus on this talk page and your interpretation of policy is disputed by others. You've deleted sections that have recently been developed under consensus and other sections which you hadn't brought up on the talk page and clarified your objections to. It's very dramatic, but not particularly informative. -- ] 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK, fine. Have we, then, consensus that "Use of Misplaced Pages to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against..." should be changed to "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or for which you act as an agent..."? -- ] | ] 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The rude and incomprehensible deletion has been fixed again. Slim Virgin you are acting beond rudely here. Please stop. This passage in particular has been discussed and agreed on by many editors who initally disagreed. Rudely ignoring consensus and removing it is just plain weird. ] 04:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : If you want to make that change I won't revert. But what is meant exactly by the phrase "act as an agent"? How does someone "act as an agent" for a website? If that means "to represent", then why not state it clearly? --] 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And it has the virtue of simplicity. So then: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent..." Going once..., going twice... Any (wince) final comments? -- ] | ] 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Other things : | |||
| ==YouTube and related discussions== | |||
| ===YouTube 1=== | |||
| The recent change to the EL guideline re YouTube is in conflict with copyright policy. Barberio's Nov 3 statement:''copyvio links are already forbidden, and it isn't a specific problem with Youtube but with all publicly contributed sites'' is correct. The means already exist to delete copyvio ELs, per copyright policy. YouTube is ''not'' a prohibited source, and claiming on EL that YouTube should not be added is confusing and incorrect--the current EL policy has merely created a fraudulent technicality for the deletion of YT links on a grounds other than cr violation--simply because they are external links. The wording should be changed back so that it's in alignment with V and C, which do ''not'' strictly prohibit YouTube. Any YouTube link which is a cr violation can already be dealt with under C--deleting them under EL and referring editors to the EL page does nothing to educate people about how to judiciously use YouTube--it just erroneously informs them that YouTube should not be linked; it doesn't explain under what terms YouTube can be linked. Explanations of the terms under which YouTube can be linked are explained at C, V, NOR (and RS). | |||
| ] 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===sites with meaningful content === | |||
| : I've removed specific mention of YouTube to address the concern that YouTube might specifically be targeted for removal even when properly copyrighted. --] 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." | |||
| :*Wrong; it might be very suitable. Changed to "Sites with relevant content that have not been used as a source for the article." | |||
| ::"wrong"? If the definition of the site we're talking about is one that has "content that is not suitable for inclusion" saying "it might be very suitable" doesn't make any sense to me. If it were very suitable the section wouldn't apply to it. Also your proposed change implies that a site which is used as a source cannot then be used as an EL (at least that's how I read it. From a reader perspective external links serve different function from sources. If we have an proscription on using links to sites that are sources in our EL section we probably won't direct our regular readers to the best external further reading/viewing content that we could. -- ] 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've removed all specifity to brandnames of sites, and clarified that licensing is the issue. I agree with Cindery that this change was targeted to Youtube and that that sort of thing (targeting a type of site) must never be done. It goes against the very core of wikipedia. Any content which gives a clear license, including Youtube, Flickr or any other is fair game. And even sites which do NOT should be handled under copyright, NOT as an exception here. ] 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Long lists of links === | |||
| :::Since Jossi does not want to discuss, I've gone further, and completely removed all reference to the copyvio issue, which does not belong on this page whatsoever. ] 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"Long lists of links are not appropriate: ]. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the {{tl|linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The ] is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{tl|dmoz}} template." | |||
| :*Removed because of the Open Directory thing, which often supplies nonsense that we shouldn't be linking to. | |||
| :*: I think we need to provide some sort of alternative for very low quality links in large number. Like dmoz to all fan sights for the rolling stones in the rolling stones article or Or dmoz of republican blogs in a "republican party" article ]] 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The wording is "a well chosen directory" and dmoz is provided as a possibility, it's not a requirement. Have you reviewed the discussion which built this consensus from a few days ago? This wasn't my first choice of wording (nor anyones I don't think) but I thought it was a good compromise that dealt respectfully with the things people wanted from the guideline. Do you have a new suggestion or some insight that might help define the issues better or address the ones that have been raised? I'm wondering because you say it's just the dmoz wording. But you didn't delete just the dmoz wording, so it seems like there may be more to this from your perspective. -- ] 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Previous discussion: ]. The guideline should stand, even without the DMOZ section for the time being while this is rehashed. ] 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Section should stay. Open Directory mention should stay. I constantly patrol pages for unencyclopedic links and spam and so forth. This is a hugely impotant section, as it's what I point to as explanation when I remove ten tons of crap/spam/vanity/etc. The Open Directory link is also a very helpful tactical decision to stave off people who want to add links they feel are justified. This is all necessary and should not be removed at a whim by some editor going wild. ] 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Sites which fail to meet criteria === | |||
| :::If licensing is the issue, then that needs to be made more clear and cannot have a blanket negative view of YouTube or any other site. Licensing is an issue not specifically reserved for YouTube, it affects all webpages without exception. YouTube must not be treated as a special case. ] 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"Sites which fail to meet criteria for ] yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article." | |||
| :*Can someone give an example of such a site, other than the website of the subject of the article? | |||
| :*: An important political speech on a topic. Say for example a speech by the president. Political speeches aren't peer reviewed so they aren't RSes and politicians aren't authorities but this could still be a very important link. Another example might be information from highly biased but knowledgeable sources. Like co-conspirators in a crime. ]] 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*::Material doesn't have to be peer-reviewed to be a reliable source. Political speeches are reliable primary-source material. Highly biased sources may also be reliable sources: almost all sources are biased. I can't think of a single example of a non-reliable source that contains information about the subject from knowledgeable sources, other than the subject's website/self-published material, which is dealt with elsewhere. That makes this a redundant and possibly confusing paragraph, which is why I removed it.] ] 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you are confused, that's fine, it's not confusing to most people, so it stays. If you'd like to SUGGEST a REWORDING so that people can understand it better, fine. Don't just remove it completely.] 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Any site that does not provide a unique resource === | |||
| === YouTube 2 === | |||
| *"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a ]." | |||
| :*Removed because incomprehensible. I can't even figure out what it's trying to say. | |||
| ::Perhaps you could particpate further in the discussion you started about it. We can work on the concept or wordsmith it there. -- ] 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As other editors have mentioned already, this is trying to express the important idea that the point of external links should be to amplify the content of articles, not draw away readers to other websites. It is intended to encourage editors to add content to Misplaced Pages rather than link to every site that is simply relevant to topic. It is worth finding a way to reword this and reincorporate it. ] 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a long standing part of the guideline. Just because somebody can't understand it is no reason to remove it, especially since it is quite clear and no explaination has been given for the lack of understanding. ] 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As per discussions in ]: | |||
| === site registration === | |||
| #The source and legitimacy of the videos on YouTube are almost or totally impossible to determine, hence they are not reliable sources and are not verifiable (A key requirement). | |||
| *"Links to sites that ] to view the relevant content." | |||
| #Many videos on YouTube are of questionable copyright legitimacy, which should not be linked from Misplaced Pages | |||
| :*Would mean we couldn't link to the New York Times archives. | |||
| # Since many videos are personally made, they represent original research, which Misplaced Pages is not in the buissiness of publishing. They may also be biased in their presentation of material. | |||
| ::News articles are more appropriate as references, and when used as references - adding a link to an article that requires registration is fine. The point of this guideline is to discourage people linking to whole websites that require a subscription (or other form of registration) to view the content. ] 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree. There is a real problem with putting ELs in WP that are not just as accessible as WP is. So yes, this means we should avoid links to the closed areas of the NYT archives (note that the NYT archives are not entirely closed). There is longstanding consensus around this, and I have not so far seen a case where an alternative open source could not be found. ] 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, I think we agree: I don't believe that anything that requires registration should be linked in the external link section. References (which belong in the text of the article), however, can link to content that requires subscription to view. ] 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am not sure. An article reference that is Web content requiring registration or subscription is bad - unhelpful, at least to some readers, and unable to be checked. This type of content is not a good source for WP articles. I am sure alternative sources can be found and referenced (by even - gasp! - using a non-internet reference instead!). ] 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This has been discussed on this page multiple times, and it seems like the consensus is that references are governed by a different set of guidelines. I would suggest that you move this discussion about links in references to the appropriate page. (The idea seems to be that providing a link to an online version of a reference (if one is available), even if it requires a subscription to view it (e.g. old NYT articles) is acceptable.) ] 03:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::When we are linking to a few of the best available resources for a general readership, linking to sites that require subscription is rude not a courtesy, these aren't sources that we're going to mention anyway, they don't have to be in the article at all. Subscriptions also make it impossible for editors to compare sites to decide on the best selection of links or to see if a site is suitable without paying the fee. And allowing linking to subscription sites would bring us into a weird conflict with our guideline against linking to sites that primarily exist to sell a service. -- ] 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Ditto with site registration paragraph. No reason not to link to sites that require subscription as a courtesy to the reader. ] ] 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Same disagreement here: Linking to sites that require registration is definitely NOT a courtesy to readers who expect links to open internet content. ] 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Since you chose not to respond to my comments on the matter, I'm copying it here to your new thread. Let's take a closer look at one of these sites: YouTube. Besides the masses of home videos and the like, YouTube also hosts an enormous amount of authorized content for major media companies as part of negotiated agreements or other types of partnership deals. NBC is an example , but there are many, many more. YouTube is not violating copyright by hosting material placed on its site by the publisher and we would not violate copyright by linking as specifically authorized under wikipedia policy . Given this context, your concerns regarding WP:V are not relevant. Considering that we do articles on many of the TV shows, stars or other media phenomena that may be covered by the authorized content, an external link to YouTube may be warranted in certain situations. That is just one small example of when a YouTube EL may be necessary. Another is when YouTube content itself gains enough prominence to justify an article at wikipedia. For example, ] can not be treated in any serious way without linking to the YouTube content. In short, given the many, many valid exceptions and the rapidly shifting nature of the internet, blanket bans on specific sites are always a bad idea and should never be included in policy. --] 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As ]. less clear than subscription. But still to be avoided. -- ] 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *: OK with indicating a preference for non registration sites? ]] 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Its absurd to not link to something that uses flash but link to registration pages, especially paid ones. There isn't any reason to link to registration pages unless we lift the prohibition to link to browser-specific sites and stuff like that. In any case removing the passage is completely inappropriate without a consensus to do so. ] 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages does not allow editors to add original research, but external links certainly do. If Madonna and George Bush do a music video and place a copy on Madonna's official site, we can and should link to it. The criteria for editors working on the Misplaced Pages itself certainly are not the same as the criteria for linking to other websites. External links can have original research, or point of view, or other things that our edits here can not. ] 01:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree completely with User:2005, except that in the example given we would not be dealing with original research, but rather with primary source material roughly in the context of Point 2 of "What should be linked to" of this guideline. The entire discussion here on "original research" is off base. --] 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Creating original work is original research, but I should have said the video was placed on YouTube, but was linked to from both from Madonna's official site and whitehouse.gov. This valid external link would be original research and a Youtube link that would be clearly a non-copyvio one. ] 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Massive non-discussed changes=== | |||
| The discussion is ''not'' about authorized content uploaded you YouTube, such as those videos uploaded by movie studios, record labels, and news organizations, but about all other content (that makes the ''bulk'' of YouTube) that is uploaded by individuals. ] <small>]</small> 02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There have been several major, undiscussed changes inflicted on this guideline today... very bizarrely after we seem to have settled on a consensus after much discussion. This is a guideline that states it is a product of consensus. I admit I have a hard time understanding the pure arrogance it takes to ignore the consensus statement at the top of the article, but no matter how rude you want to be, repeated changes that do not have a consensus are not going to be let in, no matter how many times you make a change. The registration stuff for example has been in there more than a year. Just removing it is beyond arrogant, but it is also just a waste of people's time because it isn't going to stay out unless there is a consensus to do so. Please play nice and make proposals for changes on this page, and don't make changes to the guideline because you don't like it or don't understand it. Use this page to convince others your position makes sense, and if you can't that's the way it is. ] 04:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Wrong. The discussion is most definitely about authorized content (and thanks for finally recognizing that authorized content exists, after the mispresentation in your point 1 above). Non-authorized content, i.e. copyvio clips (which YouTube actively removes), and insignificant home videos are already fully covered by the EL guideline. Given that YouTube (and other sites) acts as official host for a full range of authorized content, it can not be listed as a site that "should not be used". As I have explained, there are definite times when it should be used to link to material released by publishers.--] 02:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : And I'd add a suggestion. An incremental approach works much better: pick the one phrase in the GL that bothers you the most, and address it on the talk page, then move on to the next one. Trying to gain consensus for a wholesale rewrite of the GL in one shot is going to be extraordinarily difficult. ] 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You could have avoided the use of "wrong". If it is wrong explain why and leave it at that, OK? So, If there is agreement, then the guideline needs to spell out ''when'' it is permissible to link to video sharing sites rather than be ambigous about it. ] <small>]</small> 02:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. That's a very good point. The last major rewrite of this guideline took THREE MONTHS of discussion, including an entire workshop rewriting that people commented on. Making one change without consensus is one thing, but multiple major changes will never get anywhere as they will just be reverted if only to keep the lineage of the guideline coherent. If someone doesn't like something in the guideline, either choose one thing to discuss at a time, or do a workshop rewrite. Slashing and burning is if nothing else just a waste of everybody's time. ] 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It appears you were misunderstanding a combination of things. Authorized content is allowed by the guideline; content with no clear copyright clearance is not. You were adding text that prevents any YouTube stuff from being linked, and that is plainly wrong even give your own comment, so maybe we just need to move on here. Authorized content can be linked, something with no clear rights can not. Okay? ] 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, I don't know what the heck some people think they are up to, but they can't just come in here and yank out whole sections that they disagree with. I reverted it the other day when one of the same editors tried to do so and I will also do it again in the future if I need to. This is a hugely important page and arbitrary removal of items that certain editors feel is inappropriate without any discussion is just ridiculous. So thanks, 2005, for undoing them. ] 18:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree again with User:2005. The guideline and other policies fully cover the issue. We don't need another line that says don't link to copyvio videos, don't link to stupid home movies and don't link to someone's partisan video. --] 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You can look at this is way: If a person uploads a video to a blog or a personal home page, that is not an acceptable page to link to as per guidelines. So, my argument is that the fact that is in YouTube or Google Video, does not make it more linkable. On the contrary. ] <small>]</small> 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one has argued that a personal video becomes "more linkable" due to YouTube hosting relative to a blog. The situation is identical and is already covered by the EL guideline. However, your argument in no way justifies a complete ban of named video hosting sites as you have tried to impose. --] 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::More straw man arguments? I ''never'' discussed a complete ban of video hosting sites. Mybe the wording was not perfect, but the intention was to make it clear that linking to content that is not verifiable and that the copyright status is questionable should be avoided. ] <small>]</small> 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Rather than strawmen, your edits speak for themselves- "should not be used" etc. . I would also remind you that verifiability and copyright issues are already extensively covered in the guideline. --] 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As I have already explained in the long NOR thread, at ANI,and at the J.Smith YouTube deletion project page here are examples of exceptions: | |||
| # ]--a short fair use clip of a political documentary | |||
| # ]--a 1988 8mm film digitized and uploaded to YT for accessibility/storage--only known film of no-longer existing murals | |||
| # ]--YT video of the poet reading at the Bowery Poetry Club | |||
| # ]--short fair use clips of a nonprofit org | |||
| # ]--original art/trailer of film featuring the subject | |||
| == Sentence Clarification/Deletion == | |||
| There are also the hypothetical examples of the many films which are legally in the public domain due to expired copyright, and which could be YouTubed for stable storage and easy access--Krazy Kat, all the Max Fleischer cartoons, ''Alexander Nevsky''--and hundreds more... | |||
| ] 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In the intro section of this GL there is the sentence "Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references." This is confusing. For example: if the reference link is a reference for some NPOV or OR text in the article, the link will be deleted along with the bad text, as it should be. This sentence at least needs some modifier. Alternatively, since this GL has just finished stating that it does not apply to references, I think this sentence can be deleted completely. But it doesn't work standing alone. Comments? ] 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (ed conf)Another example that relates to ]: An editor wants to add OR to an article, as that is not permissible, the editors creates a blog on Blogger.com in which he places the OR. That link will probably survive for a short time before being deleted, if at all. The editor then, creates a slideshow or home video, ripping videos from air TV broadcasts and creates a pieces of OR designed to advance a specific viewpoint, and uploads it to YouTube. Would a link to that video be permissible? Of course not. So, unless video material (or any other material for that matter, is placed online by a reliable/reputable source, link to to that material is not permissible as per WP content policies. ] <small>]</small> 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't think the sentence is meant to stand alone, ''The guideline of this article refers to external links '''other than citations'''. Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references.'' (emphasis mine). The sentence is question is part of a point, that this guideline applies to ELs and not RSs. ]] 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The examples above ''may'' be very well exceptions. The vast majority (I would not exaggerate if I say 99% of the links) are not in that category. So, the burden to argue for the addition of a link should be on editors adding that link. ] <small>]</small> 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I feel the ''"Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references."'' sentence should removed and replaced with a link to the appropriate WP:CITATION? guideline. This EL guideline does not need to be telling people to be careful. BTW, embedding external links in the references is one of the latest pro-spammer tricks since they see it as a safe haven. (] 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| == Proboards external links ban == | |||
| :99% is a gross exaggeration, per the mass-deleters highest (and biased/unscientific estimate it's 90%); the big copyvio prob is music vids, and if music vid copyvios are a huge problem C should be updated to expedite their removal. "Burden to argue" depends--delete pre-emptively by bot with prejudice and under EL and leave editors confused about what, where, or how to argue? No. Discussion by editors on talkpage with respect for editorial process? Yes. As Jodyw pointed out, even if 90% of the links in general are problemmatic at present, no one link is 90% in ''particular'' problemmatic. Editors ''do'' contest any and all questionable info in articles--there is no need to pre-emptively delete YT links by AWB without clear evidence of copyvio. In stubs or little-edited articles, perhaps a note could be placed requesting GDFL verification (but again, unless there's a ''material'' copyvio issue, GDFL extremely unlikely to be an issue, as self-published YT largely public domain or fair use). Banning YT or going overboard on deletionism is censorship and a gross disrespect for the editorial process (which is the only way to determine which self-published YT links are legit/useful links or sources). | |||
| ] 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What's up with this? Are Proboards sites actually banned from external links? If so, why?--] 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ...some problems with your problems, below: | |||
| :There are a couple versions of the url that show up in the (meaning that they cannot be added to page), but there doesn't appear to be any ban. In general, links to forums are strongly discouraged under the external link guidelines for a number of reasons. They tend to fail important tests: encyclopedic content, no original research, verifiable, etc. Is there a specific example you are thinking of? ] 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Imelda Marcos ''likely'' and ''arguably'' fair use per substantiality; fails nothing prima facie. Obscure political doc for which the author may very well be happy to get exposure. Not a justifiable deletion--something to query on talkpage and submit to editorial process, in absence of any complaint. Same for "POV"--''could be'' POV insufficient. ''Anything'' could be POV. And then of course, NPOV is not the elimination of viewpoints. Per EL, it would have to tip over the balance of the links egregiously to one POV, and then it still wouldn't be a prob inherent to the video. | |||
| :Forums are almost NEVER encyclopedic. In fact I can't really think of any examples that would be acceptable. I delete any and all forums/message boards/discussion lists/etc. on sight. ] 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Good luck contesting Barrington Hall! (you don't seem to have examined it closely, watched the film, or seen the original link, included in article and mentioned on talkpage. Credit for Clark at the end of the film. Location verifiable per all the sources in the article, including matching photos, and all the editors. Year part of the title.) | |||
| ] 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Wiki's: "substantial number of editors" == | |||
| Some problems with the some of the examples: | |||
| # Imelda Marcos documentary -- (a) Selective selection of a documentary to assert a POV; (b) lacks description of source, author and who owns the copyright so it fails fair use doctrine. Could be removed as violation of ]. | |||
| # ] unverified OR. The statement "A film my brother Clark (now a video editor in Albuquerque) and I made in 1988 about the murals, graffiti, and general ambiance of the late great Barrington Hall co-op at UC Berkeley" is not verifiable (who is Clark?), the date is not verifiable, and the location is not verifiable. Could be removed as violation of ] | |||
| :] <small>]</small> 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And you seem to be proving my point that video ELs are not a special case, but are instead adequately covered by existing policies and guidelines. There is a really strange policy creep going on here where people are copying entire sections of policy into the EL guideline, or want every single specific site on the internet to be named and have a full list of what can and can't be done. The guideline is not meant to be a directory of good sites and bad sites. A certain degree of common sense is required from editors --] 03:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to get additional opinions on a potential link to a wiki. The site has twelve thousand editors, and someone has argued that that number isn't "substantial" and that a hundred thousand would be required. That seems unrealistic if not borderline ridiculous. If anyone wants to join in the discussion, it is at ] and the site for a potential link is ] . Thanks. --] 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::We are in violent agreement, then. ] <small>]</small> 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't noticed any violence. Stubborn agreement maybe. --] 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That was a figurative form of speech. Yes, we are in agreement, common sense and the good judgement of editors is ''always'' needed. ] <small>]</small> 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| --- | |||
| ===YouTube2 - another arbitary section break to facilitate discussion=== | |||
| :'''Comment:''' As the person who started this mess, I appreciate contribution stalking. I make an attempt to judge what is a clear copyright-vio and what is not and I don't mind it if someone points out when/if I'm wrong. (As far as I know, I haven't been wrong yet) | |||
| :'''Comment on policy:''' I'm the one who originally added YouTube as an example. I did it because YouTube was a particularly large problem. (4000+ links, with the overwhelming majority copyvio) Should YouTube be singled out? No. I don't mean that it shouldn't be used as an example, but the policy shouldn't be built around preventing YouTube. Ideally, the policy/guideline can be written in a way that there is no doubt when a link is acceptable or not with out needing to make a list of the dozen or so classifications of websites. | |||
| :'''Comment on YouTube acceptability''': Well, YouTube is particularly a bad source in most cases. In a political article I was editing someone linked to copies of a debate that was hosted on YT, and was using it as a source. At first glance that seems like a useful external link... and it really is. It's quite useful to be able to talk about a debate and then SHOW them the debate. But usefulness isn't the only concern. How could I know if the video was accurate? If I can't be sure it's accurate then how I can ever use it to verify anything? The answer is... I can't. Now, there are some cases where the up-loader is known and is reliable, but that is the '''exception''' and not the rule. ---] (]|]) 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* All your points are pretty reasonable, but the guideline already covers in great depth the issue of not linking to copyvio material. Even you agree that YouTube and other sites should not have been singled out. That was a mistake that raised tension on this sensitive and frequently protected page. We should not be naming specific sites in the guideline because it leads to acrimony and edit wars between anal-minded link patrollers, rather than careful consideration of the link in question by editors directly involved in editing specific articles. | |||
| ::*YouTube can be a great source in some cases - in fact, the best source for authorized video (NBC, CBS, Sony, Universal, Warner, NHL, etc)- and is actively working to prevent copyvio material . In addition, many of the content deals allow any user to upload intellectual material from the partner, with the partner company responsible for authorizing or removing the content. The situation is rapidly evolving, but there is still very deep misunderstanding among a certain group of wikipedia editors concerning YouTube. With Misplaced Pages lacking video capabilities, links to video and other media can greatly enrich the utility of articles for readers. | |||
| ::*Your point about verifiability is noted, but that is a different issue. As with any reference, the validity and suitability of references need to be worked out by editors of a given article. When we link to referenced articles located on third-party sites, how can we really know those articles are fully accurate? Editors need to remember that external links are not references. We are merely pointing readers to sources of additional information (within the strict parameters of this guideline), not vouching for the integrity of the content, which we can not control. -] 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::YouTube, as is the case with all other similar sites, is subject to the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act - YouTube deletes videos that are found to be in copyright violation, and increased dilligence thereto is occuring as a result of the Google acquisition. Individual videos on YouTube should be regarded, as is evidenced above by the assertion provided by the uploader, as not being in violation of copyright until otherwise deleted. Misplaced Pages should not serve as an arbitrary decision maker on the issue of YouTube copyright - as many artists, including some I know personally, are using YouTube to distribute their own content. Such content is completely appropriate. The result of this discussion is that some editors are bascially running amok deleting every YouTube link, which is wholly inappropriate. Especially in the area of music, YouTube can be an excellent illustrative resource which is miles better than Wikiepdia's 30 second ogg clip. ] 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right now the vast majority of content was uploaded before YT became more careful about copyvios and two concerns come to mind. A) we need to follow Misplaced Pages policy not YT policy on copyright and they are not necesserily going to be the same and b)how can we be confident that all the existing content we are linking to is legal and compliant with the DMCA? ] 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : 12,000 editors for a single purpose specialized wiki. You are talking something like 1/1000 viewers and a representative sample. I'd say that's easily enough assuming that more than a few hundred were active. Misplaced Pages has many more topics. ]] 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"''Even you agree that YouTube and other sites should not have been singled out.''" - Not true. Thats not what I said. We had a massive number of copy-vio links and at the time awareness needed to be raised to the issue. | |||
| ::Interesting way to look at it. Feel free to weigh in on the article talk page, on this particular issue there seem to be a few editors who flatly reject any non-official links, regardless of whether they meet EL. It would be nice to get some outside opinions. --] 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"''The result of this discussion is that some editors are bascially running amok deleting every YouTube link''" - You clearly don't understand what we are doing. We are not deleting every YT link. We are reviewing each befor deleting and deleteing those that are clearly copy-vio links. "''as many artists, including some I know personally, are using YouTube to distribute their own content''" - Thats why I skip over those links. ---] (]|]) 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Frankly, the substantial number of editors thing doesn't in any way in and of itself make any wiki meet the standard guidelines for encyclopedic links. As a general principle, wikis competing with Misplaced Pages should not be linked to, as they have very drastic problems with verifiability, reliability, etc. There wouldn't be a wa of judging quality on other sites without seeing if they cite their information from reliable sources, etc. ] 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''"Should YouTube be singled out? No."'' Your words, not mine. I have no problem with raising awareness of the issue. I do have a problem with the attempt to change this guideline without talkpage discussion or consensus. I also object to the confrontational approach that seems to be the rule among those who see themselves as self-annointed link removers, rather than collaborative editors. --] 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"''and deleteing those that are clearly copy-vio links''" - The discussion I'm having with ] implies otherwise. The ] link is not obviously copyvio. It might be, but I'd guess not. His edit summaries strongly imply that there's a blanket "delete all youtube links" policy, which even you're saying there is not. (The summary is the worst part; an occasional mis-guess of copyright status is one thing, easily corrected - but asserting in thousands of pages via summary that all youtube links should be banned, even if he didn't mean to, is another. And the summary implies there's no need to review the links, and therefore that they haven't been reviewed.) ] 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am looking at at least two pages I have added YouTube links to and EVERY YT link is being deleted - the ''assumption'' is that the material violates copyright, and editors here are assuming the role of copyright holders, which is inappropriate. YouTube and the DMCA have a legal mechanism for dealing with this issue and that is the mechanism that should hold, not arbitrary self-appointed copyright protection by Misplaced Pages editors, no matter how well-intentioned. If the editors here think YouTube content violates copyright, they should be contacting the copyright holders and alerting them as such, instead of deleting material based on their own judgements and assuming material is guilty until proven innocent, especially in the arbitrary means done here. It is also specifically NOT required that copyright holders posting to YouTube post a specific legal copyright disclaimer on their posts, that need is covered in the posting agreement, and no Misplaced Pages editor can know the actual copyright status of any given video, they can only assume, and ASSUME is a well-known acronym for making mistakes. It should NOT be a policy for Misplaced Pages editors to assume the role of copyright holders and make arbitrary judgments, period, there are so many better things to spend time on that need work. ] 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: And here's a direct example of exactly what I am talking about - ]. This is the most grotesque example yet of a YouTube removal I've found. A link was removed for a video that was shot specifically for YouTube and was announced as such at the head of the video in front of the interviewees. Permission was granted by the interviewees for the interview to appear on YouTube, and yet the link was removed per the new "policy". Furthermore, the artist in question is personally known to me and wanted said link to appear. As I have indicated on the discussion page, this new "policy" on YouTube is ridiculous, and allows editors, as I exactly indicated prior, to indeed run amok. ] 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <deindent> I just reviewed the deletion. The loss of that link does not really affect the article - how many interviews do you want linked to there? There are far too many links on that article. Your comments imply that the subject of the article wants to control the content. That's not how we do things here and I don't think thats a valid argument. I didn't delete the link but I'm guessing that the admin who deleted it properly reviewed it. Instead of making accusations here, have you actually raised it with him and sought his commments? --] 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree completely with the last comments by ] (NB: the similarity in our usernames is total coincidence - we do not know one another). Articles are being distorted by perhaps well-meaning editors' wholesale removal of YouTube links, even when they are central to the text in an article, in the reference section, used as citations for facts. I just saw an instance where a You Tube link that provided objective verifiability was replaced with a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag - well, the YouTUbe video ''was'' the citation, so now the article is tainted with an "unsourced" tag, for no reason because the source exists and is clear. This has gotten out of hand, and needs to be reined in. We should let You Tube monitor itself - ''as they do'' - they are quite aware of copyright issues and constantly take steps to maintain the integrity of their site. We need Misplaced Pages editors to stop zealously, arbirtrarily and somewhat mindlessly, cleansing Misplaced Pages of all such links as if they were poison, throwing "WP:EL" into edit summary after edit summary clearly without any reason other than the "you tube" URL. You say this is a "guideline", yet editors are treating it as a sixth pillar. There is indeed much more important work to be done here. ] 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really don't think we can simply leave YT to monitor this. If a link is an obvious copyvio it has to go. What would be much more useful would be showing us examples of links that are acceptable so that we can understand where we need to draw the line. At the moment we seem to be generating more heat than clarity with this discussion and I'd like to more forward constructively. Instead of complaining, please can you provide examples of incorrectly deleted links with an explanation of the reasons why. This would be extremely helpful and constructive. ] 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::And I would argue that you are positing yourself as a self-appointed guardian, and ultimate judicial arbitrator of copyright, which you and others of like mind should refrain from, when the Digital Millenium Copyright Act exists specifically to deal with this issue. You do NOT have infinite knowledge of what is and isn't a copyright violation, you simply assume you know, and making those assumptions leads to exactly the kind of deletions I cited above, which were and are simply absurd. The amount of deleting going on by editors on Misplaced Pages is getting totally out of hand, denigrates the project as a whole, and discourages legitmate contributors who find their considerable efforts flushed by people who seem far more interested in removing content than improving it - this is yet another example, as I stated earlier, of editing run amok, and is wasting hundreds, if not thousands of hours of Wikipedians time and energy trying to revert, or deciding to revert, this type of content attack. ] 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And I just found your prior comments - the artist in question specifically does not control the content, I simply have the luxury of making sure items such as the one in question are legitimate and useful, as well as access to images and other material he has chosen to provide - and although you are entitled to your opinion as to how many links are "appropriate", it shouldn't be done under the premise provided - you asked for an example of an incorrectly deleted link, and I had already provided it - and as to the person who removed the link (it wasn't an admin), if you'd checked my user contributions, you'd have seen I did indeed address the issue on his discussion page. Again, I totally disagree with those users who want to assume the role of copyright judge for YouTube content, time and effort would be far better spent on constructive additions rather than arbitrary deletions. ] 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : They don't have to be reliable. He's not asking to cite just to link. In other words this is an issue of notability not reliability. ]] 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| After having read much of the ongoing discussions here and on the userpages of the mass-deleters ], ], ], and ], I would like to hear their answers to the following questions: | |||
| :: It's reputation rather than simple notability - we should still have an expectation that the material is reasonably accurate and it's not full of specious claims and coverage of unencyclopedic info. -- ] 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Non-official sites that don't stand up to ] fall under ] links to avoid. Not sure if this site is reliable or not, but notability is not the only consideration. ] 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think you all need to read the guideline, ''Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.''. 12,000 fans of Lost on their primary wiki constitute a recognized authority on Lost. If you don't believe that, you don't believe that then what are you doing on wikipedia? We aren't talking medicine here this is a TV show, there isn't much that can be known. ]] 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| # There is a list of ''youtube'' links on the user subpage ] that is automatically created as explained on ]. This seems to be the list has been used in their AutoWikiBrowser assisted mass deletions. Who is checking the individual links for copyright violations. The mass deletions were at such a fast pace that one has to wonder if they were checked at all. Checking means at least watching the clip and trying to find out about the licensing status. | |||
| # If they were indeed checked individually, what is the qualification of the checkers to determine if a clip is a copyright violation. As it is now clear from the ongoing discussion, many TV and music clips might be correctly licensed. | |||
| # The edit summary the mass deleters used was "''Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL using AWB''". However, this reason is clearly not covered by WP:EL. ] has told me that he will change that summary in the future. What are the exact guidelines you are following and were can they be found. | |||
| # ''Youtube'' clearly differs from anonymous copyvio content somewhere else on the web in that ''youtube'' actively checks its content for copyright violations and deletes them. What are the legal implications of that related to linking to such content and which legal experts or sources support your view. | |||
| :That's a peculiat position; 12,000 fans are a recognised authority? Recognised by whom? And why should a self-selected group of people with a strong point of view count as a reliable source? --] (]) 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the recognized authority issue is very much the point and not one we have a good answer to. We normally say it needs to be recognized by other experts in the field. With pop culture subjects we get into muddy water. Such experts are rarely academics or paid up members of an association. You get a few writers who concentrate on TV, but most of the time the experts pretty much are fans. In the end I think if this wiki is recognized by the Lost fan community as a significant, reliable place to go for ''encyclopedic'' information then it might well be appropriate. That encyclopedic bit is important though - if it's the best place to find out which cast member is sleeping with whom, or to get the most outrageous suggestions about what will happen next, then I think, well, not so much. -- ] 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: To quote ] '' their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are '''authoritative in relation to the subject at hand''' '' The public is well aware that for television shoes and movies obsessive fans are far and away the experts. The entire plot of ] is based on the assumption that the audience knows about and agrees with this theory. ]] 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Your last point is incorrect. YouTube does not actively checks for copyvios. They only respond to request by content owners. See http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy. ] <small>]</small> 14:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I actually like that for a revision to #11. We change it to ''Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. For pop culture subjects a site wide recognized by fans as a source of reliable and encyclopedic information is considered reliable" everyone agree? ]] 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :;J.smith's response... | |||
| ::::I think the whole pop culture thing is still being worked out and is too muddy to write this sort of assessment into a guideline at this point. -- ] 14:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *1. We are checking the links as we go along. We are making a good faith effort to clean up a mess on wikipedia. | |||
| :::::This skates on thin ice, IMO. Would this then allow blogs and personal webpages for hategroups, which could conceivably be staffed or run by an ''expert'' but not necessarily contain the ''experts'' blogs? ] 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *2. We are wikipedia editors in good standing and it doesnt take a degree in rock science to tell that a full copy of of a music video is a copy-vio. We might make mistakes and I don't mind if you let me know if I removed one I shouldn't have.... thankfully wikipedia has a nice little revert feature for those cases, so not much is lost. | |||
| The problem is the guideline right now says the opposite. And right now all over this encyclopedia articles are being regularly harmed because we can't link to knowledgeable amateurs who are well regarded. ]] 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *3. Edit summary reflected the guidelines of WP:EL when we started. People have been tinkering with the policy and that section was removed without any discussion. *shrug* I've updated the Edit Summary to be more vague until WP:EL settles down. The exact guidelines are in WP:C and previously in WP:EL/WP:RS. | |||
| *4. YouTube has a policy of requiring the copyright owner to complain. (That may have changed with the Google takeover, I hope so, but I'm not sure.) Here is the legal justification, verbatim from WP:C: "''Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).''" ---] (]|]) 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Call me crazy be but.. == | |||
| Is there any support for the idea of replacing the whole guideline with something like: | |||
| :Thanks for finding the source of the mass-deletion - I never would have thought to look for the "list of links to be deleted" and the justification for a major change to large parts of Misplaced Pages on a 'random' user-page. | |||
| ''For non-citation external links editors should only link to a small selection of sites. All links should be to pages that are authoritative, have an established reputation for providing reliable, encyclopedic information on the subject of the article, and are generally accessible to our audience.'' | |||
| :Reading the justification there: ''Misplaced Pages cannot link to sites which contain copyright infringements, which much of YouTube does, or sites which fail to provide licensing information, which even most of the possibly free content on YouTube is. The reasoning is obviously that we have no way of knowing whether it is free or not, and without licensing information we must assume it is a copyright infringement.'' I see some problems, which makes me wonder why the terms and justifications for the mass-delete were not worked out here '''first''', and then a publicly-visible project created to enact the consensus. | |||
| Just a thought - it seems like we all try to use guidelines to micro-manage things sometimes. A real overhaul like this might be more what we need. -- ] 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| #Misplaced Pages '''can''' link to sites which ''contain'' copyright infringements. You can make arguments over whether we can legally link directly to a copyright infringement, but guidelines are (correctly) that we should not knowingly do so. | |||
| :Looks like a moderate improvement to the nutshell, but I find the additional specifics to be useful and appropriate for inclusion. One can think of the details as a FAQ of sorts, explaining common questions and issues with the general you are expressing. '''∴''' ]…] 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| #Can't link to sites that fail to provide licensing information — in addition to that not being in WP:EL and definitely not consensus, that would exclude large portions of the web as link targets. | |||
| #Without licensing information we must assume it's copyright infringement — why? Where does that come from? Especially since most of the sites in question (youtube, flickr, etc) explicitly require their uploaders to do the same thing we do here, and youtube in particular does scan for and remove copyrighted material. This isn't j. random pirate storage site. | |||
| #Where was this debated, discussed? Where was warning given? Notification? Since one of them mentioned this in spartaz's talk page or mine, I'll note that I don't feel ] (whenever something was mentioned there; not sure what was mentioned or when - the comment was unclear) was enough - it should have been debated here, and once consensus was reached a project created. I'm not saying it was hidden, but was it publicized? It is a significant change to large sections of WP. | |||
| :Yes, many of the youtube links in Misplaced Pages probably do fail WP:C - but even for material (images) uploaded to wikipedia's own servers without copyright info there is often a grace period and the item is flagged first. Also, note that ALL external links are to copyrighted material, unless there's an explicit "this is public domain" statement, and most external links are to pages/sites without explicit licensing information. And there is licensing information for all of youtube (and flickr, etc). Users of it may violate that, and have, and we should remove links to known copyvios. Which brings us to Cacycle's point: who is determining the copyright status of these, and how are they doing it, and where are the criteria? Is it "I looked at it and it's too professional", or "it looks like what I'd see on MTV" or "I saw it on NBC" (but NBC and others have deals with youtube)? As witnessed by the link that was in ] () - ]'s comment when re-removing it was ''Remove youtube link because the video is not demonstratively not a copyvio'', which is a direct example that the operating assumption is guilty until proven innocent. As per my discussion with him on his and my talk pages, it might be a copyvio, but I'd bet against it pretty strongly, and it certainly isn't an obvious copyvio, and given the youtube license requirements, it '''should''' get the benefit of the doubt. To repeat myself, "not obviously not copyvio" != copyvio. | |||
| :] 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::# Wrong. Misplaced Pages should not link to copyvios | |||
| ::# If there is no licensing info, copyvio can and should be assumed. WP is licensed as GFDL and should not be tainted by copvios | |||
| ::# The deletions were made on the basis of current understanding. Note that this is a guideline and not policy. Guidelines are there to assist editors, and not to designed to act as rules | |||
| ::As for your description of a "random user-page" where a list of YouTube linked articles was placed, note that is the user page of a respected member of the community and a member of the ArbCom, that created a page by using a database dump for the purpose of exploring these links. ] <small>]</small> 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::# I think that jessup meant that if a site has copyright violations we can still link to pages on that site that do not violate copyright. I.e. http://mypage.com/MPG_of_NBC_news_telecast.htm - can't be linked; however, http://mypage.com/NBC_news analysis.htm, which contained an analysis of the telecast could be linked if it complied with other provisions even though elsewhere on the site their are copyvios. To me this is a close call. If the site was a bunch of videos of NBC news, with a navigation page that indexed them and provided brief descriptions - then NO! If the site is mostly commentary and without a license included a recording of a few videos of NBC news, then maybe - but if Yes only link to commentary not to copyright vio - and probably not to page that prominently displays a link to the copyright vio. | |||
| ::::# agree with jossi - as applied to youtube - since the uploader certifies it is theirs I would say we can link since there is no copyvio ONLY IF it is obviously not a copyvio OR the description provides a license. We shouldn't link to youtube haphazardly as they have no enforcement mechanism until a copyright holder objects. | |||
| ::::# I don't think we should assume it is a copyvio, but we should be conservative in assuming the uploader understands and complies with the directions in youtube's terms of use. | |||
| ::::# Notification is not required to enforce the current policies. The increase in the links to youtube have made this issue more visible. | |||
| ::::Thoughts? --<font color="#06C">]</font> 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't say we should link to copyvios; I said ''Misplaced Pages can link to sites which '''contain''' copyright infringements.''. I agree we should not link to known copyright violations. Note the word "known"; I did not use "possible". | |||
| :::No licensing info on the link target is, again, not the same as failure to provide licensing info when adding content to Misplaced Pages. Probably most of the sites we link to have images. All (or almost all) of those are covered by copyright, and many of them were not created by the page owner. Few (very few) of those sites provide licensing info for the images on their sites, the assumption is that they are not violating copyright. Ditto for the text on those pages we link to - we assume (barring a claim or evidence otherwise) that the text is not a copyright violation. Please be careful to make a distinction between content '''on''' Misplaced Pages, and content '''linked to''' by Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::I have no idea if that user is a respected user, etc, but I'll happily take your word for it - great! That doesn't explain why this apparent project wasn't discussed publicly here, where the notifications were, where the consensus was obtained, why it wasn't made into a formal project, etc. I'm afraid most editors not only don't have time to monitor all admin's pages, why should they expect they need to? | |||
| :::I'm sure there is a lot of angst over all the links to truely blatant copyvios. I agree strongly that a project to weed them out is appropriate. I think said project should have been public, discussed, and with known and reference-able criteria for evaluating targets of links. That would have avoided huge amounts of wasted time and contention here. Also, the project as it is currently does not seem to have been careful to review links ahead of time. I don't think someone could ''objectively'' review 4+ links per minute and change the pages, and the link I mentioned is an example. There was a jump to conclusion based on an assumption of violation. | |||
| :::] 16:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Re Dmcdevit: everybody can make mistakes, even members of Arbcom. I think we just hope Arbcom members will be the first to diplomatically own up/move on/come up with a better solution. Putting the whole project on his own page was indeed a "random user page" --under community radar. I don't think editing the EL guideline while it was protected, and refusing to revert/discuss was very cool either. And his actions at ]--deleting a YT link and then ''putting a fact tag'' in the empty spot and threatening the editor with a block?--totally unnecessary. | |||
| Re ''If there is no licensing info, copyvio can and should be assumed''--as per below, there ''is'' licensing information for YT. Hence, the ''original'' claim of mass deleters was grossly incorrect. Without evidence of a copyvio to contest that each and every link is a copyvio, they're all licensed properly. I would suggest, jossi--if you're concerned about the problem of a high number of music vid copyvios on YT--that you cease unproductive arguing about the 5-30% of the links which are fine/should be judged by editorial process, and initiate a discussion at C regarding the possibility of an expedited process for removing blatant music vid copyvios. Endlessly bickering here for an outright ban on YT --via EL--on the basis of a high number of those sorts of copyvios is really a pointless waste of time. YT exceptions exist, hence no ban is possible; EL is not the place anyway. Give it up and go to C to address the real problem, which is that some people feel the need for quicker removal process of some blatant copyvios at YT. | |||
| ] 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| BTW, after checking a few links, I find the list ] definitely has a bunch of clear non-copyvio cases in it, starting with ] and another random example ]. Not surprising, given the comment that it was created from a database dump, but that shows that the list was not reviewed before deletions began; any reviewing must be happening as the deletion is done. When looking at random examples, I noticed removed were links to a user account on YouTube, in particular 'genocideintervention', removed from ] (as well as links to the organization's account on Flickr, etc). This also directly speaks to removal without review, or removal with an strong assumption of guilt, given that these were links to accounts, and the accounts were those of the subject of the Misplaced Pages page. (There may be other reasons for removing those links - but they were removed under the same summary as all the other removals. Perhaps the organization uploads copyvio videos to it's own user account, but it would seem odd to assume an real organization would do so.) Note: being at work I can't review the youtube links directly right now. ] 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"''And his actions at ]--deleting a YT link and then putting a fact tag in the empty spot and threatening the editor with a block?--totally unnecessary.''" | |||
| Are you intentionally misrepresenting what happened? I find that highly dubious. The link was clearly copyvio. The link was being used as a citation. Replacing with a {{tl|fact}} tag was appropriate. The user who added it originally kept re-adding it and was using highly in-civil edit summaries. The user was blocked for edit waring, incivil edit summaries and continuing to add a copy-vio link against ]. ---] (]|]) 17:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ...I think it was ''very'' poorly handled--there was no assumption of good faith towards a regular editor at the article, who clearly added the link in a sincere attempt to improve the article. He was obviously a newcomer, and he was treated with contempt and hostility. A cooperative and friendly explanation of how to cite the link should have been provided at the outset, not a fact tag added on ''after'' he was ''already'' upset about the total lack of AGF and civility that accompanied the removal of the link in the first place. That's what I meant about the hostile "spirit" of the project. He was treated as though he deliberately added a copyvio link, and was deliberately trying to re-add a copyvio link when he restored it--he was not; he was trying to add what he thought was a useful source to an article he cared about and edited regularly--that was obvious. Apologies were in order--not baiting and threatening him, making things worse. It's more than possible to be civil and assume good faith while removing copyvios; removing links is not a higher value than or justification for ignoring other policies and guidelines. The "project" has taken itself a little too seriously. | |||
| ] 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Three points to add to this discussion - the citation of (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry) above is not the applicable precedent when the U.S. Federal government specifcally created the DMCA to deal with this exact issue, and a specific mechanism exists which is in fact, and is regularly applied as such, legally enforceable. It should not matter what any individual Misplaced Pages editor believes to be true when they are in fact unable to truly factually determine actual copyright status and are not the copyright holder - again, the DMCA is the applicable law in this area, and third, it is dead wrong to ASSUME a full music video is an automatic copyright violation - I have loaded numerous full music videos onto various Web sites worldwide with the direct consent of the artist(s) in question, who are in fact extremely grateful to have people that know how to properly do same, and realize the value of such distribution, including via Misplaced Pages. Once again, the blanket assumption editors are making here of copyright violations is in FACT dead wrong. ] 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not understand why there is so much lack of clarity on this issue. WP:EL is a guideline, it does not enforce a specific ban on anything, just provides guidance to editors on how to apply our content policies. YouTube, Flicker and other media sharing sites are wonderful sites to explore, but for an encyclopedia that is based on the principles of NPOV, V and NOR, most if not all user-uploaded videos are not suitable: These videos are not verifiable (possible WP:V violation), the text included with the video usually carries the commentary of the user (possible WP:NOR or WP:NPOV violation), as well as all other issues related to WP:C. YouTube does not enforce a policy of checking content for any of these criteria and only responds to requests filed via their DMCA process. Give all this, saying in the guideline "Links '''normally''' to be avoided" means that ''unless there is a significant reason'' to include such material on external links section, editors should not. If anyone here has an issue with this, then bring your dicussions at the policy pages as this guideline can only support these policies and not bypass them. ] <small>]</small> 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::YT and similar links for music provide excellent examples of what's actually being discussed that are a huge asset to a printed page and should be added whenever possible, IMHO. The application of the standard of linking you advocate means pratically no Web page would meet the suggested criteria of being totally crystal clear - bascially every Web page and entry without a GFDL license couldn't be linked to, especially if it had any media content - and that is patently overreaching. ] 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::External links need to be kept to the minimum and only when the link provides verifiable and good quality material that is verifiable and does not bypass other policies. We are building an encyclopedia, not a web directory or link farm. We spend considerable time editing articles with the intention to make them excellent and complinat with NPOV, V, RS, NOR, etc. only to add crappy stuff to the EL section? That is not a happening thing, I am afraid. ] <small>]</small> 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Inappropriate YouTube deletion example === | |||
| ] and some of the others (J.Smith?) had asked for an example of an inappropriate deletion of links. I have a very good example to add to the previous one (the multiply-mentioned link on ], which I cannot agree is an obvious copyvio, and Spartaz feels since it's not obviously not a copyvio, the link must go). | |||
| ] removed these links from ]: | |||
| *, , , ) | |||
| Note that a) these links are to a user, not a video or image directly. b) If you go to Flickr, you'll see that their images are directly licensed under the CC license, and so tagged, obviously. c) If you go to YouTube, you'll see that the two videos under that account are apparently ads produced by that organization, which uploaded them itself. | |||
| So, there's your example, and that's an excellent example. I don't see how someone could look at the Flickr page and miss the creative-comments license. Which backs up the point that we shouldn't be doing mass-deletes, which we apparently have. Maybe some have been more careful about vetting the links from that master list than others, or maybe some assumed that others already vetted them - it doesn't matter. | |||
| That page should be restored. But I don't have time to go through every page where this was done. The editors doing these deletes need to be responsible for not making these sorts of mistakes in the first place, '''especially''' since the edit summaries used until the last day or so (i.e. over several weeks) have told/implied/etc to other editors "this is policy and is not open to debate; no link to that site will be allowed". Which means editors of those pages, even if the link shouldn't have been removed, will be unlikely to challenge it. I almost didn't challenge the removal of the Katana link; I saw the summary and said to myself "oh, ok, I guess there's a policy about that. Oh well.", but then I decided to look it up so I'd understand better - and couldn't find the policy/guideline quoted - and came across this huge hornets nest. | |||
| So where do we go from here? There '''are''' lots of links to blatant copyvios still - but as shown here, there are incorrect deletions that have happened. Who will go an recheck the deletions already done? And how can we continue to deal with links to youtube without making more of these mistakes?<br> | |||
| ] 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The YouTube and Flickr are found at www.genocideintervention.net/educate/multimedia/. Also, the license has nothing to do, as they are nc (non commercial). -- ] 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure what point you're trying to make — non-commercial doesn't really matter. It appears that they own the copyrights; they license them under CC (certainly the photos), and that they uploaded the photos and videos to Flickr and YouTube. ] 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can I ask how many deletions you reviewed to find this example? --] 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::<edit conflict> | |||
| :::I had bowed out here as I wanted to do something constructive but Jesup left a message on my talk drawing my attention here. I don't want to appear difficult, but how many links to different GIN sites do we want here? The main site links all the content given in the links. I would argue that this is a clear tidy up. No doubt we will continue a sterile argument about edit summaries but I don't see that any relevent links were removed. They are all still there, just via the GIN site - which is the appropriate place to lead off to sub-site from anyway. | |||
| :::Sorry Jesup but I'm not really persuded by this one. I deleted links on 53 articles tonight if you fancy another trawl - you will see that we discussed a borderline case and left the link alone. I also had a couple of other articles where the links were valid and correct. So you see, this is not a mass deletion campaign - its an exercise to review a bunch of suspect links where the vast majority are blatant copyvios. Interesting that of the hours spent arguing this only two suspect deletions have been identified and neither of these is a cast iron "wrong" but more a case of different judgements. I submit that were we acting as reprehensibly as some would have us believe there would be much more direct evidence than this that we are acting incorrectly. | |||
| :::I'm off to bed. I may review this tomorrow - or I may just go and do some constructive editing. You know where my talk is if you want to raise any problems with my edits with me. ] 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Jesup - I have notified J.smith of this section. Do you not think that you should have done this yourself before posting this? This is the second time I have had to raise on this page the question of making public allegations of misconduct against users before the poster has raised the issue with the editor concerned. This is hardly colleagiate and does nothing to control the temperature on a debate that can easily become heated. ] 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I meant to, but once I finished the post I forgot to. I was (as Cindry mentioned) responding to repeated requests for an example. There's no allegation of misconduct, just of a mistake. Everyone makes those. ] 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Jesup, I do appreciate you "stalking" to find mistakes. It looks like I did make a mistake in that case. I usually skip-over profile links like that, but apparently I didn't look at that one close enough. Let me know if you find any more so I can modify my methods. | |||
| :::Sure, no problem. BTW I wasn't stalking; I just clicked about 4 links from the huge page of youtube links of dcmartin's. I really only checked a few (though I'll admit I chose links that didn't look like band-name links). ] 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''since the edit summaries used until the last day or so (i.e. over several weeks) have told/implied/etc to other editors "this is policy and is not open to debate; no link to that site will be allowed".'' - If that was your impression, then I'm sorry. It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that no YouTube links were allowed. That's why I didn't specifically mention YouTube in the edit summary. (I did use a template on talk pages requesting users review the YouTube links in the article, but I saw almost zero response from that... that's why I shifted to an active active response.) ---] (]|]) 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apology accepted; I definitely got that impression from the comment, and from other comments here others did too. It may be too late, but I (personally) would have advocated that after review the link in the page (not the talk page) be tagged with a possible/probably copyvio tag, asking people if they remove it to put justification on (some page) for the removal of the tag. Those justifications for tag removals could be reviewed, and links where the tag wasn't removed could be deleted after a week, say. That's a lot more in keeping with how we handle most other items - speedy deletion, AfD, regular copyvios, all sorts of other good-faith problems. But that's just my opinion; I haven't thought it through. ] 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ...It's a public project; discussing it--including mistakes and what's wrong with it--in public is good. And ''repeatedly'' examples have been requested. You should stop deleting while discussion is ongoing. | |||
| ] 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't being sarcastic, I appreciate stalking of my Link deleting and I encurage anyone else who wants to help out. | |||
| :I'm not going to stop removing YouTube links until either the project is finished, a RFC shows consensus that I shouldn't, or I see a convincing argument that I should leave copy-vio links on the pedia. ---] (]|]) 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I haven't read all the discussion above, but I reviewed these 4 links, and they duplicate information already on the linked website without providing meaningful additional content. Additionally, as clearly shows, these links are for promotion and recruitment and thus are not really appropriate for Misplaced Pages as it is an encyclopedia not a platform for promoting any specific group, agenda or idea see ]. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Feel free to revert me on that Trodel. ---] (]|]) 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: <s>Are you challenging me to a revert war? Why? The links are unnecessarily duplicative and should be removed - that is my view - regardless of the whether or not there is any copyright issue.</s> Nevermind - I had a Dooohhh moment (picture Homer). I don't think they should be there - I'll consider removing after I take a look at the talk page etc. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It's moved out of the scope of what I'm concerned about, so feel free to remove. It's a content issue at this point. ---] (]|]) | |||
| :"''And how can we continue to deal with links to youtube without making more of these mistakes?''" | |||
| We continue exactly as before. I started this project knowing we'd occasional make mistakes. I even expected discussions like this one. :) ---] (]|]) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, since you know you're making mistakes I'm sure you won't mind if I undo everything you do without looking at it, to make sure the mistakes are undone. :-) | |||
| ] 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ; Barrington video and verifiability | |||
| Verifiability standards for stuff hosted on Youtube or anyplace else should not be different than they are for stuff hosted on Misplaced Pages. If I take a picture of Barrington Hall and upload it to Commons under the GFDL, there normally would not be verifiability issues about using it in the article, unless someone actually disputed the authenticity. ] We are constantly encouraging Wikipedians to take pictures of people and places and upload them, and we don't go berserk over authentication unless there's a dispute (e.g. someone has serious suspicions that a claimed celebrity photo is actually a lookalike or fake). Barrington Hall was a large building in a major university community that has produced many Misplaced Pages editors. It housed hundreds of students at a time and was a neighborhood landmark well known to surrounding community members who didn't live in it. A number of those former residents and neighbors edit the ] article and its talk page on an ongoing basis. They know what the building looked like. If they look at the video and recognize it as Barrington Hall, then further hassle about whether it's really Barrington Hall absent concrete reason for doubting that amounts to ]. | |||
| I've suggested to the filmmaker that s/he release the video under GFDL and upload it to Commons. If the video had been on Commons in the first place, verifiability disputes would be very unlikely. So concocting them just because the video is on YT seems to be grasping at straws. With the video on Youtube and numerous editors deciding they're satisfied with its authenticity, what's left is mainly an editorial decision about whether the video is a unique resource beyond what would be in the article once it reaches featured status. <s>A lot of the talk page participants feel that it does qualify as such a unique resource, based on fairly persuasive reasoning.</s> If they reach editorial consensus that it's a unique resource, Jossi should not substitute his judgement for theirs. (Edit: I believe the struck-out sentence to basically be true but writing it as I did was a slight overclaim without supporting diffs.) ] 10:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that, if the video is PD or GFDL, ''you'' can upload it to commons-- you needn't wait for the filmmaker to do it. -- ] | ] 13:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's better for technical (not copyright) reasons if the filmmaker does it, since it has to be re-encoded, and he has a higher quality version of the video to start from than what's on YT. ] 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's no need for the filmmaker to upload it to commons - the video is an '''external link'''. If someone had created a photo gallery of the murals and graffiti in Barrington Hall, and someone else had put a link to that gallery in the External Links section, there would be no controversy. The pictures would be too numerous to reasonably include in the article, and wouldn't really be relevant to many other articles, so it wouldn't be appropriate to upload all of them to commons. But the gallery would illustrate the environment of Barrington Hall much better than words or a single picture could, so the gallery would be an appropriate external link in the article. If the gallery was on Flickr.com or Photobucket.com, people would not challenge the link, even though those services are notorious for hosting copyvio work. ''']''' <small>]</small> 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Be clear on copyright issues == | |||
| I read the new wording and wasn't sure what it said. Thus I restored it closer to what it was before - dont' link to sites that either fail to provide licensing information or fail to respond to requests to obtain licensing information. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The "new" wording is the exact text of the Copyright policy on external linking--I will be reverting. There is a big issue with the "licensing" hooey lanaguage that was subbed in recently to ban YouTube on a technicality--please see discussions above. | |||
| ] 07:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: If the video in question violates copyright and the poster refused to provide license information then it shouldn't be linked. We shouldn't have any specific rules to ban or allow links from YouTube. Providing evidence that copyrighted material is properly licensed isn't "hooey" but the duty of any responsible content provider (website, or individual in the case of a content aggregator like youtube). --<font color="#06C">]</font> 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ...you're missing the point--for original videos not under copyright, but merely released into public domain, there is no license--that's the vast majority of YT links. The ''absence'' of copyright on a work is not a copyvio. "No licensing info" is a technicality that has been recently added just to exclude YT public domain links. Any copyvios like pirated music vids are covered under C; there is no need for additonal confusing language/licensing caveats in order to delete them. | |||
| ] 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not having license info was not recently added to exclude YT - it has been there for some time. Additionally, what is the license (contribution) criteria of youtube. It probably provides protection. The key is that we should not be determining fair use/license requirements etc. We should be relying on the claim made by those others (except where it is obviously a lie: "I swear NBC licensed this to me in an email, well I deleted, I didn't think I needed it..."). The lack of license info has long been a reason to exclude external links to sites that flaunt the copyrights of others, even if it was not spelled out. I'll review youtubes terms of use. Basically, the language re licensing of info allows ADDITIONAL websites to be linked (rather than only the source of the work) since both the original publisher and anyone licensed both can be linked. If we strictly enforce links to exclude copyvios then we exclude sites which have posted information but for which we don't know if they have the right to do so - a quick email will often resolve the confusion and provide additional sources, especially where the orginal publisher has not put them online. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As I expected the Terms of use provides a proper license: | |||
| {{User:Trödel/box|honeydew|black|||1cm}} | |||
| B. ...In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: (i) you own or have the necessary licenses...to use and authorize YouTube to use...all User Submissions...in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service; and (ii) you have the written consent...of each...person in the User Submission... For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions... The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website. However, '''by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a''' worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable '''license to use,''' reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, '''display, and perform the User Submissions''' in connection with the YouTube Website... | |||
| C. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (i) submit material that is copyrighted... YouTube does not permit copyright infringing...on its Website, and YouTube will remove all Content and User Submissions...that...infringes on another's intellectual property rights. | |||
| {{end}} | |||
| Thus user submissions are licensed to youtube for proper use and can be linked to. If it is an obvious copyright violation then we won't link to it obviously (as youtube seems to be infested with people who steal). But requiring that the material on youtube be licensed properly does not prevent linking to it since: it is licensed properly. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can I ask whether we should simply rely on the honesty of those uploading videos? Our image files are stuffed full of copyvios where the uploader has either incorrectly certified the status of the image or fails to properly document the copyright. I would be very reluctant to just accept that a video is safe for use unless there are clear indications that they are free to use. --] 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I removed "'''If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.'''" This is too broad - in that all sites which violate copyright claim fair use (even Napster did). We should not state that linking to fair use is fine as it invites linking to fair use; however, when the only link available is on a site claiming fair use, one can then make the argument that the external site does not violte ]. Finally, '''a reference that has no link,''' but provides verifiable information for the source is much better than one that violates copyright. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| class=wikitable style="margin-left:1cm; " | |||
| |- | |||
| ! !! Reference/Link !! Comment | |||
| |- | |||
| | Best || Jones, Micheal. "." ''My Hometown News, ]. || link to source which publishes on the internet | |||
| |- | |||
| | Good || Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." ''My Hometown News, ]. (fee required). || link to site which requires fee to view | |||
| |- | |||
| | Ok || Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." ''My Hometown News, ]. || No link | |||
| |- | |||
| | Bad || Jones, Micheal. "." ''My Hometown News, ]. || link to site has article but not legally | |||
| |} | |||
| ::We should not use fee-for-view links for news citations for the same reason we shouldn't link to Amazon for book citations. It favors some particular vendor. For example, it's often possible to access news stories at no charge through subscription databases if you have a library card. If there's no non-obviously-infringing free link for a news cite then we shouldn't have a link at all. I hope the above table is not in the guideline. I would change "good" to "avoid" for the pay-link example. We are not the sales arm of the pay sites, and allowing those links would just create a new set of people with incentive to spam us. (It's not the case that the pay sites are operated by the newspapers--they're often random companies who have licensed access to the content in order to resell it). ] 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you have this a little wrong here--It is much better to have a paid link than none at all. As you mention, many people will access WP from places where some links will indeed work, & its hard to specify in advance. Further, even when a link does not operate, it frequently permits viewing of an abstract or lede paragraph that provides at least some information. There is no analogy between newspapers sites and amazon: the newspapers have the content, and license the online use through one or more distributors--typically, this will include some very expensive databases such as Lexis or Dialog, & if there are others they should be linked to. (& Lexis & Dialog don't show abstracts or ledes. If there is a link at the newspaper site, that would normally be the one to link to. There is much less choice here than there is with books. ] 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Re: "It is much better to have a paid link than none at all." That might be true for references or sources, but not for external links. The guideline is clear that "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." There are plenty of articles with no external links that are none the worse for the lack. -- ] | ] 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think it's true for references or sources either. We should avoid being a sales tool for the content industry whenever we can do so. Yes those databases are expensive to subscribe to, but many universities and public libraries buy subscriptions and offer access to their users at no charge, or have microfilm copies of old newspapers, and most can get even hard-to-find articles at no charge through interlibrary loan. And the pay urls are generally easy to find with Google once the article citation is given. We should stick to he existing guideline of not linking to url's that require registration or payment. Exceptional cases for specific articles can be determined by consensus on the article's talk page. ] 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In a case where the first paragraph of the article is shown and contains the relevant information, would it be acceptable to link it? would be an example as a citation for McIver becoming LIRR president (assuming the link is permanent). --] 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == New template for external images == | |||
| {{Externalimages | |||
| |align=right | |||
| |width=300px | |||
| |image1=(additional unlinked text1)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org(website)</ref> | |||
| |image2=(additional unlinked text2)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org(website)</ref> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Externalimages | |||
| |align=right | |||
| |width=300px | |||
| |image1=(additional unlinked text1) | |||
| |image2=(additional unlinked text2) | |||
| }} | |||
| A while back some editors started to develop ]. By now we have finished the template. | |||
| The size of this template is variable to fit better with other templates in the article. | |||
| The link to the image is always given with a description of its content. This description is basically an interpretation and for this reason it has to be sourced with a link to the website(in accordance with all guidelines for the use of websites as sources). Both reference styles are possible. It is optional to affix additional unlinked text after the linked description, possibly a legend for maps in foreign languages and so on. It is advised to use redundancy (2-3 links for the same subject) so we don't loose information in case we have to face troubles with the image link of a website(it can get blocked, the url changes or the site shuts down,...). It is possible to add up to 20 image links with the templates on the right side. If you have more, start a new template and please let it be known here that there is an article with more than 20 external image links. | |||
| {{Externalimages | |||
| |align=left | |||
| |width=300px | |||
| |images=(additional unlinked text1)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org(website)</ref> <br> (additional unlinked text2) | |||
| }} | |||
| The older version on the left is still functional and the same rules apply to it, but it is advised to use the new version with its significant icons. The old version has no limit to the number of image links. The specific icon for external image links can also be inserted manually prior to the link: ] | |||
| I suggest to integrate it into the manual of style. I try here now to get an answer before boldly inserting and having an outcry afterwards. ] 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really like this. The fancy box gives way too much prominence to the external image links compared to other material in the article. Links to images should be given along with other links. At most, they should be identified as images by use of the little ] icon, like we use the ] icon for links to PDF files. The PDF icon is supplied by the style sheet so maybe we can do the same for graphics filename extensions. ] 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was explicitly requested to create something that does have prominence. ] 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Grammar == | |||
| The grammar in #1 of "links to normally be avoided" needed a tweak. It's either "..will contain if it becomes a featured article" or "..would contain if it became a featured article". As the vast majority of articles do not become featured articles, the second conditional construction is, imo, more appropriate. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == YouTube and content-aggregator sites RfC == | |||
| Per the suggestion of ], I'm bringing this to an RfC. The issues, as I see them, are: | |||
| *External links to video regarding an article's subject matter are sometimes appropriate. The obvious cases are where the video illustrates some sort of motion (ie dance, sports, orbits) which is hard to clearly describe in words or with still images, but other cases can exist where video has been used to document some aspect of the article much more thoroughly than a single photograph could. | |||
| *Where the content of the video is actually relevant to the article, video is usually an inherently ]. | |||
| *Linking to known copyright violations is a form of contributory infringement, and is against Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
| *A significant percentage, perhaps the vast majority, of all video on YouTube and Google Video is obviously in violation of copyright, but some amount of video on those sites is produced by amateur videographers or others seeking exposure, and is not in violation of copyright. | |||
| *There exists on Misplaced Pages a project headed by ] to delete all (unjustified) YouTube links. At least some persons involved in the project are deleting all YouTube links with no examination of the article context or the video. YouTube links are sometimes deleted after having been restored after significant discussion regarding the validity of the YouTube link. | |||
| *Even if only 1% of deleted YouTube links are justifiable, deletion of all YouTube links without some control or oversight will result in the deletion of hundreds of valid links in a short time. | |||
| *Restoration and deletion of YouTube links has led to repeated edit wars. | |||
| *Linking to photo galleries on sites such as Flickr.com or Photobucket does not appear to be nearly so contentious, despite the high volume of copyright violations on those sites. | |||
| ===Suggested policy=== | |||
| *The project to delete all YouTube links be allowed to continue, subject to some modifications to prevent deletion of justified links. | |||
| *The particular modifications to the project will include: | |||
| :*Creation of a page setting forth specific policy on YouTube links and deletion thereof. | |||
| :*All YouTube link deletions will include a link to the YouTube policy page in the edit summary. | |||
| :*A standardised tag (probably an HTML comment) may be placed on the same line as any external link to YouTube, to indicate that there is justification for the link on the article's talk page. YouTube links with this tag may not be deleted without discussing on the article's talk page. | |||
| *The policy will extend beyond YouTube in particular, to include any other content-aggregator site with a high volume of copyright violations, including Google Video and the more popular photo gallery sites. | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| I got dragged into this when a video link on the ] article was deleted. That particular deletion has a long, contentious history, partly because the provenance of the video wasn't entirely clear. When I saw the original , it was not clear that this was part of an organized campaign, and it was clear that ] had not reviewed the extensive discussion on ] regarding the legitimacy of the link, so I put a {{tl|Test2del}} on his talk page, to request that he not remove valid links from articles. | |||
| Sir Nicholas, in particular, has been particularly recalcitrant regarding YouTube deletions, with his comments on the subject (not just in the Barrington Hall case) bordering on incivility and showing an utter lack of assuming good faith, as seen here: ]. | |||
| ] claims that YouTube "fails to provide licensing information", which is patently incorrect. YouTube's states that users retain all their ownership rights, but license YouTube to display their content, and requires that users not upload material which they do not have rights to. The actual failure is that quite a lot of YouTube content violates those terms of use. | |||
| Under both US copyright law (the DCMA) and Misplaced Pages's ] policy, any content on YouTube which is not obviously infringing should be assumed to be properly licensed in accordance with YouTube's Terms of Use. Sites other than YouTube presumably have similar language in their Terms of Use; I know Flickr does, but I'd expect that Google Video, Photobucket, Ofoto, and others do, too. | |||
| However, at a first approximation, it's not unreasonable to assume that a random YouTube link is infringing. Thus, rather than shutting the YouTube link-deletion project down altogether, I think it is reasonable to continue it if there is some way to easily communicate that a particular link has been examined by a human, and that it has been found to be appropriate to the article and non-infringing. Having to restore a link once, and discuss the restoration, is not an undue burden. Having to restore the link every month or so is an undue burden. I'd think that with some way to safeguard against inappropriate deletions, like those I suggested above, it would even be possible to program a bot to do the work which is currently occupying several editors nearly full-time. | |||
| ''']''' <small>]</small> 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. Even more important, we have no control over the copyright status of ''any'' external link or reference. Misplaced Pages shouldn't link to obvious sources of infringement, like warez or mp3z but we shouldn't hold our copyright policy over other sites. YouTube is increasingly signing blanket non-infringement licenses with all sorts of content ownership companies making the case for blanket removal of YouTube links inappropriate. ] 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It may be useful to link the relevent WP ] which states inter alia: | |||
| :::''If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). | |||
| :::''Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Misplaced Pages and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.'' --] 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I pretty much promised myself that I'd stay out of this, so I'll keep it short. Several people are going around deleting said links (and most of these deletions are fine!), and then their justification for the cases for which the uploader does claim to be the creator are that we should only be linking to ]. I don't understand this at all; the rights the owner gives to YouTube to present it should be sufficient. I would hope that people understand the difference between the removal of obvious or probable copyright violations and the removal of links simply for being to YouTube, and the difference between the proposed policy above and any opposition to the removal of links (since there may be flaws with the proposal that are irrelevant to the larger picture). --] 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Question:''' Why is this not filed at ]? ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where I think the relevant category (at bottom) would be "Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and proposals". <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''18:24, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| :::I'll gladly praticipte in an official ]. Please let me know when it's filed Argyriou. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: According to ], the RFC has been correctly filed ], and can properly be discussed on this talk page. So, no problem continuing this discussion. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''18:50, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| Addressing one argument made at ]: Copyrighted works, legitimately posted off-Wiki, do '''''not''''' have to be GFDLicensed or made public-domain or otherwise released in order to be '''''linked''''' from a Misplaced Pages article. In order to be '''''copied to''''' Misplaced Pages or Commons, yes; in order to be '''''linked''''', no. The criteria for ] don't require such a release; they require the absence of copyright violation by the site being linked to, not the same thing at all. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''19:02, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| :This was already discussed at length. See comments in ] and in the archives. ] <small>]</small> 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And yet editors persist in removing links which are justifiable along with links which are not. Hence this RfC. ''']''' <small>]</small> 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you document which links you are referring to? I have removed several hundreds and have had a number challenged. On occasions I have had it wrong and on other occasions I felt I was right after the discussion. I really feel that we are all getting too exercised about this issue. The vast majority of the links are blatant copyvios and they must go. The borderline cases mostly involve videos where the attributation is unclear and its not obvious what they are referring to. But then if its not clear to an editor what the link refers to should we be linking it anyway? I personally feel that the onus should be on the linkee to document what the link is for on the talk page and to offer an attributation. If this isn't done the link should be fair game if an editor isn't clear about it - subject of course to being reverted and the link being attributed at that time. We are very strict about providing sources and references in the articles. Why are we so casual about the external media we link to? ] 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The particular case which caused me to notice this was the video link at ]. There are several screenfuls of discussion over the legitimacy of the link which occurred before the latest deletion. When an editor pointed out that there was a copyvio soundtrack in the video, someone found a silent version of the video, and replaced the link. However, the link has been removed due to spurious claims of copyvio, unreliability, and irrelevance advanced by Sir Nicholas, and the page was protected immediately after the link was deleted. The talk pages of each of the participating editors are full of claims of inappropriate deletion, but those claims seem to number somewhere between 1% and 10% of the links actually deleted. | |||
| ::::The fact that so many of the deletions appear to be uncontested leads me to believe that the best course is to allow the project to continue, but to implement a mechanism where the deleters will know that a particular link has been reviewed and retained, to avoid the sorts of edit wars and incivility which occur. ''']''' <small>]</small> 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. You can strike most of what I said then because its not relevent to the actual issue in hand. I think there is merit in showing that YT links have been reviewed and showing the basis on which they have been retained. No doubt we will have to redo the project at some point and the historical reviews will save shedloads of time. That said, don't ask me how to do it as I lack the design skills. ] 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In fact my approach has been informed by the very useful debate here and I find I have become more inclusionist as I go along. ] 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Policies and guidelines can never exercise judgement - only editors can.''' That means that removing an external link, or ANY material, asserting "in accordance with (IAW) a policy" mandates the editor review the material the link actually goes to. Just "removing" since it's on a site is disruptive and biased, I don't care what Wikiproject or Wikicabal or '''Wikipogrom''' an editor subscribes to. Example, someone didn't like an external link to a "how it works" site, citing "links to avoid" criteria, on the face of it valid criteria ... except that the external article actually complemented the WP topic article, no facts that the WP article was missing, but a very different writing style. As a resource to the reader, it provided something WP's article doesnt. <br><br>What I'm saying is that I don't think any discussion or consensus here will effect anything, not the policy, not the need for editors to do more than just remove ELs based on a policy. Editors have to '''think.''' Thoughtless editing is usually pretty transparent, no policy change can do better than other editors' judgement, or RfC, or Dispute Arbitration, etc. Just my two cents. -- ] (<big><font color="darkred">] ] ]</font></big>) 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure thinking is enough. Someone has to actually watch the movie. I have to say, I am not spending any of my life reviewing random youtube videos linked by anyone who feels like adding them. My inclination would be to remove them on sight unless they have been added by an editor I otherwise have reason to trust. That may be wrong and evil and contrary to the wiki spirit, but it's what I think, subject to being convinced otherwise. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The proposal I outlined above would place the burden of watching on the person who placed (or replaced) the link. If you remove a link, and someone sees enough value in it to replace it, (s)he can tag the link so that you'll know that someone has made some effort to review it, and either skip over it, or dig into it. If there's no tag, delete away. ''']''' <small>]</small> 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Surely anyone would be able to add the tag though. Instead of just adding a link, they add a link with the tag - "I'm J. Random Public, and I apporved this link." ] <sup>]</sup> 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Until the link is first removed, ] wouldn't know to tag the link. Afterwards, editors on the article could discuss the validity on the talk page, just like they discuss everything else. If someone goes and checks the video and finds it to be copyvio, or spam, or utterly irrelevant, they can remove the link and say why in the edit summary. At that point, the editors who monitor the specific article can remove the link if it crops back up, just as they'd remove any other problem insertion or vandalism. ''']''' <small>]</small> 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The problem is not YouTube--consensus is that some links are fine. The PROBLEM is the behavior of smith, devit, mimsy-whomever etc. I fear for how will Misplaced Pages will be embarassed in the press if this continues--based on the opinion of NY journo friends, I have to say that, to outside observers, Wiki does not appear to be having an intelligent discussion about digital copyright; Wiki appears to be a place where people enact immaturity/personality-disorders behind the scenes. Continued idiocy will make the whole project look bad, I'm afraid. | |||
| ] 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * No, the problem is that many contributors, through ignorance or lack of caring, add links to copyright-infringing videos on YouTube or Google Video, and that is a form of contributory infringement which puts us in legal jeopardy, as well as going against our ]. We have had this before with YTMND - for example, YTMNDers claimed that their use of copyright material in soundtracks was covered by fair use parody, but this applies only to parody ''of the copyright work''. Some of the YouTubes which are not themselves copyright violations have the same problem, using copyright infringing sound or images. It really is ''not'' straightforward. The project to remove the links was discussed beforehand, but obviously the message did not get everywhere, and the number of links was truly staggering, so it's hardly a surprise that some valid ones got removed. Perhaps in a year or so when Google's copyright policy has reduced the number of infringing videos on YouTube this will all prove completely unnecessary. How many videos are uploaded ''only'' to YouTube and not published on the originator's own website as well? What's to stop the originator uploading to Commons? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a strawman; I (and hopefully most of us) agree fully that if there is copyright-infringing content like images or sound it should go. Here we're talking about cases where someone uploaded their own work to YouTube, but doesn't want to freely license it for Commons. --] 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I find the problem with that argument is that we find it very difficult to properly atrribute contributions to YT and there is a danger that a determined vandal could upload some media in the identity of the copyright holder. Granted that's an extreme example but the onus has always been on the person submitting material to wikipedia to justify inclusion over those who disagree with the content. I don't see why verifying the content of external links shouldn't be the same. ] 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''the onus has always been on the person submitting material to wikipedia to justify inclusion''' - I don't think that's an entirely accurate expression of Misplaced Pages policy. However, provided that the link is actually reliable and relevant, the standard for verification of copyright status '''is''' different for material included into Misplaced Pages and material linked from Misplaced Pages. That's because some content cannot be included without becoming a copyvio, but can be linked to, but also because the legal standard for copyright infringment is different for inclusion versus linking. ''']''' <small>]</small> 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we fundamentally disagree here although I do agree with a lot of your other points. Please see the policy on copyright - we are not supposed to link to copyrighted material. This is a free encylopedia and our aim is to promote free content. There should be no difference between the standards expected of material in the articles and the external links we link to. If we link copyvios we are not promoting free content and are therefore being hypocritical. If there is a suggestion that something is a copyvio the onus should be on the person asserting its not rather then the person asserting it is. The degree of evidence required to assert that something isn't a copyvio is really what this is all about and we should be directing our attentions there. --] 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The same exact problem exists when using media uploaded to Misplaced Pages or the Commons. How do we know that ] was taken by the uploader? --] 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be a little more exact, I'd say that any work which is not obviously copyvio should be given the benefit of the doubt, unless someone advances a supportable claim that the work is copyvio. On the other hand, what I'd like to see '''first''' is a policy which makes is possible for links for which there is a claim of being acceptable can be saved from the "Delete 'em all" sweeps conducted by Dmcdevit, Sir Nicholas, and others. Once that is established, I think that normal Misplaced Pages processes can handle the disputes over whether any given link should remain. I think part of the problem is that naive contributors add YouTube links without any real understanding of what are appropriate external links, and once they're removed, the editor who created the link reads the policies, and realizes that they shouldn't re-link. ''']''' <small>]</small> 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think your charactarisation of the project is inaccurate and unhelpful - we are reviewing the links not deleting them out of hand. How many times do we need to say this before people get the message? You raised the RFC over '''one''' link not the hundreds we have deleted already. ] 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How much review is actually happening when there's maybe one or two minutes between each link deletion? That's enough time to examine the context of the link, and to fix text around it if the link isn't in the external links section, but not to go through a long talk page discussion over a link, or to actually watch a video which isn't obvious copyvio. I raised the issue over not just the one link deletion on my watch list, but the tens of other links which people have complained about on the talk pages of the YouTube link-deletion editors, and over the incredibly hostile and aggressive responses of ] to any challenge or revert of his deletions, when it's obvious that he did not actually "review" the link he deleted. If the problem was confined to the ] article, I'd have made the RfC about Barrington Hall. But the problem is that the policy regarding copyright status of external links is '''not''' clear, and that the current mechanism for handling the problem leads to edit wars. | |||
| :::::I've tried to propose a reasonable solution - I think that in general, you are right that most YouTube links don't belong, but I think that there has to be a better way to preserve those links which do belong. ''']''' <small>]</small> 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that we are actually very far apart in our positions. I have had no part in the Barrington Hall dispute and frankly the debate on the talk page doesn't encourage me to involve myself in it. I do think that whatever mechanism you come up with to show that a link has been reviewed and considered OK is always going to be subject to challenge and a major part of the problem is that any deletions of external links appears to be upsetting for some people and for others all external links are bad (OK i'm exaggerating for comic effect). There isn't going to be a way to square the circle because people take different approaches to stuff and that's part of the way it is. What we really need to concentrate on is exactly how much certainty we need that a link isn't a copyvio and I have no strong opinion on that. ] 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ...what is being ignored is that this discussion has happened OVER and OVER and OVER again, and the result is always the same--consensus that some links are fine, the one at Barrington in specific. (Please see NOR, ANI and EL history). What is also being ignored is that I started all the policy board discussions, after the link at Barrington was deleted, and the people who deleted it while I was on break did so out of PETTY MALICE, and are wasting everyone's time. | |||
| ] 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Cindery - your comments are verging on the uncivil - please try to advance this debate in a constructive manner instead of indulging in ad homien comments. The number of links reviewed is just staggering and we are bound to make mistakes. That's fine as long as we discuss them in a reasonable way and try to avoid being dogmatic. Links can always be restored if we are wrong but there is no external link that is so vital that its removal becomes a federal crime. If the material was important enough it would be in the article anyway. Raising the temperature simply offends people and entrenches views. ] 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No, you are completely in error. I repeat: | |||
| The problem is not YouTube--consensus is that some links are fine. The PROBLEM is the behavior of smith, devit, mimsy-whomever etc. I fear for how will Misplaced Pages will be embarassed in the press if this continues--based on the opinion of NY journo friends, I have to say that, to outside observers, Wiki does not appear to be having an intelligent discussion about digital copyright; Wiki appears to be a place where people enact immaturity/personality-disorders behind the scenes. Continued idiocy will make the whole project look bad, I'm afraid. | |||
| Furthermore, accusations without evidence that anyone has put up a link which violates copyright place the project in legal jeopardy--libelling living people. | |||
| ] 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''"I have to say, I am not spending any of my life reviewing random youtube videos linked by anyone who feels like adding them. My inclination would be to remove them on sight unless they have been added by an editor I otherwise have reason to trust."'' Ha-ha, dude I think that violates more basic, thoughtful editing guidelines here on WP than I can count. If you ain't got the time to even LOOK at the externally linked material (and I'm talking about ''anything'' there, not just YouTube), you ain't got the time to revert someone's edit. ''Assume good faith,'' etc. Now, if JoeUser spams the link to > 1 article (as some IPVandal did to about 20 film/tv related articles from an IP address within FILM.COM recently), you probably ought to. But if you revert a link just because it's to a site, and you didn't take the time to look, I'm gonna revert you as a vandal. Blanking, y'know? Indiscriminate, or biased. Disruptive editing. Following my drift? If you don't have time to ''look before you leap'', go outside and breathe some lovely winter air. Live long and prosper, ] (<big><font color="darkred">] ] ]</font></big>) 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Exactly. and while we are on the subject of disruptive, please see below, from Barrington discussion page. | |||
| evidence of bad faith | |||
| ...mimsy-whomever was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article. From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement. My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level. They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me). | |||
| Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Barrington_Hall" | |||
| ] 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this type of argument is helping your case. You have some good points, but they're being drowned out by the style. --] 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| My style is intentional. | |||
| ==Legal jeopardy== | |||
| A lot more attentuion needs to be paid immediately to the legal jeopardy false accusations of copyvio place Wiki in. At Barrington Hall, several living people are currently being libelled, in gross violation of Wiki policy regarding living people. | |||
| ] 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:47, 10 March 2023
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:External links. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
MySpace Ban revisited
I would like to suggest that what appears to be a total ban on links to MySpace be reconsidered if the link is to a Band or some other "Professional" type page. In particular this type of page can frequently be an appropriate source for "Independent" musicians, etc. CyntWorkStuff 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Apparantly Jimbo had these blacklisted. If you want to change it I suggest you take it up with him directly. --Spartaz 06:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did not know it was completely blacklisted, only that it was listed under "Links normally to be avoided" and then only in context of "Social Netwoking" or "Personal Blog" pages. CyntWorkStuff 06:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- My bad - I shouldn't post so early in the morning. Myspace blog links are blacklisted. For the others you are in the right place. So I'll shut up now... --Spartaz 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Howdy, I have a few mixed feelings on myspace. Yes I can see how some information can be gotten from the site, thats great. The problem I am seeing is that if whatever is being cited can only be found in myspace, is whatever is being cited really that big of a deal? If information about a band can't be cited by multiple reliable sources, then the band probably should not even be in wikipedia. We are not here to document the "up and coming" so to say, but rather those who already have had a ton of media coverage. I guess it comes to this... if what is trying to be said can only be cited by myspace, then we should be asking if that material is really notable, and is that material any type of original research. As far as myspace links in the "external links" section, I think they should go, as we are not a linkfarm. Its not our job to point people to every related band site. Nor is it our job to be pointing people to random fan-sites. Generally useful links to go in the "external links" section would be, the band's official page, their producer's page on them, and thats about it. If they are an "independent" band, then we should be relying on multiple reliable sources to document if and when the band is releasing something (after we check to make sure the band is or is not notable, and can info really be verifiable). If there are some interesting related hisotory or what not, that could go there as well. Its Google, Yahoo, Ask.com, and the search engines job to point people to the related fan-sites, and other paraphernalia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think the main issue is when a band uses myspace for their official webpage. If that's the case, WP:EL definitely recommends linking to it. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- The situation I have in mind is not just when a Band (or now other entities such as Films; Books; Festivals; 501c3's and/or NGO Organizations; Performers; etc.) use MySpace as their "Official" web-page, it is when they start using a Main web-site and MySpace in tandem. For instance, since webpage's frequently require the assistance of programmers to update and change, many people use them for more static information and then use more User-modifiable sites, (like MySpace) to put up new info. Additionally because it is easy for an end user to do on their own, it is a place where the most current music, etc. can be found. While not at all advocating that the "External Links" sections be turned into linkfarms, I would just like to be able to list and cite both a main website and an "official" secondary or tertiary site, without having a "Removing external link: myspace.com -- per external link guidelines" show up. CyntWorkStuff 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- We just have to be careful, of course, that it's the true official page, and not someone masquerading as such. There are ways to tell. We just have to be careful. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The problem is myspace has no system for 'official' verification. There are several artists out there, and I'm sure many more, of whom have multiple myspace 'official' profiles. Only one of them, sometimes none of them are the 'true' 'official' profile. I don't think WP:EL recommends linking to it on shakey WP:RS (WP:V) grounds. JoeSmack 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have to be equally careful outside of MySpace. There is nothing unusual about a fan site with its own domain. - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the main issue is when a band uses myspace for their official webpage. If that's the case, WP:EL definitely recommends linking to it. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Howdy, I have a few mixed feelings on myspace. Yes I can see how some information can be gotten from the site, thats great. The problem I am seeing is that if whatever is being cited can only be found in myspace, is whatever is being cited really that big of a deal? If information about a band can't be cited by multiple reliable sources, then the band probably should not even be in wikipedia. We are not here to document the "up and coming" so to say, but rather those who already have had a ton of media coverage. I guess it comes to this... if what is trying to be said can only be cited by myspace, then we should be asking if that material is really notable, and is that material any type of original research. As far as myspace links in the "external links" section, I think they should go, as we are not a linkfarm. Its not our job to point people to every related band site. Nor is it our job to be pointing people to random fan-sites. Generally useful links to go in the "external links" section would be, the band's official page, their producer's page on them, and thats about it. If they are an "independent" band, then we should be relying on multiple reliable sources to document if and when the band is releasing something (after we check to make sure the band is or is not notable, and can info really be verifiable). If there are some interesting related hisotory or what not, that could go there as well. Its Google, Yahoo, Ask.com, and the search engines job to point people to the related fan-sites, and other paraphernalia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- My bad - I shouldn't post so early in the morning. Myspace blog links are blacklisted. For the others you are in the right place. So I'll shut up now... --Spartaz 06:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did not know it was completely blacklisted, only that it was listed under "Links normally to be avoided" and then only in context of "Social Netwoking" or "Personal Blog" pages. CyntWorkStuff 06:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(undent) If a band or artist or whatever has an official website and there is a link on that website to the Myspace page, then why do we need to link to both from WP? The link to the official site gets people on the right track to finding the other one. if there is no link on the official site, then how do we know it's official? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would say the same way we assess if any webpage/website is an official & trusted source. By careful research and using common sense and good judgment. Additionally, we can hope to rely on the knowledge of our fellow editors to tell us if someone is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. My thought here is that just as NOT being on MySpace doesn't always automatically make a site and the information contained instantly credible, the fact that it was set up using MySpace as a tool should not in all cases make it instantly suspect. I just want to be able to make that reasonable assessment without being automatically wiped out in some sort of global "links to MySpace" hunting sweep. CyntWorkStuff 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- What about when the band puts the myspace link on their album? And along the lines of "why do we link both", why do we do it in the case of corporations that have multiple official websites? I don't see "why do we need both" as a reason not to link to an official site. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- If they have a series of interlinked sites then I don't think we are serving any informational value up by providing every single one of them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- What about when the band puts the myspace link on their album? And along the lines of "why do we link both", why do we do it in the case of corporations that have multiple official websites? I don't see "why do we need both" as a reason not to link to an official site. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have an estimate of how many (in percentage, please) reliable sites there are on myspace? --Dirk Beetstra 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Impossible to estimate. Technically speaking, anywhere from 0-100%. They all are possible reliable primary sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just look at some of them! Most are sloppily done using code generators, and I could set one up in mere minutes. Any band with no official site outside of myspace should probably be AfDed under WP:MUSIC, since a website is so easy to set up these days. ST47Talk 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thankfully, having a website does not meet the deletion criteria. d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Does it matter? If one band has an official page on MySpace, and the information thereon is reliable information about the band, then that link should be included. Blanket bans should be saved for spam sites. (And if Jimbo has blocked links to MySpace blogs, he's wrong.) Argyriou (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is technically a correct answer. But of all the myspace sites .. there are <100% maintained by bands, of those <100% do not have an official homepage, and of those <100% are notable enough to be in wikipedia. But to make it countable first, how many official 'groups' do have a myspace account (as opposed to my neighbours daughter)? --Dirk Beetstra 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- My specialty in this regard is indie music, and I'd say that it's rare for a group not to have a Myspace page, either as their main homepage or in addition to their main homepage. If you want to reach your audience, you get on MySpace. I don't know of any bands at this point that do not have a MySpace page, although I'm sure there may be a few here or there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do believe that, but if that in total are 500 bands, of those have 10% not an official site, we end up with 50 myspace links, right. On a 50,000 myspace sites, that is a mere 0.1% .. all the others, 49,950, we'd have to revert. And then, I am not even asking if all these 50 are notable enough to earn a wikipedia site. --Dirk Beetstra 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Not music related. An article on my watchlist (an article for a school) recently had a groups.myspace.com link deleted, with a note indicating "(Removing external link: *.myspace.com -- per external link guidelines)". This link was to an online group for the alumni of the school, which is a small boarding school. I am not familiar with this school, but earlier when I checked the external links in the article, it appeared to me that the myspace group was at least as useful a resource in the context of the article as the school's official website. http://meta.wikimedia.org/Spam_blacklist lists only myspace blogs and a few other specific myspace pages as being blacklisted. Is there some other blacklist that bans all of myspace, or can I assume that groups.myspace.com is not actually blacklisted?--orlady 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Howdy, I just want to note that in this case, a quick read of the links normally to be avoided, would help here. In this case it is a link to a social group, we can't possibly link to every related social group without becoming a link farm. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see I forgot to answer to Argyriou. Argyriou, it is still possible to add myspace.com pages, but most (practically all) will be removed on sight. If there is such a page, I am sure there will be an exception (just wondering, how do you know it is an official myspace site of a notable band?). For now, such a site has not been encountered, and wikipedia is not a repository for external links. --Dirk Beetstra 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some have cited Misplaced Pages:External links. But if you look at the subhead "Links normally to be avoided," you'll find that links that constitute "an official page of the article subject" are exempt. Many MySpace pages are run by the actual subjects of the articles or their delegates and provide a rich source of first-hand information about them. They often function as a subject's only official page or as a supporting page with unique content. No, I don't work for MySpace -- I just think it's a mistake to overlook this resource. Jessesamuel 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is part of the above discussion. While obeying that WP is not a linkfarm, one could consider using a myspace page, if a) that is indeed the official page (how to check?), b) the page where that link is on is on itself notable enough to be in wikipedia, and the information is reliable (again, how to check). That indeed gives the possibility that there are some myspace links left over (and I am sure an exception for these can be made), but how many will that be? --Dirk Beetstra 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Until Myspace cracks down on impersonation, it cannot be considered a reliable or verifiable source, pure and simple. I should note that Jimbo Wales has a few impersonators there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- That issue has already been addressed - identity can be verified by the user confirming their page from an official source. If nbc.com links to a myspace page for a show, there's no doubt the page is an official one. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, not at all. Cross-referencing is key. The crux of the matter is this - if the page has legitimate claims, it will be reported by the news media. If it has been reported by the news media, then THAT is what should be linked. Linking to small indie band websites is nothing more than a promotion tool. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- That issue has already been addressed - identity can be verified by the user confirming their page from an official source. If nbc.com links to a myspace page for a show, there's no doubt the page is an official one. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- MySpace allows only musicians or authorized agents to post music and create artist pages. see MySpace's band signup pageJessesamuel 09:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That might be their policy, but it's definitely not the practice. I believe the guidelines should insist that any such pages linked should be 'official' and not fansites, and leave it at that. It would be of value if it became known that the only myspace links on WP were those verified to be 'official' by the WP community. There's a balance to be made between keeping WP 'pure' and making it the best resource possible. joly Wwwhatsup 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Until this day comes it should not be considered verifiable unless a 3rd party reliable source confirms it, and in that case just use the reliable source instead. Come to think of it, it seems like 99.9% of cases would end up in not using myspace. If it was used, it would only be in a ref tag. JoeSmack 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reliable sources and external links are two different things. The fact that a myspace page is official absolutely needs to be verifiable to use it as an external link. But another source doesn't need to verify everything on that page (same as any other official source), and a source verifying that it is official isn't necessarily going to contain all the info on the myspace page, and thus isn't really a replacement for the page. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but as per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided i remove links that are not reliable sources. ELs are often times info that is waiting to be incorporated into the article, and if they ain't RSs someone is going to be mislead. JoeSmack 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then it sounds like you're misunderstanding policy. EL and RS are two different things and have two different standards for inclusion. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 2. JoeSmack 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- And please see the intro to that section that says links to official sites are exempt from that list. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and how do we know it is an official site? Because there are other (3rd party) sources telling it is official, making that source an even better reference than the blog. --Dirk Beetstra 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- The guideline as currently written doesn't support that. It says to link official sites, not to compare official sites to third party sources and see which is "better". If you don't like the policy, propose a change. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and how do we know it is an official site? Because there are other (3rd party) sources telling it is official, making that source an even better reference than the blog. --Dirk Beetstra 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- And please see the intro to that section that says links to official sites are exempt from that list. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 2. JoeSmack 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then it sounds like you're misunderstanding policy. EL and RS are two different things and have two different standards for inclusion. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but as per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided i remove links that are not reliable sources. ELs are often times info that is waiting to be incorporated into the article, and if they ain't RSs someone is going to be mislead. JoeSmack 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reliable sources and external links are two different things. The fact that a myspace page is official absolutely needs to be verifiable to use it as an external link. But another source doesn't need to verify everything on that page (same as any other official source), and a source verifying that it is official isn't necessarily going to contain all the info on the myspace page, and thus isn't really a replacement for the page. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Yes, the policy says it should link to official sites, but how do you know something is an official site? Because the site itself says it is the official site? --Dirk Beetstra 15:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- As has already been pointed out, it can be verified from other official info. Just because another source is required to verify that it is offical doesn't somehow make it not official. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and as such it can be used as a reference, noting that it must be clear that the myspace site is there a reliable source (hence, a reference giving both the official site and the myspace site, explaining this). As an external link, it is only reliable if there is an official source stating it is reliable, then it does not need to be in the external links, since the official site can be in the external links, and people can go via the official site to the myspace site. --Dirk Beetstra 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but the guideline simply doesn't agree with that statement. "Reliable source" is irrelevant in regard to external links to official websites. If a myspace page is an official site, the policy says it can go in the external links. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, how do you know the myspace in question is an official website. Misplaced Pages is not a linkfarm, hence, although it could go into the external links, one does not have to put a link into the external links section when it is available. And in these cases there are better external links available, and when it is the official page, it is better as a reference to statements in the text. --Dirk Beetstra 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're asking a question that has already been answered. Per the guideline, we just need to be sure that a website is an official one. Once we know that, it may be linked, period. "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Per the guideline, "better" or "linkfarm" aren't reasons not to link to official sites. Again, if you disagree with linking to official sites, propose a change in the policy. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one, and what does that site add to the article when it is in the external links section. That a link exists does not mean that it should be incorporated (it can be incorporated, when it is clearly an official site). The majority of the external links contain information that could be used in the text and are then better used as a reference (vide infra). So yes, they can be official sites, they can be used. But the guidelines says: keep it to a minimum, and then the site that says that the myspace site is official is a better EL than the myspace site .. the myspace is then superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- "How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one" This has already been answered multiple times, why do you keep asking? "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Sounds like official sites should be linked. It doesn't say "can" be linked. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see it. --Dirk Beetstra 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- My 2cents are this point are this: if i see "Official site" next to a myspace EL on wikipedia, i just don't trust it's claim. i don't see any good reason why i should as it is a social networking site. the burden of proof is on the contributor, and from wikipedia space i just can't see how it could be shown to be officially verified by contributor as the sole official site (the most of the 'exceptions' to linking to myspace). JoeSmack 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Sole official site"? Where in EL does it use that term? The question keeps coming up about knowing a myspace site is really an official one, but how do we know *any* official site is legit? The question isn't unique to myspace. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Its a scenario in which i might use myspace EL. and we use a little common sense to identify official sites. For instance Spiderman 3, you might find the 'official site' being Spiderman 3 official site!!, Spiderman official site, Spiderman official site!!!, Spidermans official siite! and Spiderman 3 site!!!. My point is myspace is a social networking site, and requires sometimes arduous research to show it is official, all of which is unprovable in wikipedia space anyways. Just like flickr extremely rarely if ever an acceptable EL as an official site, myspace should garner the same response - thus both are hardly ever used and often deleted from EL sections. JoeSmack 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Sole official site"? Where in EL does it use that term? The question keeps coming up about knowing a myspace site is really an official one, but how do we know *any* official site is legit? The question isn't unique to myspace. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- My 2cents are this point are this: if i see "Official site" next to a myspace EL on wikipedia, i just don't trust it's claim. i don't see any good reason why i should as it is a social networking site. the burden of proof is on the contributor, and from wikipedia space i just can't see how it could be shown to be officially verified by contributor as the sole official site (the most of the 'exceptions' to linking to myspace). JoeSmack 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see it. --Dirk Beetstra 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- "How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one" This has already been answered multiple times, why do you keep asking? "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Sounds like official sites should be linked. It doesn't say "can" be linked. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- How can we see in the external links that a myspace page is the official one, and what does that site add to the article when it is in the external links section. That a link exists does not mean that it should be incorporated (it can be incorporated, when it is clearly an official site). The majority of the external links contain information that could be used in the text and are then better used as a reference (vide infra). So yes, they can be official sites, they can be used. But the guidelines says: keep it to a minimum, and then the site that says that the myspace site is official is a better EL than the myspace site .. the myspace is then superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're asking a question that has already been answered. Per the guideline, we just need to be sure that a website is an official one. Once we know that, it may be linked, period. "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Per the guideline, "better" or "linkfarm" aren't reasons not to link to official sites. Again, if you disagree with linking to official sites, propose a change in the policy. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, how do you know the myspace in question is an official website. Misplaced Pages is not a linkfarm, hence, although it could go into the external links, one does not have to put a link into the external links section when it is available. And in these cases there are better external links available, and when it is the official page, it is better as a reference to statements in the text. --Dirk Beetstra 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but the guideline simply doesn't agree with that statement. "Reliable source" is irrelevant in regard to external links to official websites. If a myspace page is an official site, the policy says it can go in the external links. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and as such it can be used as a reference, noting that it must be clear that the myspace site is there a reliable source (hence, a reference giving both the official site and the myspace site, explaining this). As an external link, it is only reliable if there is an official source stating it is reliable, then it does not need to be in the external links, since the official site can be in the external links, and people can go via the official site to the myspace site. --Dirk Beetstra 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I just can't take the argument that "MySpace is never a reliable source" argument seriously. Get with the times; MySpace is here to stay, and its ease of use (for lack of a much better phrase) is very attractive to people. For example, Jon Favreau, the director of the upcoming Iron Man film, has been using his MySpace blog as an official source of information. Are we seriously not allowed to cite the director, just because we "don't like" the website he used? Couple that with the rise of MySpace for bands, and any argument for a flat-out ban on MySpace becomes ridiculous to incredible proportions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we have said 'never' .. hardly ever is closer. And I don't think it is a 'I don't like it', it is a Jimbo does not like it. But you can write "Jon Favreau, the director of the upcoming Iron Man film has announced on his weblog<ref></ref> that something is going to happen.<ref></ref>" ?? In that case indeed you can indeed use it as a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've heard some pretty vehement arguments against MySpace being used for pretty much anything, so I'm perhaps a bit overzealous in my arguments for the site. I just think that MySpace isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and a policy that ignores that is based on a fallacy, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- But the arguments raised against it are legitimate. Please give them a read. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think Milo has the correct argument. And, in my experience, non-official or fansites on myspace nearly always declare themselves as they soon discover it's the only way to avoid deluges of fan messages. The social networking aspect is irrelevant when myspace has become the default method of public communication by so many artists - audio samples, tourdates, videoclips, and other provided content are independent of social connections. Solutions could be to create an 'official' tag to be included on pages and/or to request email verification similar to the permissions@WP system. Wwwhatsup 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't always the case so I couldn't possibly trust the idea that everyone who is non official declares it. The social networking aspect isn't irrelevant, it is actually the most salient: myspace is first and foremost a social networking site no matter how you look at it. The solution you propose is sometimes suggested, but until it is made and it works and isn't abused and such, myspace won't be a proper EL in the vast vast majority of the cases it is used. JoeSmack 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think Milo has the correct argument. And, in my experience, non-official or fansites on myspace nearly always declare themselves as they soon discover it's the only way to avoid deluges of fan messages. The social networking aspect is irrelevant when myspace has become the default method of public communication by so many artists - audio samples, tourdates, videoclips, and other provided content are independent of social connections. Solutions could be to create an 'official' tag to be included on pages and/or to request email verification similar to the permissions@WP system. Wwwhatsup 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- But the arguments raised against it are legitimate. Please give them a read. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've heard some pretty vehement arguments against MySpace being used for pretty much anything, so I'm perhaps a bit overzealous in my arguments for the site. I just think that MySpace isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and a policy that ignores that is based on a fallacy, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's a reliable source or not is immaterial, if it's not a spam problem it doesn't belong in the spam blacklist. Inappropriate ELs in general can be removed by other editors, who, unlike a blanket ban in the SBL, can use judgement on a case-by-case basis. --Random832(tc) 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Guideline against text links to external links?
The current 4th paragraph of External link was edited in a way intended to clarify it. It had been combined with the previous paragraph. Provided that there is no Wiki article that covers a hypertext link reasonably well, nothing in External link indicates that a text link to external links are to be discouraged. Or so a coherent reading of the previous Edit suggeests. An example consistent with this interpreation is Economics, which has the following last sentence of the Lead:
- Methods of economic analysis have been increasingly applied to fields that involve people (officials included) making choices in a social context, such as crime, education, the family, health, law, politics, religion, social institutions, and war.
There the most suitable link is used, whether to another wiki article or an external link. Does anyone believe that the guideline of External link either does or should discourage such a practice? Comments welcome in either direction. --Thomasmeeks 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (']]' & spelling fixes) Thomasmeeks 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is it, though? Is it in the External Links section? No. Is it a reference? No. Then it doesn't seem to be covered by any policy, and personally, I'd delete it. Notinasnaid 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notinasnaid, why do you say these links are not references? --Gerry Ashton 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't a form of reference I recognise, or can find in WP:CITE#How to cite sources. Notinasnaid 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- A reference is a reference if it is intended to show where information in an article came from. There is no hard and fast requirement that the reference be written in a particular form. If you wish to edit an article to improve the way a reference is written, you are welcome to do so, but it would be incorrect to remove a reference because you don't care for the way it is written. --Gerry Ashton 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the 4th para., 4th sentennce clarifies:
- This guideline only concerns external links that provide additional info beyond that provided by citation/reference links.
If "beyond" in the quotation referred to the External links section, there would not be a separate section for that subject. Therefore, it must refer to external links other than for citation/reference or the External links section such as referred to in section 3: What to link. There it refers to providing context and making the discussion more accessible, which is just what an in-line Wiki link should do. --Thomasmeeks 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's this: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles: "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." The links above may pass as citations for the particular examples crime/education/religion/war and should be treated as references. They're definitely not proper external links. Titled embedded links are evil. Depending on your browser setup you can't even visually distinguish them from internal links. I think the guideline could be more clear that articles must not be scattered with links, even if they meet the inclusion criteria. Femto 10:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- These links are not references; they do not attribute the statement, they tunnel away (though probably to appropriate pages). IMHO, a proper setup for this sentence would be:
- The internal links I used may not be the most appropriate ones, but more appropriate pages can maybe be found, or maybe the sentence should contain a redlink for now.
- Another reason why these links (or any external links) in the text are evil is that the page cannot be printed without the formatting breaking. OK, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopeadia, but see 'printable version' button in toolbox). I am not sure if there are policies and guidelines that specifically discourage these practics (I see that WP:CITE mentions inline html-links as a proper way ..), but I would suggest to rebuild these sentences on sight (convert inline urls of whichever format into either {{ref}} or <ref>). --Dirk Beetstra 11:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thx for 2 comprehensive statements. First, I do accept that
is evil (as well as violating MOS;). My remarks above refer to extra-Wiki in-text links, that is of the form, which parallel]. Fento's MOS quote refers to something else: formatting of external link for a citation. For that case, MOS says do not enclose the title of the external link in . It does not say: don't use an in-text gloss in an HTML , such as . In the example, the link is not a citation but goes to the document itself. One can can argue that the MOS should forbid the latter, but that is a different matter. My own view is that no categorical rules should be laid down here, because circumstances may differ. I do accept the presumption in favor intra-Wiki in-text links.
- Thx for 2 comprehensive statements. First, I do accept that
- On Dirk Beetstra's comment, that is correct: the in-text link tunnels to the document itself. Arguably for that example, however, symmetry or simplicity calls for treating intra-Wiki and extra-Wiki links symmetrically (because all intra-Wiki links there happen to use economic treatments of those subjects). On the point about format breaking, at least on my printer, not even the hypertext prints from an HTML link, whether intra- or external link. (For that case, nothing would be lost that is not already lost in printing.) If the reference is to be preserved for printing, however, footnoting is the way to go as you suggest. Hmm, your last sentence seems to recommend intra-Wiki references. That could make sense for linking to the reference section of another article. But presumably nothing else in Wiki is a primary source, the gold standard. So, I don't know another Wiki article would ever ve used as a citattion. I'm probably missing something here (& not the frist time). --Thomasmeeks 20:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, that sentence is ambiguous. I meant the in-text extra-wikipedia links. I am inclined not to treat intra-wiki and extra-wiki links symmetrically; the text in wikipedia should explain, which can be helped with internal links, while the external links should be used as references (to attribute the text in the article). If the information is not available in wikipedia, then articles on that subject should be created/requested or the information should be included in the document. The external links suggest that the information on the article is complete, but not all information is included in wikipedia. That might suggest that the documents should not be created in wikipedia, whereas a redlink would trigger that. Although wikipedia is not a paper encyclopeadia, CD and paper versions of the wikipedia (e.g. for people who do not have an internet connection) would be void of the external information. --Dirk Beetstra 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pointing out the advantages of referencing as a guideline is very appropriate. IMHO prohibiting extra-Wiki text links as a way to improve Wiki could produce the postulated beneficial effect, but that's assuming that Wiki policy will have a certain overall effect. What seems surer is that the article would not be as good. So, deciding comes down to a difference in prediction. Here at least the instances are unusual enough as to not require policy. I agree, not all info is in Wiki. It's nice to hope that a redlink would trigger improvement, but where to start and with what focus? At least with an external link there is a starting point. CD versions are different species for which special considerations might apply anyhow. --Thomasmeeks 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Footnote URLs that mess up the formatting
Example: James Dobson. What's the best way to resolve this? Use PURL? --Bix 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just put a bracket on both ends of the URL. I correct this kind of problem now and then when I see it on various pages. This long newspaper article URL from the James Dobson reference section becomes this very short link:
- If you have more time, create a regular reference link consisting of title, author, publication, and date. --Timeshifter 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I forgot about this...
- I meant that the reference at the bottom of the page shows the whole URL and thus throws off the formatting. --Bix 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Retitle "Advertising and Conflict of Interest"?
Could the title of Section 4.1, "Advertising and Conflict of Interest," be amended to something like "Advertising, Self-Linking, and Conflict of Interest"? I'm a math professor who tried to set up links to my course notes. I initially skipped over this section in my reading, because I didn't think I fell into either of the two categories; I was thinking "Coke, Pepsi, and politicians." I think many fellow new users might get confused. Thanks! Ken Kuniyuki 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see no need for the change. You have aproached linking correctly from what I have seen by discussing it on the talk page. I would however, have a read over at Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought to cover all bases in case its Primary (original) research. cheers --Hu12 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Open Directory Project
I removed this for discussion:
Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See {{Dmoz}}.) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page.
I'm curious to know when this was added and who agreed to it, because it seems that we're throwing ourselves on the mercy of that project's editorial judgment and policies rather than our own. I saw it misused today where it seems it's being added because it contains a link to a highly POV blog-style entry about a contentious issue. Is there widespread consensus that this project should be linked to? SlimVirgin 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- That should not be in the guideline. DMOZ does not have a policy by which they chose to add websites to their directory. It is done by volunteers (I have been one a few years ago) and that guidelines for inclusion are very loose. Allowing links to DMOZ contradicts the "Links to avoid section" in this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- DMOZ is also not always the best link to use - there's a discussion in the beer articles and project about the use of links to BeerAdvocate.com, which provides better and more thorough coverage of breweries and beers than DMOZ does, or probably ever will. Αργυριου (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that a DMOZ should not be used blindly. Note that the text says "should consider" - not "they should" - that means that editors should look at the corresponding category and see if it helps enhance the WP page by providing an alternative to the EL list. WP is not a list of links, and this provides ONE alternative, but not the only one. I have no problem with the wording as stated. (Full discloure: I am a DMOZ editor) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't inappropriately remove things from the guideline without gaining a consensus first. There has been a ton of discussion on this. Using a Dmoz link on articles with potentially dozens or even hundreds of valuable external links is a longstanding good solution to the problem. The fact that some sites linked from Dmoz wouldn't qualify as Misplaced Pages external links is totally silly. No Dmoz category is likely to ever have every site be one that would merit an external link from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and we need a practical solution for when there are dozens of valuable links possible, besides whining and reverting and pissing matches. 2005 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- This was removed as it contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't contradict the guideline. In fact it is a part of the guideline that has a longstanding consensus from multiple previous discussions. Do not completely arbitrily change the guideline without gaining a consensus first. We went through this before. You know the process. Please don't be rude. 2005 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- This was removed as it contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, but ODP is. So it seems reasonable to let ODP handle the list of links and Misplaced Pages the article content. It indeed seems popular. Your say "I saw it misused today" and that makes it sound like you assume bad faith. // Liftarn
- It may be popular, but the point of our guideline pages is not to advertise popular websites. >Radiant< 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Popular to use in Misplaced Pages. That should prove that it indeed has value. // Liftarn
So its safe to remove these when found? - Denny 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that a discussion on the Talk page would be appropriate before removing them. The policy here says they are acceptable, so just removing them without any comment would not be appropriate in my opinion. One Edit summary made a comment that Google Search results and a DMOZ category are the same. I would like to hear more about your opinions on this, since in my opinion they are completely different. I don't believe that it is germane to talk about how much it has been done - that doesn't make it right or wrong. The EL policy says it can be done. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that dmoz (love the site, for what its worth) is a collection of links back to other external sources. From that respect simple linking to individual dmoz pages while a potential convenience to readers is a complete end-run around all our rules for judging who and what we link to. Adding a dmoz link to a subject that the article covers in and of itself I would say is completely unneeded. Nice, but unneeded. - Denny 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah Denny, I see you already went ahead and removed 16 of them... :-( -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about it for a long while, and actually did remove those specifically since they weren't adding anything to the article. :( - Denny 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with some of them, and have reverted others - some of them had 30, 50 or 111 entries, which in my opinion do add to the article. I left the ones with none or only a few as deleted. Sorry to be skeptical, but according to your logs you asked the question here and then 6 minutes later started removing links. It would have been nice to give people time to answer first :-) I am not saying they should be kept, necessarily, but I am suggesting that there should at least be a discussion first. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that if after reading the Archived version of this discussion (which has been had twice since I became a WP editor) and presumably before then too, we talk about changing the policy, and not doing mass-deletions of DMOZ categories. Previous discussions are: Yahoo Directory and DMOZ, Link to DMOZ, DMOZ Again (that one was about me), Use_of_deep_links_into_DMOZ_categories - you will see that the issue has some passionate advocates on both sides of the argument. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The guideline is very clear: avoid linking to search engine result pages. If you want to link, then you need to explain the reasons why you want to link and the benefits to the article. The EL section is not a dumping ground for a collection of on-line sources that, per policy, should not be included in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- So... should we have a general DMOZ link to an article's given topic, or is it safe to remove it? As we can't ever guarantee any editorial oversight I would think 'no', and would be happy to do drudge work of removing frivilous DMOZ links if that's the right thing. - Denny 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- DMOZ pages are not "search results pages". Please act in good faith. If you want to change the guideline, then get a consensus. Clearly the overwhelming consensus is contrary to what you want as many editors have voiced support for sometimes using Dmoz categories, and many more have added them to articles. 2005 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the Misplaced Pages:External links section titled "Links to be considered":
- "A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories."
Search engine results are not the same as a web directory page. Such as a category page at the Open Directory Project (dmoz). There are many web pages that list relevant links by topic. Each link list, directory, category, and subcategory page should be considered on its merits in my opinion. If the editor of the directory or topic list is putting in relevant links, and is not including problematic links for the most part, then it could be a useful external link for wikipedia.
I suggest we add some kind of clarification such as: "If the category page has more than a few problematic links that violate wikipedia guidelines, then wikipedia should not link to the category." --Timeshifter 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see no difference between DMOZ and Yahoo! Directory or Google Directory]. We should not link any of these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think that DMOZ should be used, as there is no editorial control over it. Buddhipriya 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Alucard and 2005 are right. There have been numerous discussions and consensus building regarding Misplaced Pages's use of DMOZ as an "unofficial" link repository. In addition to the four discussions listed by Alucard, also see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 15#Template:Dmoz and Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 19#Template:NoMoreLinks, both of which resulted in a clear "Keep" results and solid support for our use of DMOZ.
Thus, I would strongly oppose any blanket removal of the DMOZ templates in articles, and I fully support its mention in this guideline. It has an established, albeit weak, consensus for use, it is not a search engine result, and it has just as much editorial oversight as we have here. -- Satori Son 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- there are new arguments, Satori Son, and this discussion proves that the consensus is disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need to go through this yet again. Just because you don't now agree agree means nothing to the consensus achieved. If you want to get something changed, GET A CONSENSUS. If you don't get a consensus, please do not edit this guideline for substance. Edits for typos and clarifications are fine. 2005 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with your principle. Unless there is a clear and wide consensus for adding the DMOZ part, we should not do so. If there is such clear and wide consensus somewhere on this Talk page, please point me to it. Thanks, Crum375 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Scroll up. Additionally the text has been there for about six months. 2005 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did, before posting. I see major disagreements about DMOZ and no consensus for adding it. Crum375 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was added late October, if it has been in that long that's the consensus you're looking for. If you want to remove something that has been stable for so long, you should have consensus for the change, and until there's clear consensus it should stay in, not be revert warred over. Not to mention that it's a bit dishonest to call reverting back in something that has been there for months changing the policy. --Minderbinder 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's WP:AGF about 'dishonesty'. I missed the fact that this change was added in October 2006, but I still feel there is no consensus for it. Was there consensus for the change when it was added? If so, where can I find it? Crum375 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the above. There was an entire "workshop" rewrite of the guideline discussed for literally months. There is no pithy little two sentences to refer to. There was four months or so of give and take where the guideline was made more coherent and focused. And just for the record, as you could see from the threads, I don't like the template part of that paragraph, but accepting it is what happens in achieving a consensus, people accept some non-perfect stuff. They don't just ignore the wishes of the significant majority and remove stuff just because they personally don't like it. 2005 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's WP:AGF about 'dishonesty'. I missed the fact that this change was added in October 2006, but I still feel there is no consensus for it. Was there consensus for the change when it was added? If so, where can I find it? Crum375 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Scroll up. Additionally the text has been there for about six months. 2005 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with your principle. Unless there is a clear and wide consensus for adding the DMOZ part, we should not do so. If there is such clear and wide consensus somewhere on this Talk page, please point me to it. Thanks, Crum375 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need to go through this yet again. Just because you don't now agree agree means nothing to the consensus achieved. If you want to get something changed, GET A CONSENSUS. If you don't get a consensus, please do not edit this guideline for substance. Edits for typos and clarifications are fine. 2005 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Since the DMOZ text has been there for quite a while, and multiple discussions about removing it have not reached a concensus, I really think that a proposal to remove should be the subject for an WP:Rfc, and see if there is a concensus to remove. But please do not just remove it without reaching that concensus. If there are new arguments then they can be stated at the intro to the RfC, and then all interested parties can read them and consider whether that warrants a change or not. Essentially calling something "revert" that has been there so long is not the way things should be around here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:Consensus: "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process. It's unreasonable to look at an edit months ago and insist that other editors produce evidence of other people stating their agreement. If there wasn't agreement, it wouldn't have made it into the policy and stayed there for months. We can certainly discuss and see if there's consensus to remove it - if there are objections, I'd also suggest proposing improvements to the text that would fix those objections instead of just removing it. --Minderbinder 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the discussion to allow DMOZ as EL. I guess I am very confused. Am I the only person here who thinks that allowing DMOZ essentially points our readers into the equivalent of a Google search? Even if volunteers somewhere maintain it, we as Wikipedians have no control over the link collection. So please enlighten me - since to me this seems to be in direct contradiction to the rest of WP:EL. Crum375 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crum, that very point was brought up in the discussions that I and others referenced earlier. There have been arguments made on both sides during those discussions. I don't feel that a link to a DMOZ category (or a category of any other suitable directory that we can all agree on) is anything like the results of a search engine. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be a link into a linkfarm, over which we as Wikipedians have no direct control. I feel that unless there is wide consensus for this kind of change, it should be removed. If there is such consensus, I am still waiting for a pointer to the relevant thread. Crum375 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you have noted, the change was made months ago. It was not reverted. The "Silence equals consent" part of WP:Consensus means that after this much time, there doesn't have to be a referencable thread. There needs to be wide consensus to remove it, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that as of now, this guideline is self contradictory. I am not at all sure that people are aware of that. I will wait for more comments here by others before acting. Crum375 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction. Just saying there is one, and making the rather wild claim that a hand chosen directory list is the same as results from the search engine really does not give anything for people to respond to. Dmoz categories are sometimes a great link for broad topics that could have hundreds of valuable external links. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and it is soemthing that wants to make valuable articles for users. A directory link can serve a good purpose, and that idea (one directory link) has been in the guideline for years. It has only been refined now to eliminate somejunkdirectory.com from consideration, and offered a bit on info when a directory category is a good idea. 2005 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that as of now, this guideline is self contradictory. I am not at all sure that people are aware of that. I will wait for more comments here by others before acting. Crum375 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you have noted, the change was made months ago. It was not reverted. The "Silence equals consent" part of WP:Consensus means that after this much time, there doesn't have to be a referencable thread. There needs to be wide consensus to remove it, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be a link into a linkfarm, over which we as Wikipedians have no direct control. I feel that unless there is wide consensus for this kind of change, it should be removed. If there is such consensus, I am still waiting for a pointer to the relevant thread. Crum375 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crum, that very point was brought up in the discussions that I and others referenced earlier. There have been arguments made on both sides during those discussions. I don't feel that a link to a DMOZ category (or a category of any other suitable directory that we can all agree on) is anything like the results of a search engine. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the discussion to allow DMOZ as EL. I guess I am very confused. Am I the only person here who thinks that allowing DMOZ essentially points our readers into the equivalent of a Google search? Even if volunteers somewhere maintain it, we as Wikipedians have no control over the link collection. So please enlighten me - since to me this seems to be in direct contradiction to the rest of WP:EL. Crum375 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crum375, I took part in some of the DMOZ discussions last year and we included some of the editors from DMOZ. The one distinction you need to remember between a DMOZ directory and a Google search result is that Google makes no judgement about the content reliability or accuracy. It simply applies a computer algorith based on links and content and then ranks websites based upon a specific search term. The famous "Miserable Failure" search term clearly demonstrates how its results can be manipulated. With DMOZ, there is a set of human eyes that evaluates each site for relevance, content and quality before its added. Although this is a human process that has all of its shortcomings, it is still a valuable one.
- I do not believe DMOZ should be used indescriminately, but it has clear value when used to fight spam. I've used it a dozen or more times, and each time, when used with an appropriate message, link spam was dramatically reduced on an article that prior to its inclusion was a haven for frequent spamming. As such, I've always viewed DMOZ as an asset to WP. Calltech 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Combating spam should not be a criteria for using DMOZ, as we could apply the same for Yahoo Directory, or other directories that are "human driven". The concern is that, as there the editorial process for these directories is opaque, we are relying on unknown criteria and in violation of WP:V and contradicting the wording of the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that there IS an editorial process by an individual(s) that has some knowledge associated with a DMOZ category puts DMOZ ahead of Yahoo! or other directories that are more concerned about format and style than knowledge of the content. Yahoo! doesn't have experts in every category where it places websites. Pragmatically, using DMOZ to combat spam in selective instances works - why remove such a valuable tool? Calltech 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Combating spam should not be a criteria for using DMOZ, as we could apply the same for Yahoo Directory, or other directories that are "human driven". The concern is that, as there the editorial process for these directories is opaque, we are relying on unknown criteria and in violation of WP:V and contradicting the wording of the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was a DMOZ editor for several years, and I can assure you that the editorial control is haphazard , at best. There absolutely no proof that directory entries at DMOZ are any different that other directories such as Yahoo directory. This idea of linking to DMOZ is simply not sound, in addition of being contradictory to the language on the guideline (Links to avoid section) despite arguments about consensus, that obviously is being challenged in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't contradict the guideline. If you think so, say why. The consensus on this matter is clear. There is no "challenge" to consensus because some people disagree with it. That's just leads to the childishness exhibited trying to force a change when they see there is no consensus for change. Misplaced Pages has some goofy policies in my opinion, like letting unlogged in users to edit articles, but that IS the way it works here. You want to change something, get a consensus. Personally I'd prefer voting, but that isn't the way it works. Neither is rudely making changes not supported by a clear majority of editors time and again. It's plain there is no consensus to remove the passage now, so accept that... and try to PERSUADE people to change their mind. Don't try and steamroll your opinion over others acting in good faith. 2005 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is clearly no consensus to be using this policy to advocate for driving traffic to DMOZ. Please persuade people to change their mind instead of adding a contested endorsement of another project to a Misplaced Pages guideline. Jkelly 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The burden is not on me. The burden is on you to get a consensus for a change in the guideline, and clearly there is none, so either make a case or move on. If you don't get a new consensus, the existing one stands. You are saying that there would be no consensus to have any external link guideline at all because you don't agree to it. Consensus doesn't work that way. 2005 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is clearly no consensus to be using this policy to advocate for driving traffic to DMOZ. Please persuade people to change their mind instead of adding a contested endorsement of another project to a Misplaced Pages guideline. Jkelly 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't contradict the guideline. If you think so, say why. The consensus on this matter is clear. There is no "challenge" to consensus because some people disagree with it. That's just leads to the childishness exhibited trying to force a change when they see there is no consensus for change. Misplaced Pages has some goofy policies in my opinion, like letting unlogged in users to edit articles, but that IS the way it works here. You want to change something, get a consensus. Personally I'd prefer voting, but that isn't the way it works. Neither is rudely making changes not supported by a clear majority of editors time and again. It's plain there is no consensus to remove the passage now, so accept that... and try to PERSUADE people to change their mind. Don't try and steamroll your opinion over others acting in good faith. 2005 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Denny nails it. This is an end-run around the NOT clause. Those who are stating consensus is required for changes need to get consensus to change WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links before there is any validity to any argument to keeping DMOZ. It conflicts. It conflicts with WP:EL, WP:SPAM as well. So, go get consensus to change those three, and there will be a point to this. Otherwise, no. KillerChihuahua 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have just reverted the edit made by KillerChihuahua that removed the entire section, and invited him/her to join in the discussion at the foot of this page before making changes to WP:EL. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should not be using the rollback button, popups, or valdal fighting tools for these reverts. Revert if that is what you want to do, but add a proper edit summary. Using popups, rollback, or vandal fighting tools should be limited to reverting vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies. I assumed that the note that I left on the edit, the message that I posted to the user's talk page and the note I placed here was enough explanation of the actions I took and why. I assumed that as this was reverting an edit, that the simple revert button was the best way to show that it was just that. If I made a mistake I apologize. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should not be using the rollback button, popups, or valdal fighting tools for these reverts. Revert if that is what you want to do, but add a proper edit summary. Using popups, rollback, or vandal fighting tools should be limited to reverting vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have just reverted the edit made by KillerChihuahua that removed the entire section, and invited him/her to join in the discussion at the foot of this page before making changes to WP:EL. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Your assumption was incorrect. KillerChihuahua 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In order to try to make sure whether what I was doing was sound or not, I did some digging around and want to share the results with you: The first time the EL page was changed to say that linking to the ODP was ok was added to the article was in this edit dated 26 October 2006 and the note on the edit was Paste in from the workshop - which implies that it was a part of a larger discussion. The workshop referred to can be found at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/workshop#Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory. So this change has been in place for 6 months - a lifetime in the world of WP. I am not in favour of simply removing a section that has been there so long and was the subject of a workshop without some discussion (which I have tried to start further down this page). Given the latest coments, it appears that I am out of line with my comments here. I will withdraw from the discussion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) The edit which led to the Seigenthaler controversy was in place for four months before anyone noticed. That this contradiction in policy was not noticed promptly is regrettable, but does not confer some kind of protection to it. KillerChihuahua 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a member of Wikiproject Spam I have included referral to DMOZ as part of spam cleanups, and I agree that it has been helpful for that purpose. However in cases where I have content knowledge, when I have checked the links at DMOZ I find many of them that I would never approve as a content editor, including many commercial sites that do not cite any WP:RS or otherwise fail tests for WP:EL. Various criticisms of DMOZ are noted at Dmoz#Controversy_and_criticism. An example of a web site specifically critical of DMOZ is here. For an example of a specific criticism of Misplaced Pages over-use of DMOZ see here. Alexa, an independent rating service, gives DMOZ only a midrange rating based on its aggregated reviewing method . None of the web sites I provide links to are authoritative, I present them only as examples of the fact that DMOZ is controversial. Buddhipriya 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Linking to Livejournal.com
I removed a ton of links to Livejournal.com communities from this article... my thinking is that as we can't know a thing about the editorial standards of some random LJ, it shouldn't be linked to in such a fashion. Is this a good move? - Denny 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- ask over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam--Hu12 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. For sourcing/ELs though, what do you think though...? I'd think for a source they're no good. - Denny 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Always no on a Livejournal link, allowing for rare exceptions where it can be confirmed the livejournal is written by a recognized authority in his/her field. --SubSeven 10:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- 99% of blogs should not be linked to. Indeed, we make exceptions for recogized authorities, which most of Livejournal isn't. >Radiant< 10:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks guys. - Denny 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Always no on a Livejournal link, allowing for rare exceptions where it can be confirmed the livejournal is written by a recognized authority in his/her field. --SubSeven 10:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. For sourcing/ELs though, what do you think though...? I'd think for a source they're no good. - Denny 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Links in infoboxes
Does the condition concerning sites that demand installation of plugins apply to "official" websites placed in infoboxes? One has just been added to Upen Patel; according to the site, it "requires the latest flash plugin, 1152x864 screen resolution, and a broadband connection". I'd normally remove it from an "external links" list, but I'm not sure about this. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It only says "avoid" not "don't". If it's the official site then include it - along with the "explicit indication of the technology needed". And I don't see the reason for normally remove it from an "external links" list just because of the rich media unless it's deemed not appropiate for content (and I guess "avoid" would indicate a removal if there was a text site that was equal or better). - Ctbolt 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- In my experience, the usual response of other editors is to remove such links (I don't really see much difference between "avoid doing it" and "don't do it", to be honest). Given the relative unimpotance of external links for anything except giving sources, what's wrong with removing them in such cases? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Linking to legal episode downloads of a show (commercial site with ads) Spam/EL issue
I'm looking for comments on the inclusion of a link to In2TV episodes of Babylon 5 on the shows page. Concerns have been raised over the commercial nature of the site, that is also contains links to other shows, and that it is ad supported. In2TV provides free episodes that contain ads. Actually being able to watch the episodes of Babylon 5 is likely something a reader of the page would find valuable. I'm wondering if the inclusion would be approriate. It seems that the WP:EL policy is rather unclear about this type of situation. (I personally feel that the link should be included) There has also been some discussion on the babylon 5 talk page relating to this issue Talk:Babylon_5#"Free" video link still forbidden. Monty845 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's unclear because EL is a guideline and not a policy. :) In any case...
- We don't need the link. If it's legal, then I don't see the harm in it. It's obviously related to the subject, it obviously fits into the type of thing we typically WANT to link to the only problem seems to be that the site is commercial in nature... Being commercial doesn't mean we can't link to it. We show preference to non-commercial websites when the choice exists... but there aren't many legal sources for online TV outside of commercial websites. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Fourm
Every time i put my fourm up in a day its down again yet i know another fourm that is let stay up why is my site so wrong can someone tell me the website is spencerzone-A Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em Fourm —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaAman (talk • contribs)
- Our guidelines explicitly state that forums are generally not allowed and that you should refrain from linking directly to sites you are involved with. The message left on your talk page asked you to discuss the link on the article talk page, but instead of doing this you used the talk page to promote your website and then added the link to the article again. This is what Misplaced Pages considers to be spamming. Other forums may be there because they have gained community consensus, or because they have not yet been spotted by an editor who is concerned about them. In any case the existence of one link does not mean that other links are acceptable. If you believe you link can add encyclopedic value to the article you need to make your case on the talk page and gain the consensus of editors there. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically refer to Misplaced Pages:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided guideline #3 and #10, also your forum doesn't seem to meet any of the Misplaced Pages:External_links#What_to_link guidlines. Monty845 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionaly it has only has a total of 2 members.--Hu12 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Assistance with external links in Health freedom movement
The Health freedom movement article has had a number of external link problems, none that I'd definitely categorize foremost as a spam problem, more just WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL problems. The article is rather unique in that it's about an ongoing promotional campaign
While we made good progress with an earlier external link cleanup in February, we'd most appreciate outside opinions on the Health_freedom_movement#Campaigners.2C_organizations.2C_and_newsfeeds section. Currently we have a version without external links, and a very short discussion about it in Talk:Health_freedom_movement#Linkfarm that was started after some back-and-forth revisions. The old version had 17 external links . I thought the removal of external links would not be controversial, but one editor has the understandable concern that "edits should improve articles, replacing a functioning link with a dead link to a non-existent WP article does not improve the article." 17 red links look pretty ugly... --Ronz 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the background to the restrictive wordings in WP:EL. Many editors are used to the Net Culture of generous linking and I have seen many examples of newbie editors who have a big problem accepting link removal. Hence, the strong wordings in WP:EL. However, the WP:EL has to be interpreted, such as in the various consensus debates on this Talk page and the EL Workshops , . When reading these texts, it is clear that the actual interpretation of WP:EL is more flexible.
- There is a clear and obvious consensus that an article about a subject should have at least one EL – to its own official web site. I think it is reasonable that this principle can be expanded if the article covers a broader topic that includes several entities. Look for example how external links are used in articles in the category Political Movements . For this type of articles WP:EL is obviously adapted to the fit the topic.
- The Health Freedom Movement article is a rather long overview article. The article claims that the HFM consists of a loose global coalition of a number of activists, campaigners, and opinion makers. I find it strange that the ELs to some of the most vocal and important of these are controversial.
- There is now a controversy over 19 links. How will the article be improved by reducing them? By removing EL to organizations outside the United States? By removing a direct link to an open source documentary film about the subject? Will verifiability of the claim that there are a number of HFM organizations be improved if links to these organizations are removed and replaced with “red” dead links to non-existing WP articles?
- I am all for that if there is a WP-article about one of these organizations, the link should be internal (and the EL should be from that other article). But if no such article exists? I don’t want to start 19 stubs with a few lines of text and an EL just to circumvent an overly strict interpretation of WP:EL. In the future the missing 19 articles might be available, but I want to produce an informative encyclopedic coverage of the topic that works now. In the future the HFM article might also split into sub-topics (e.g. for the Geographical regions) and then the number of ELs in each article will be lower. But in the meantime? MaxPont 13:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Include the relevant, verifiable information from those external links in the Misplaced Pages article text, and cite the links as sources. We're supposed to be spending our time improving the Misplaced Pages article text and filtering such sources through WP:V and WP:RS, not just finding external sites to link to. This is the basis of WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#INFO. Nineteen external links is excessive by any measure, and a movement that cannot be adequately described without including that many links may not be a truly organized "movement", but just a catchphrase to which a number of websites have signed on. MastCell 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's just keep in mind that the health freedom movement is a very real movement and that its existence has already been verified by articles in the orthodox media. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/09/13/dp1301.xml and http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1157031,00.html Vitaminman 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Include the relevant, verifiable information from those external links in the Misplaced Pages article text, and cite the links as sources. We're supposed to be spending our time improving the Misplaced Pages article text and filtering such sources through WP:V and WP:RS, not just finding external sites to link to. This is the basis of WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#INFO. Nineteen external links is excessive by any measure, and a movement that cannot be adequately described without including that many links may not be a truly organized "movement", but just a catchphrase to which a number of websites have signed on. MastCell 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Fansites
Didn't this used to say something about no linking fansites? Can we include this? Any thoughts? IvoShandor 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't this why Google exists? Why even bother linking to fansites/forums/possibly unreliable information? I mean, if you can use Misplaced Pages, you can use Google. We don't need to provide links to everything. In my experience this lack of consensus has led to nothing but conflict, off wiki canvassing, personal attacks, edit wars etc. etc. etc. IvoShandor 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- We don't provide "links to everything". That's silly. We have a guideline for meritable linking, which is this. If you have constructive comments, feel free to suggest them. Saying no linking to fasites is weird and thoughtless, and has never been the guideline. I'd encourage you to start thinking about building a better encyclopedia, not frankly bizarre black and white ideas that have nothing to do with user value and encyclopedic merit. 2005 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I came here to say the same thing; who removed it, and why? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Going back into the history, the clearest was: "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." At some point this was replaced by a long and overly explanatory comment about "non-reciprocal sites", of which fansites were the example. Now there's nothing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd add "or reliable" to the "not informative" bit. But more important, I'd like to see this added back even without that minor and possibly contentious wording change. --Yamla 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the crieria should be based on the notability of the fansite relative to the availability of other informative sources. -- Monty845 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please remember this is an encyclopedia. We have a guideline for external links. This is it. The guideline is based on what is best for users and the encyclopedia itself, not random nonsense. We have had plenty of discussions about this. The guideline covers what should and should not be linked to based on merit, uselfulness, reliability and so on. Ownership of a domain has nothing to do with encyclopedic merit. 2005 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd add "or reliable" to the "not informative" bit. But more important, I'd like to see this added back even without that minor and possibly contentious wording change. --Yamla 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be bold... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do enjoy boldness. Thank Mel. IvoShandor 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not be arrogant. There is a process for changing this guideline. It's called consensus. Making changes to something that was the result of many months of discussion is not just inappropriate, it is downright rude. Please show respect for other editors in the future, and please at least read the thousands of words of discussion on this or any other topic before changing a guideline in direct contradiction to ongoing consensus. 2005 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought: at what point does a fansite theoretically became an RS? When its successful? When its cited in turn by other sources? A blanket restriction would also restrict some actual 'fannish' news sites, which are considered fan sites simply for focusing on a subset of culture. Just a thought. - Denny 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- A blanket restriction is of course just dumb. We aren't here to just link to corporate owned sites. We are here, this guideline anyway, to provide links to material that goes over and above the articles. Sometimes fansites do that and are excellent resources on topics, especially obscure ones. Very often they are useless. But we need to judge them on their value to users and the encyclopedia. Fan sites like filmsite.org are sometimes highly authoritative; sometimes they are thrown together junk. The guideline currently cares about the information, not whether something is owned by Tim Dirks or Time Warner. 2005 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well I swear that this existed once before, I see no real consensus for its removal above either. Was it added without consensus then? This page is seemingly jacked up, if it is that unstable how are we supposed to apply the guideline? IvoShandor 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- In addition there doesn't seem to be a word about them on the page, considering how much trouble I have seen them cause a mention would be merited somewhere so editors could apply the guideline as well as cite it in discussion, if fan sites are to be considered on a case by case basis then shouldn't the page say something about it, at least mention it. As for 2005 people arrogant, good strategy, that oughta be conducive to discussion, please point out the consensus, I saw above a discussion involving three or four editors but nothing closely resembling consensus. If it is in the archives, perhaps you could link it please, as they are quite hefty. Thanks. IvoShandor 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The guideline "says something" about external linking. It says a lot. You seem to want to just ignore it for some reason. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- In addition there doesn't seem to be a word about them on the page, considering how much trouble I have seen them cause a mention would be merited somewhere so editors could apply the guideline as well as cite it in discussion, if fan sites are to be considered on a case by case basis then shouldn't the page say something about it, at least mention it. As for 2005 people arrogant, good strategy, that oughta be conducive to discussion, please point out the consensus, I saw above a discussion involving three or four editors but nothing closely resembling consensus. If it is in the archives, perhaps you could link it please, as they are quite hefty. Thanks. IvoShandor 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
<deindent> My major problem with fansites is that the vast majority of them are stuffed full of image and multimedia copyvios and as such are prohibited by WP:C - not knowingly linking copyright violations. That takes priority over EL as it is a policy and EL is a guideline. --Spartaz 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- So the vast majority won't be linked to because they fail to meet the criteria of the guideline. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a problem too. Which should be discussed.
Ownership of a domain has nothing to do with encyclopedic merit
I have to say 2005, while I respect your opinion, I disagree with it (and I am not trying to be arrogant). There are plenty of domains around the Wiki that are known spam domains, ownership could definitely come into play. IvoShandor 09:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Read the guideline please. Spam domains would not merit links. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- All in all, it doesn't matter, I don't want to argue. I just came here looking for some guidance on the page about fansites, found no mention and said something. This page was most unhelpful in that arena, as I am working on trying to resolve an edit war as a neutral party. Though, I think a solution may have been reached regardless. IvoShandor 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Read the guideline. Your comments really don't make much sense. The guideline is detailed about we link to. If you are adding or removing something based on whether it is owned by a fan versus a corporation, that is inappropriate editing and you should stop. Spend some time reading the guideline, and if you are a masochist, the lengthy rewrite discussions from the last six months of 2006. 2005 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips, I am not removing any links, I want to be able to apply the guideline appropriately and its not very detailed if it doesn't even mention the fact that these sites should be considered on case by case basis, because there are certainly sites that aren't. I have read the guideline, perhaps you should assume good faith. IvoShandor 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- For instance: The average fan site hosted on Geocities generally fails the first What to link to criterion:
There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
- Is it accessible to the reader?
- Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
- Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.
Because Geocities sites are neither accesible (due to constantly being down b/c of bandwith nor are they likely to be functional on a continuing basis, usually. Some domains inherently have problems like this, regardless of content. IvoShandor 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you can see, the guideline covers that. 2005 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- So can we at least mention fan sites somewhere in this guideline or no? It's hard to cite this guideline in discussion because the come back is easy, well it doesn't say anything about fansites.... IvoShandor 05:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever, nevermind. This is clearly fruitless. I guess this page isn't going to go into specifics, on fansites. IvoShandor 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Fansites can offer useful info just as well as any other non-official site. If a fansite violates copyright or other EL clauses, it won't be linked for those reasons (just like any other site). If it meets the EL criteria, it should be linked (just like any other site). Not to mention that since "fansites" isn't really defined by wikipedia, so a mention here without a definition would just lead to arguments over which sites are fansites. It hasn't been part of this policy for good reason, please don't add it without consensus. --Minderbinder 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Stop lecturing me. You are acting as if I added it. I have NEVER edited this page. Jeez, people need to lay off. I asked a question and got berated for this whole thread. What the crap? IvoShandor 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not lecturing you, and I'm not acting as if you did anthing. A question was asked, and I gave an opinion. AGF, be civil, chill out already and don't take responses so personally. --Minderbinder 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Stop lecturing me. You are acting as if I added it. I have NEVER edited this page. Jeez, people need to lay off. I asked a question and got berated for this whole thread. What the crap? IvoShandor 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, nevermind. This is clearly fruitless. I guess this page isn't going to go into specifics, on fansites Maybe I should have added "it's cool" to the end, like I meant to. It's fine, I don't care. This is just an area I am starting to familiarize myself with and the last time I was here I thought I saw mention of fansites. Maybe I'm nuts. IvoShandor 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of how authoritative everyone here thinks this guideline is it did not help to resolve the craziness at Rule of the Rose. Which is why I came here, another page I never edited. That perhaps is one of the lamest edit wars ever and this didn't help at all, in fact it got me accused of being a troll when I posted it....that aside, that user was blocked. No one ever answered my original question though, didn't it used to say something? When was this? Am I confused, or was I reading something else? Anyone? (and no, I don't want to add it, this is just a question not a proposal).IvoShandor 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the past it has said "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." I think it was right to remove it, particularly since wikipedia discourages using quotas like that, and it was contradicted by other guidelines. --Minderbinder 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Somehow I've missed all this discussion. Just to set one or two things straight: this page used to rule out links to fansites, and that was removed without (so far as I've been able to find) consensus. Many of us were unaware of this, and have continued to remove links to fanistes. Indeed, this view has been used in a number of disputes, discussed in places such as WP:AN/I, and it's clear that most editors are unaware that the strictre was removed. In putting it back (after a discussion, albeit a brief one, I restored the status quo ante. 2005's talk of arrogance was not only uncivil, it was wrongheaded.
Misplaced Pages isn't a link farm. There are many sites on the Web that point to fansites — indeed, interested people can Google for them; this is, however, supposed to be an encyclopædia. Fansites are rarely (I'd say never) reliable, in that they're inherently baised towards their subjects. We shouldn't link to them.
Incidentally, I've never seen a dispute over what is and isn't a fansite. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The guideline was rewritten five or six months ago, and singling out fansites was abandoned then. It was a long process with a lot of discussion and compromise by many parties and the consensus at that time was that it was inappropriate to single out fansites. The reasoning being that a fansite that meets the other requirements of WP:EL shouldn't have to jump through additional hoops to be included. Especially since for some pop culture areas some of the fan sites are the best source of critical review of the subject matter. Objections were mainly that there was too much fansite cruft on wikipedia, and we needed all the strong wording we could to help keep it down. While I subscribed to the latter of these arguments the overall consensus favored leaving out specific mention. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks; a number of us obviously missed it. Perhaps, though, it could now be discussed again, as there seems quite a bit of support for reinserting a specific mention. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- You can start a discussion of any new principle you want, but a very long discussion of a significant rewrite involving dozens of editors giving and taking that led to the current consensus. Additionally, among the community of editors there is certainly no widespread consensus to prohibit fansites. To the contrary quite obviously, as literally thousands of editors have added them in good faith. Of course many that don't qualify under the guideline are added to, just like all kinds of spam is added too. The guideline covers all this though. The bottom line is the guideline covers links that merit linking. It's useful to anyone, even if all of us would perhaps prefer more clarity one way or another on some of the items. It does not make irrational statements for no valuable reason, and it doesn't seek to end run the general behavior of the mass of editors. The oversimplified point is to have good links useful to users, and not have links that add nothing or very little to the user experience. That should be a good guide to any good faith editor. 2005 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Misplaced Pages is full of editors who are essentially adolescent boys with time on their hands and an uncritical enthusiasm for pop music, video games, etc. — just the sort of topics for which fansites exist. Trying to persuade them that a site doesn't meet a complex set of criteria here is pointless; they have neither the intellectual capacity nor the attention span for it. To be able to say: "look, fansites aren't allowed" makes life immesaurably easier. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles infested with editors like this, and it's a frustrating business trying to keep some sort of order. I've never seen a fansite that belonged in an external links section, which is doubtless also part of my approach to the issue. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you either need to WP:AGF or find another outlet for your interests. Insulting the mass of editors and articles is not helpful or sensible either. 2005 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- While Mel's language may have been somewhat harsh, I understand and fully sympathize with his frustration. And his assessment of the current state of external linking is fairly accurate. As such, I support putting the fansite prohibition language back into this guideline. -- Satori Son 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also fully support the restoration of the original guideline. I just came here to cut/paste it into a discussion, and was disappointed to see that it had somehow been removed. Neier 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would also fully support the restoration of the original guidline. I also came here looking for policy for fansites that I've read before but find no longer exists. It seems that out of thousands of editors that use these guidines regularly, only a handful (3-4) claimed consensus of change of policy in this discussion. A few relative changes are HERE and HERE. I must say, the way #13 now reads in Misplaced Pages:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided is probably one of the most confusing paragraphs I've ever had to endure. Cricket02 07:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I still haven't seen a reason why fansites should be treated any differently from other sites, and every example of a fansite that shouldn't be linked can already be removed under the other criteria already listed. Aside from discussion here, on the encyclopedia itself, there's huge support for linking fansites, and when the policy said "one fansite" (quota, which is frowned upon on wikipedia) it was often disregarded when there was more than site that met EL and was worth linking. If you really want to add wording discouraging linking to fansites, you need to publicise that discussion very widely so that editors are aware and can participate. I do agree that 13 reads very convoluted, but what's scary is that it used to be even worse. --Minderbinder 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thousands of editors add links to fansites in good faith, so your statement really is too absurd to take seriously. The guideline wording is clear and appropriate and was adopted via consensus after months of discussion involving many editors. No reasons are ever given to include a braindead prohibition, and just to cut to the chase it is quite plain to any fair-minded individual that the editor community at large has no consensus to have a random ban on fan-owned sites. It would be nice if a tiny minority would stop trying to force wording into the guideline that is plainly against the will of the mass of editors, even if they don't agree with that will. 2005 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a large contradiction here - most of the comments assert that the reason to not enumerate fan sites as prohibited is because they would be prohibited for other reasons. If thousands of editors are adding fan sites that are prohibited for other reasons, those actions are NOT "good faith" by definition, right?StreamingRadioGuide 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is contradiction. Sites that don't merit linink are prohibited by the guideline. Thousands of editors add sites in good faith, many of those qualify under the guideline, many do not. You probably should read WP:AGF. 2005 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is a large contradiction here - most of the comments assert that the reason to not enumerate fan sites as prohibited is because they would be prohibited for other reasons. If thousands of editors are adding fan sites that are prohibited for other reasons, those actions are NOT "good faith" by definition, right?StreamingRadioGuide 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note that arguably the ISFDB is a fansite. there are other such cases (admittedly rare) whan a "fan site" can actually be the most reliable source availabel on soemthing. I grant that they sterotypical fansite is not a reliable source for anything, but then neither is the sterotypical random corporate site. DES 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I only just discovered that fansites had been removed. I would also support reinstating the no links to fansites rule, except under extroardinary circumstances (as DESiegel pointed out above) where widely agreed-upon on the article's talk page. 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is an interesting discussion. But surely, this is a guideline? In that case, it is wrong to refer to "rules", just as it would be wrong to go to an article and remove things which this guideline discourages, against a local consensus. And it seems to be that the abovementioned teenage(?) boys(?) with time on their hands might well come to a consensus that these twenty or so fan sites are suitable links. A guideline is not a blunt instrument to override consensus. Or is it? Notinasnaid 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Individual WikiProject rules on External Links
What's the precedent if an individual WikiProject proposes adopting a different (more restrictive) version of this policy on the articles that the project maintains? The proposal, in its infancy stages right now over on WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If I was trying to link to a site and that particular link was allowed under WP:EL, but not allowed under such WikiProject rules, should that link be allowed? Neil916 (Talk) 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- WikiProjects have no more authority than any other random set of editors. But because they generally take a considered approach to articles and have already built some consensus, normally based on good reason, around an issue they tend to be fairly influential. If an editor believes the actions of a wiki-project do not lead to good encyclopedia articles s/he should discuss it with the other editors and, if necessary, continue down the dispute resolution path. The guidelines here are a guide to deciding if a link should be included, but in the end we are trying to build an NPOV, GFDL encyclopedia, sometimes the rules will need to be more or less strictly interpreted to get the best results. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maintaining an article is not the same as owning an article. Personally, I think its really important to try and maintain a consistent approach across the whole project so my view is that the guideline should always trump the views of an individual wikiproject. Ideally. i'd like to see much less in the way of external links but that won't happen anytime soon, so in the meantime we should all try to work against the same standards - i.e. the guideline. --Spartaz 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that one guideline trumps another; the word guideline seems to be used more and more as if it is a synonym for "policy". The policy is that articles are decided only by article-by-article consensus (as modified by policy), correct? If so, a Wikiproject guideline is more likely to be closer to the spirit of those most likely to be involved than a more "elevated" one. Consistency is a highly desirable aim, but it doesn't seem to be that the policies either produce that, or give strong tools for enforcing it. Notinasnaid 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio Weasel words
Just something I would like to confirm with the assembled experts.
I just removed an EL to a site that published copyrighted lyrics from a musical artist. At the bottom of each song it has the following text: "All lyrics are property and copyright of their owners. All lyrics provided for private study, scholarship, or research reasons only."
Now in my mind that doesn't make it suddenly not a CopyVio and we should not be linking to that site. Does anyone have any different opinion on this? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- What is the site? Are you sure that it doesn't have permission to use the lyrics on condition that notice is used? As long as we don't copy them, what would be wrong with a link to the site? (Where do the weasel words come in, by the way?) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I can answer the second part easily - take a look at Misplaced Pages:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking - that is QUITE clear. As for the first part, I have no way of knowing, and that is my question - we have discussed here before that we do not link to lyrics sites unless there is some distinct permission to use on the site (this should be in the archives for this talk page). My question is whether this is actually a CopyVio page, and the text I quoted were attempts at WeaselWords to get around CopyVio, or if they suffice. The site is www.quasimodobell.com/default.aspx/tabid/130/groupid/1465/gingroup/MEAT+LOAF/lyrics/1 -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I obviously didn't make myself clear; my third question (which I assume you were responding to) was predicated on the second. Looking at the site, though, this talks at some length about copyright, but still doesn't make things clear. perhaps we should contact them to ask for the copyright status of the lyrics. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would be better to contact the copyright owners of some of the songs than the site who may be violating copyright. Just a thought. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sites requiring registration
Not allowing links to these sites seems reasonable to me — but if they're allowed when there's no other source for the information, I can't see what's going on. Why weren't they allowed in the first place? It reminds me slightly of saying that dogs aren't allowed into restaurants on grounds of hygiene, but making an exception for guide dogs (because they've been trained to have a shower before going out to eat, presumably...) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, and will remove the addition for now until it can be discussed a little further and consensus reached. Let's be clear - this isn't about citing sources. Sometimes a reliable source such as a newspaper will require registration or purchase to view an article, but we link it anyway as a citation. However, when it comes to external links, they should all be readily available without registration or payment. Otherwise, they don't add much of any use to the average reader of the article. MastCell 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the draft, I had made an amendment: sites requiring registration could be used as references if they are presented as an inline reference. Anyone can create a reference section and add a link to the site requiring registration, which is just an attempt to bypass the "External links" restriction. Thus, I had asked to rewrite that so that if someone wants to add a link to a site requiring registration, it should be as an inline reference, immediately following the sentence or phrase that is referencing. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Inline references are governed by a different set of rules... WP:EL applies specifically to external links. MastCell 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but the external link guideline should state that such links should not be used as external links but instead as reference, pointing them to WP:RS or WP:CITE. -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Inline references are governed by a different set of rules... WP:EL applies specifically to external links. MastCell 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- ReyBrujo, you seem to want to apply EL guidelines to references that aren't inline. While I agree that these sections are often abused, and I'd like to see them phased out, I don't think this guideline has the mandate to extend itself into that area. I also think it may be a tactical mistake to strip out all these links - it makes it harder for editors to go in and find which assertions in an article a particular reference supports. It might make more sense to try and get a prohibition on adding new non-inline references, but this isn't the place. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be inappropriate for any WP policy or guideline to forbid general, non-inline, references. Also, it would be outside the scope of this External links guideline to do so. An example of when it would be appropriate to include a general reference is when an advanced article takes it for granted that the reader understands basic terms, but provides a good general reference that has an index and glossary that will allow a reader to look up any basic terms the reader does not understand. It would be unreasonable to expect the editor to include an inline reference to the definition of all the basic terms used in an article. --Gerry Ashton 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that references are outside the scope of this project, but I would think a link such as you give in your example ought to meet the basic requirements of these guidelines, such as not being a registration required site. It's not so useful to the reader if it's not accessible (and it would, presumably, have to meet the points about being on subject and NPOV in order to be useful as a general reference). -- Siobhan Hansa 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sites that require registration and/or payment are useful to those readers who are willing to register, and possibly pay a fee. Of course it would be better to use an unrestricted site if the editor knows of one, but better a restricted site than an article with inadequate references. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstand your example. To me the example you give doesn't sound like a reference supporting an assertion or text in the article but more of a primer for a reader. Terms that rely on a very particular definition can be inline referenced (or possibly wikilinked), but if you you're looking to provide a resource that can be used by a reader to understand the general concepts and jargon of a subject area - that doesn't sound like an actual refernce for the article to me and I think it better falls into external links rather than references in terms of the guidelines that should be applied to it. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope that the important assertions in an article will have inline references, but I wouldn't expect every single assertion to have an inline reference. For an example of a featured article that contains many assertions, but depends mostly on general rather than inline references, see Trigonometric functions. --Gerry Ashton 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great example Gerry. I think we're on the same page. I was reading too much of my own interpretation into your previous example. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope that the important assertions in an article will have inline references, but I wouldn't expect every single assertion to have an inline reference. For an example of a featured article that contains many assertions, but depends mostly on general rather than inline references, see Trigonometric functions. --Gerry Ashton 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstand your example. To me the example you give doesn't sound like a reference supporting an assertion or text in the article but more of a primer for a reader. Terms that rely on a very particular definition can be inline referenced (or possibly wikilinked), but if you you're looking to provide a resource that can be used by a reader to understand the general concepts and jargon of a subject area - that doesn't sound like an actual refernce for the article to me and I think it better falls into external links rather than references in terms of the guidelines that should be applied to it. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion requested
Can someone chime in on user talk:requestion #The original source for those links? There is a disagreement about whether links to researchchannel.org violate the external links guideline. I'd prefer that the conversation be kept in one place. Graham87 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also see the section immediately before that titled "Linkspam ast.cac.washington.edu?" for more background. Graham87 09:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
SAFCO
Can I get some discussion please about the user Safco and a couple of links that were placed back to the SAFCO company website? One link is at Decontamination and the other is at Urban search and rescue. In both cases the user placed links to the website which, in my judgment, violates WP:EL and WP:COI. I have removed the links. From what I can obeserve, there was no information added to the article beyond the external links. In the case of the search and rescue article the link was placed as a "See Also" link. I would appreciate your thoughts on my action. JBEvans 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've dealt with this (the account has been blocked as violating WP:U, and for spam-linking). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Registration
I happen to have a subscription to Ancestry.com which allows me to for one thing, view original images of census returns. I'm not comfortable with the implication here, that we cannot add an EL to say, the actual 1930 census image for Charlie Chaplin to his article. To my mind, it enhances the article to be able to add links to actual documents, even though they may require registration or payment to view. Wjhonson 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the source is cited correctly (the document and not the link) the user can choose which route to acquire a copy of the document. However, if you cite the webpage, the user is forced to subscribe to view a document that would otherwise be free to the public. --I already forgot 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be discussing sources, because this guideline only covers external links that are not references. So the example of a census page available on Ancestry.com wouldn't fall under this guideline unless it was extra material, not used in creating the text of the article. If the Ancestry.com site provided enough information to find the hardcopy version too, you could list both the hardcopy and the online version. In that case, I suppose you would have the choice of putting it either in the External links section, or the Further reading section. --Gerry Ashton 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- My point is not just about source but also about providing additional info that is not included in the article. So what I'm saying is that if you have the main source of info available for free to the public, we do not need to add a link to pay per view site(s) and should list the source instead. If we provide the source, the user can perform their own search (using their own search engine) and decide which pay per view site they wish to use. Otherwise, every pay per view site will want to have their site listed in the EL as offering a paid copy of something that is available for free. Then wikipedians have to decide which pay per view site should be listed over the others which opens up another can of worms and other assorted conflicts of interest. To keep wikipedia honest, we need to sacrifice the loss of some external links in favor of adding additional content to the article (copy of a historical document, quotes, refs, etc.). If the link is a rare exception, it can be discussed on the talk page and added through consensus. --I already forgot 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be discussing sources, because this guideline only covers external links that are not references. So the example of a census page available on Ancestry.com wouldn't fall under this guideline unless it was extra material, not used in creating the text of the article. If the Ancestry.com site provided enough information to find the hardcopy version too, you could list both the hardcopy and the online version. In that case, I suppose you would have the choice of putting it either in the External links section, or the Further reading section. --Gerry Ashton 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay now what about EL's which *only* have an internet version? That is, there is no print version of what the EL is stating, and the EL requires registration. In particular the issue has been raised that ClassMates.com is not a reliable source for the statement that "So-and-so was in the Class of 19xx at Y High School". (It's a site that requires registration before you can verify what it says.) Nor for adding an EL indicating that either. What do you think? Wjhonson 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It has no place in the external links section. Registration on it's own knocks it out, but also, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, it's low on the quality scale in terms of adding encyclopedic information and insight. I wouldn't expect it to pass points 3 or 4 of "what should be linked to". As for the discussion on use as a source - that belongs elsewhere and isn't relevant to whether it's an appropriate as an external link. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The registration issue seems to be a complete red herring. Registration has no bearing on content. Period. ClassMates is a problem not because it does or does not have registration, but because it is a source of hearsay. The New York Times is no problem even though it does require registration.
- For print sources that have versions that can be accessed on-line, a link to the online version should be provided if possible, but a regular print citation is also expected. I'm inclined to allow reference to registration-only sites if the source is considered reliable, maybe even if the general public cannot gain access. Free registration sites for acceptable sources are a no-brainer: they are intrinsically acceptable. Mangoe 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarification of rich media section
The rich media section as it is now is not well-written, as it talks about avoiding direct links to rich media then giving such a link (the PDF file) as an example of proper layout of links to rich media. The definition of a "direct link" is also not given - this has caused problems at user talk:requestion #The original source for those links (as I linked above), but this time my question is more related to the external links guideline so I'm bringing it up on the talk page. My definition of a "direct" link to rich media is based on the original version of the rich media section (which was subsequently [moved then clarified slightly. I define a direct link as one where the rich media is activated as soon as the browser window is opened by default (PDF files and many streaming media files being an example). Direct links to rich media cannot always be avoided (for example in PDF files, with links to YouTube videos and some audio files, an example being the first one in the article Der Erlkönig as there is no other way to conveniently get the audio). Therefore, the wording should be softened to "try to avoid" or something. That would be easy as long as there is consensus. A big problem for me is trying to figure out how to clarify what a "direct link" is because the wording has obviously caused confusion. Also the guideline to explicitly name the file format of the rich media seems to be rarely enforced. To be honest I think it is much more useful on direct links to rich media than indirect ones. Inadvertently clicking on a link and having the computer crash trying to load a large PDF file or load a poorly composed Java animation is much worse than going to some HTML page and finding that you haven't yet installed anything to play a .ogg file that you wanted to download. Graham87 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with Graham87's interpretation of the rich media section. WP:EL says to "avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software." I interpret this literally to mean no external links to flash, java, pdf, audio, or video. I also extend my interpretation to stub html pages whose sole purpose is to be a launch pad for the rich media. I believe the intent is two fold; one is for Misplaced Pages to link to pages that have content that is viewable in a web browser, second is for non-discrimination of codecs and operating system operability. For example; I am a Linux user and I cannot legally view Microsoft Media and QuickTime video. I don't have problems with a web page having rich media links on it but those links must be auxiliary to the useful content on the page. (Requestion 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
- There is at least some content on some of those stub html pages - for example with researchchannel.org there is a further information section with links to more information about the program/subject. Rich media often *is* useful content (for example many articles are only available in PDF format so Misplaced Pages needs to link to them (often in a "References" section these days). Audio that can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons but is available free of charge can make an excellent external link. This radio show is about the most relevant link possible to add to Heart and Soul (song) (note: I didn't add it, I just clarified its content). I believe we disagree because we are both taking different approaches: you are interpreting the guideline literally as the last word on everything where as I am interpreting the guideline as a nutshell in terms of adding useful, accessible and tasteful links. Here is the very first external links guideline I know of which is about as close as you're going to get to the original intentions of anyone. Here is the guideline as it was in May 2004 (the only change after that was to add a navigation template in October 2004 which is meaningless in the context of this discussion). There is nothing there about forbidding rich media - just that it's a good idea to state the format of the rich media. I will ask user:Jmabel for his opinion about this conversation as he wrote the section which you are quoting to justify your position. Graham87 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The only content I see on the researchchannel.org pages is a brief description of a video that I can't play. From my perspective the page has zero content and the links are broken. I'm all for rich media but I have a huge problem when Misplaced Pages links to content that I cannot legally view. Misplaced Pages has a policy not to link to known copyright violations. Isn't this in a similar vein? (Requestion 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
- It's not similar to the copyright issue. The copyright issue is about linking to sites that are breaking copyright and the legal and ethical issues involved in encouraging that. You may not be able to legally view the media with the equipment you run, but there are no laws broken by the media being there and us linking to it and the vast majority of our readers are able to legally view the media. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea is that when possible — when you are aware of an HTML page on a site that describes and is, in turn linked to — the rich media, you should link to that page. When a link goes directly to rich media, you should indicate the format (because, for example, someone with a slow connection and not too much memory on their system should not find themself sitting there with their system frozen for five minutes because they clicked on a link that happens to be a video or a PDF). Similarly, if there is a page describing an image, we should usually link that instead of externally linking an image.
Other than that: I don't particularly like PDFs, because they add overhead without really adding much information; they are often the only available format for a document, but when an HTML form is available, it should be preferred (or both should be offered). I'm all for linking truly rich media: for music and language-related matters, audio when available is irreplaceable (e.g. we should certainly link things things like KEXP's enormous and unique collection of live recordings, the Yiddish Radio Project, etc.). And, in general, many people will find audio and video more accessible than text. I'm all for linking a good English-language audio interview with the subject of a biography if one is available online, or an NPR or BBC story on the topic at hand: these are great resources for people who are less text-oriented than the people who tend to write Misplaced Pages. However, nearly always that should mean linking the HTML page that, in turn, links to the rich media. - Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I have tried to clarify the section per that message. I have replaced the first link to a page with links to rich media with one where the rich media is imbedded - i.e. a link from Ride of the Valkyries as that is a well-known piece where the audio link is fitting. I have also added reasons for not directly linking to rich media and a link to the category containing rich media icons. To Requestion: linking to files in formats that happen to be patented and therefore cannot be played on all systems is *not* a copyright violation - the whole point of the external links section is to link to files that can never be on a Wikimedia project. The problems playing these files through linux are an issue (they can be played but the legal status of that varies by country, see FFmpeg for details) but that means that there should be other external links in more conventional formats for finding out about the subject. That is why in the article Tito Mukhopadhyay, I also linked to a page with the transcript of the video - the transcript happens to be in PDF format but we can't have everything. I would welcome application of the bold, revert, discuss cycle if anyone feels so inclined - this is a wiki after all. Graham87 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fear your edits might be premature. Consensus really hasn't been reached yet and I believe there are some problems created by your edit. #1: The copyright status of the audio you link. It appears to be hosted by a private person on their personal website. There is inadequate information about the recording and as far as I can tell, it's a pretty flagrant abuse. #2: "Only link directly to content that requires special software or an add-on to a browser if ..." Only is the wrong word in this instance since WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. Nposs 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As for the first objection, copyright is an interesting point but the site says "©1997-2007, Charles K. Moss" so I'd assume he has permission from the relevant authorities about the recordings. There are recordings there that clearly come from his piano students, but if needed I could try to find another example. As for the second one, "only" is probably a bad choice of words - I'll think about changing that. I've also replaced the carolinaclassical link with a link to the Fantaisie-Impromptu because having thought about it, it seems ironic to have a link to a piece by Richard Wagner followed by an article about Yiddish. Graham87 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have a feeling that Angela Lear (the pianist featured in the recording) is not one of his students. So even if he does have recordings of his students, it would appear that he is also posting the recordings of others without their permission. I would recommend against any links to the site. I think this highlights another problem with rich-media links: copyright status. I realize there are a number of differing opinions about linking to material of dubious use, but rich media does pose a new set of problems for identifying ownership. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the guideline, as well. Nposs 05:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As for the first objection, copyright is an interesting point but the site says "©1997-2007, Charles K. Moss" so I'd assume he has permission from the relevant authorities about the recordings. There are recordings there that clearly come from his piano students, but if needed I could try to find another example. As for the second one, "only" is probably a bad choice of words - I'll think about changing that. I've also replaced the carolinaclassical link with a link to the Fantaisie-Impromptu because having thought about it, it seems ironic to have a link to a piece by Richard Wagner followed by an article about Yiddish. Graham87 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have answered your second objection with my latest edit. Graham87 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow how do you know who the pianist is? Perhaps my screen reader isn't reading the details or I should download the file to find out. I will send an email enquiring about this - if it is a copyright violation then it definitely should not be linked. I highly doubt it is though - this seems to be a well-respected piano teacher. Graham87 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the html source, the file has not been uploaded to his server and is being hosted by what looks like Angela Lear's personal website. I shall dig further ... Graham87 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you have consensus yet for watering down the guideline in this way. I certainly do not agree that we should be more liberal about linking to rich media content. As it is, you are seeking to allow this when the guideline previously said Avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser. This is a major step away from the concept of an open project as we will be encouraging non-free formats. I have reverted back to the previous version subject to further clarification of concensus here. Spartaz 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- And you can get that exact recording and more by following the downloads link from her website (sorry can't paste the URL because it uses frames), so it is not a copyright violation. The carolinaclassical.com link uses the recording for streaming. Graham87 05:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nope that is only a 1-minute sample. Graham87 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Graham87 - the sever path for this http://classicalmus.hispeed.com/lear/ doens't resolve to a proper website. Can you clarify exactly what link you are following? I suggest that you find a different example - I'm sure its possible to find one that has no doubts about its status. In this case it seems likely that the rights remain with the performer but unless we know the exact circumstances in which the recording was made we don't actually know that. --Spartaz 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK - on further investigation classicalmus.hispeed.com is the hosting service used by carolinaclassical.com to host its media and is not a website - in fact hispeed.com appears to be blocked by Google. I'll remove that as an example for now. Graham87 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
<deindent> all we need now is clarification on whether there is consensus to waterdown the wording on the guideline to encourage more use of links to rich media. For that we need further editors to weigh in. Spartaz 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I was probably a bit hasty in making my edits after the comment by Jmabel; I certainly won't change anything on the page now without consensus. Some of what I wrote changes the guideline about when the format of rich media should be specified and probably needs more discussion here. In some cases (as I have said above) it is impossible not to link directly to rich media (i.e. in the case of PDF's) so the wording should be softened there; the wording should also be softend from "avoid" because this is just a guideline. I think they were the only significant changes I made and more closely reflect current practice - I invite further discussion. Graham87 06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the guideline point out the reasons that weigh against linking to rich media and outline the alternatives clearly so that editors have knowledge from which to make a decision about whether to link - along the lines of links to rich media can add depth to an article but can cause also problems for readers. The need for additional software (some of which is not available to all users), greater bandwidth requirements, and accessibility issues can make such links useless for some users. When adding a link to content that is not a basic webpage editors should look for equivalent content in html format (for instance a transcript) to add instead or as well as the rich media. Editors must also ensure that any benefits from such a link are significant and outweigh the disadvantages of linking to media that may not be accessible to some readers. In particular, over reliance on rich media links should be avoided. Where possible links should always go to a launching page rather than directly to the media, and the media format should always be specified. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like that wording. It's clear and outlines the reasons against linking to rich media, but also acknowledges that there can be benifits of linking to rich media. It doesn't need examples because the wording is self-evident so that guards against linking to copyright violations and link rot. Would there be any objections to using that paragraph in the rich media section? Graham87 01:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually examples would still be helpful but there would be no need to change the examples currently on the page. Graham87 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I object to removing emphasis on the word "avoid" and I also object to ignoring the "special software" accessibility problem that us Linux users suffer from. (Requestion 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
- It's not just Linux users that can have a problem with rich media, and this is why I think the section should be very general - at the moment I read it as implying that all rich media can have accessibility problems to somebody, and that is true. Audio links without transcripts are useless to people who are deaf; images without descriptions are useless to people who are blind. Here's another example to throw in the ring which I just remembered: the official homepage of Tony Attwood that just happens to require Java, and is difficult (sometimes impossible) to use with screen readers. It would be ludicrous for me to remove that link because it's an official website - I have now pointed out that it requires Java. A lot of people use Linux and will have problems with links to proprietary codecs; I'm sure that a similar number of people will be using slow or unstable PC's (probably running Windows) that won't be able to run certain types of rich media. Because of the large variety of circumstances that people are likely to be in in terms of system performance and ability to use non-HTML sites, I think the section should be quite general in case it overflows with people's pet accessibility problems. There must be websites out there that explain the problems with rich media and if I can find a well-written one I'll suggest that it be added as further information. Graham87 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those were all excellent reasons why the "avoid" wording should be strengthened. Why would Misplaced Pages want to encourage such potentially problematic external linking? (Requestion 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
<deindent> if we have agreed that we don't need to water this down, why not just leave it as it is. Avoid is nice and clear and we need to avoid instruction creep. Spartaz 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
YouTube vs. blogs
Can someone clarify for me why blogs are generally banned, but YouTube videos are not? Both sources seem open to the same problems with reliability. Λυδαcιτγ 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- we are trying to get rid of YouTube. Betacommand 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Blogs are generally not a valid EL, YouTube is not generally a valid EL. Each has to be considered on their own merits. IN general though, they fail all sorts of WP standards for inclusion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'd be in favor of more moderate standards in both directions: allowing YouTube videos and blogs, but only good ones (in the case of blogs, not necessarily blogs written by experts, but ones written by credible sources). Λυδαcιτγ 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's pretty much the standard right now. The issues tend to be different, with YT the concern is more often copyright, but as long as the material isn't a violation and meets the rest of EL, it's OK. --Minderbinder 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think of the use of this blog page in Backmasking? Λυδαcιτγ 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's pretty much the standard right now. The issues tend to be different, with YT the concern is more often copyright, but as long as the material isn't a violation and meets the rest of EL, it's OK. --Minderbinder 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'd be in favor of more moderate standards in both directions: allowing YouTube videos and blogs, but only good ones (in the case of blogs, not necessarily blogs written by experts, but ones written by credible sources). Λυδαcιτγ 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- As far as policy Blogs and YouTube are on equal footing... Both sometimes host official and reliable material and sometimes they host utter crap. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:EL is a guideline and not a policy. WP:EL says to avoid "links to blogs" and "direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java)." I should note that YouTube requires Flash. So I agree that Blogs and YouTube are on "equal footing" in that they both should be avoided. There is a thread over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr#Special:Linksearch.2F.2A.blogspot.com about how well blogspot.com links have been avoided. (Requestion 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
- Misplaced Pages now has 23670 blogspot.com links. That is an increase of about 1000 links in the last 3 weeks. (Requestion 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
blow molding design
There is a pretty good (short) article on plastic extrusion blow molding. It does not discuss double wall constructions or allow readers to learn about designing parts for the blow molding process. The company I work for has a design guide for the process. The link is http://www.custom-pak.com/BlowMolding/Index.html I would like feedback about the information in the link to enhance its usefulness to engineers and students interested in blow molded part design. Ultimately we woukd like to contribute the information to Misplaced Pages in an appropriate format. Thank you Mark rutenbeck 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Mark Rutenbeck
- First of all, let me say how much we appreciate you coming here first and seeking input on possibly linking your website. That is exactly the right way to do it.
- Unfortunately, I do see some problems with the website linked above. It seems fairly promotional in nature. I am certainly no expert on plastic extrusion blow molding, so I don't know how readily available this type of information is, but has your company published this information anywhere else in a manner not so advertising-oriented? Has anyone from your company given a trade show presentation that might now be available online? Maybe written an article for an industry trade publication?
- While it is great that you want to contribute specialized knowledge to the encyclopedia, it really needs to be in a neutrally presented format and backed-up by citations to reliable, third-party published sources. Hope this helps. -- Satori Son 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Examine existing articles such as Plastics extrusion and Blow molding. Several steps in the process are presently not described in much detail. Text could be donated to the Misplaced Pages articles if following policies such as WP:NPOV. Also examine the policies for donating images (the "Upload file" link on the side of the page has links to info). (SEWilco 05:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
- Incidentally, the custom-pak page is hard to use as a reference. The index page only gives a little information, with mouseover abilities to show several images. It is not obvious that other little pieces of information are available through several levels of pulldown menus. The user interface seems oriented toward big pictures rather than reading the text, thus making it hard to see what is being said and hard to link to it as having significant information. All the paragraphs together seem to be informative, but only a few sentences at a time can be read or linked to. (SEWilco 05:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
The Chester Wiki: Appropriate or not?
I'd like some advice. Some users, usually anonymous ones with few other edits, have been adding various pages from (Chester Wiki) to various articles (such as History of Chester, and Chester). The guidelines for external links reads that "open wikis" are to be avoided, but I can't determine whether this is an open wiki or not. I'm also not sure how long this Chester wiki has been in existence or how stable or verifiable its entries are - the entries I have seen do not contain any citations or references for its claims, of which History of Chester is a typical exmaple. So, my questions are these: My inclination is to delete the external links. Would others share this viewpoint, and, if so, can a definitive list of justified reasons for this be given? DDStretch (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- By open we mean "anyone can edit" and anyone can edit the Chesterwiki. I'd agree that they aren't appropriate links. If all the local Chester-based regular editors on the article start saying "hay everyone in chester uses that wiki" you might wnt to put it back, but looking at, for instance, the pub guide, I'm pretty sure Chester has a few more pubs than that, and it hasn't been edited this month, so it's obviously not a comprehensive well up to date guide. As for definitive - well pretty much nothing's definitive on Misplaced Pages - but it falls to the person adding the link to justify that it improves the article. I think it would be hard to say it's the sort of information people would expect to find in an encyclopedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the response. DDStretch (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- With only 15 editors and about 200 articles, it doesn't seem to have the critical mass to be a reliable link for wikipedia. --Minderbinder 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the response. DDStretch (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Providing the appropriate link while following the grey areas of the guidelines is often times a difficult decision for me so I'll give you an example of how I look at the wiki situation.
- If the article is about a space shuttle and the linked wiki is administered by NASA, it's a useful resource and may contain more info than the article can handle so it could be included as a link. If the wiki is about a space shuttle and is administered by vendors or manufacturers of NASA and contains info on the components of the space shuttle, it’s a judgment call based off the content of the wiki. If the wiki is open to the internet and is edited/administered by individuals collecting information, I do not link to the wiki but use it to find additional sources of information or links to include in the article if any. More often than not, the open wiki is a mirror of wikipedia articles. --I already forgot 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Chester Wiki has only been going since 8 February 2007, so it's hardly likely to have reached critical mass yet. Of the 15 registered users only around 4 have contributed stuff to date. It is an open wiki - anyone can participate if they choose. Re existing content on there - of course there are more pubs in Chester and more of everything that hasn't yet been covered. Contributors are adding content in their spare time outside of holding down full-time jobs. One of us is a scientist/local historian/lawyer, one is a journalist, the others I'm not sure. It's starting to attract a lot of local readers, even though content remains thin at present. We hope it will grow organically and more people will start adding content. But give us a chance - 10 weeks is hardly a long time in the life of a wiki. Purpleprose 18:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion the wiki itself would meet the criteria of WP:EL for the article on Chester (specifically it's level of detail unsuited to a general purpose encyclopedia). However, using it as a reference to verify factual information is unwise. If the ChesterWiki cites its sources, use those. --Dystopos 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being quite stupid here, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying: Is it that you think adding the link could be viewed as appropriate according to WP:EL, or that it could not be? Reading WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point 12 (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.) would seem to suggest that the link should not be added, but perhaps others aspects outweigh this, if you meant that the link's inclusion could be viewed as appropriate? Sorry. DDStretch (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for being unclear. I think a Wiki dedicated to a specific subject makes a very good external link for the main Misplaced Pages article on that subject. I suppose, then, that I disagree with point 12 of WP:EL, though I consider myself to be on board with the general concerns voiced in that guideline. My comment was intended to distinguish using the Chester Wiki as an external link from using it as a reference. --Dystopos 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being quite stupid here, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying: Is it that you think adding the link could be viewed as appropriate according to WP:EL, or that it could not be? Reading WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point 12 (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.) would seem to suggest that the link should not be added, but perhaps others aspects outweigh this, if you meant that the link's inclusion could be viewed as appropriate? Sorry. DDStretch (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I could also point out that the article on Chester Wiki about Chester Castle is far more in depth than the one on Misplaced Pages, which contains inaccuracies (the one on Chester Wiki has a lot of links to verified sources even if they are not cited as references. And also say that by removing the link to Chester Wiki, you are actually preventing more people from a) finding it, b) reading it and c) ultimately adding quality content to it... If you're so fixated on links, why not remove the one to Chester: A Virtual Stroll while you're at it? CAVS, incidentally, is not only one of the best sites for Chester history, it's about to be taken down forever due to lack of funding. Purpleprose 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- And therein lies the issue, I'm afraid, as I see it. The reason we don't like to cite or EL from open wikis is that anybody could write anything - even a false history of the place, so it wouldn't be correct to use that. If the writers on the Wiki cite their sources, then we could cite those same sources in the WP article, right? Either way we wouldn't need a link to the Wiki. The argument that having the link to WP prevents people from finding doesn't hold water, either - WP is not a place to publicise other sites. The fact that it is a fledgling Wiki and has great promise is a good sign for a future EL - if that Wiki becomes a reliable complete source of information. But for right now, given what I have seen, it should not be used. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Since this is a small wiki than can be quickly scanned, I did so, and I find that the content looks useful but there are few or no sources. I suggest making this proposal again if, at a future time, reliable sources are provided for most of the information. For now, we should not link to it, except possibly on a one-time basis from a single article like Chester. I agree with User:Dystopos it should never be cited as a reference for factual information. EdJohnston 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok - Thanks for all the comments. I've also got a new view from a fellow Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Cheshire members. In the light of this, I've included the link in the Chester article on a "one-time basis". This can be reviewed at regular times in the future if required. I've also invited the identified deficiencies in the Chester Castle article on here to be updated, in wikipedia style with proper referencing, by the people who feel it is deficient. DDStretch (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology on the Chester discussion page. It's appreciated. Hooligan says that he's more interested right now in updating the Chester Wiki rather than the Misplaced Pages entry for Chester Castle, but if anyone from the Cheshire project wants to use the Chester Wiki article on the castle and cite all the references, he says they are very welcome to do so. Purpleprose 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Exception for photographer credit
If a professional photographer releases a picture under an appropriate license and someone uploads it, I think it's reasonable for the image description page (i.e. not articles where the image appears, but the image itself) to provide a link to the photographer's website. Does this sound fair? I'm pretty sure we do it all the time already, as it's usually required for copyright reasons. Kla'quot 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely — this guideline applies only to articles. By the same token, it's fine to link to your personal webpage on your userpage. Λυδαcιτγ 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Linking to sites that list illegal files
Please see discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright#Linking to sites that list illegal files. --GunnarRene 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion wanted on external links
Editor Biographyfan has added quite a few links to various pages, to a website called ourstory. I removed these because of the seemingly spammy nature of the mass linking, but he is insisting that they are useful information not contained in the article and has added one back to Melinda Gates. I'd appreciate outside opinion on links to this site. Thanks. --Minderbinder 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The sites are biographies generated on a graphical timeline, provided by service called OurStory.com. The timeline's are collectively maintained, but monitored by the user who started them. I didn't post that many links, and I only posted links to biographies that either I started, or am participating in creating. They are not complete works, but ongoing projects. I added my link back to Melinda Gates, because there is not much info in that entry. But, some of my other biography timeline projects are more filled out, and I hope to contribute them to the associated entries. My whole response to Minderbinder is below (he left out some of the parts of my intent and reasoning, so I am including it). I will be offline from here on out for the weekend, so if you need more info, I will respond on Monday.
My previous Reply to Minderbinder:
I am new to posting on wikipedia, and you recently deleted all of my links that I have added. I have read the links you posted in my talk section, and appreciate your concern and commitment to keeping the external links on wikipedia relevant and non-commercial. I support you in that effort.
However, you mistakely assumed I am associated commericially with OurStory, which I am not. Additionally, none of the links I posted attempt to earn me any money. The timelines I manage are freely open to the public to browse and reference.
I am a biographer by hobby, and am using the OurStory service beacuse I like the timeline they provide. It is a service that I couldn't find else where on the web, and as a history buff and biographer, I think it is valuable. I run a number of profiles on their service, which are told collaboratively with other people on the site, and I particpate in other people's biographical projects.
I do respect the fact that external links should provide information that positively adds to the discussion, or provides valuable information that is not already in the entry. And I understand that in some cases the information on my timeline projects does this and sometimes it does not. So, in respecting this, I will only add my links back to entries where I think my timeline provides valuable (or missing) information on that subject, for the wikipedia user. You can see my comments on those individual discussion pages.
But, as a final thought, I hope that you can appreciate that, in and of itself, a biographical (graphical) timeline is a useful external reference tool. It is something I have been looking for for a long time. For example, when I created my biography on Barack Obama, in my research I could not find a biographical web source that provided dates for important events that make up his life (including the wikipedia entry, offical Illinois sentate, or US Sentate biographies, or even his current campaign page). There was nowhere I could go to get a sense of the major events in his life, without reading 3 pages of text. So, in a case like that, I think the timeline is an external reference that is contributing to the entry.
If you think it is best, I can alter the way I leave links, so that it does not say Our Story in it. I just followed the example that is widely used on wikipedia for external links to IMDB.
If you would like to further the general discussion, please post on my Talk page again. And, please engage me on the discussion page for the individual entries where I am adding the links back. If you plan on re-deleting them, please review the timeline first, and provide a reason why you feel it is not worthy of being listed.
Biographyfan 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- These timelines are verifiable, and I have seen people using Misplaced Pages as a source for the timelines. I do not see why not to allow linking, at the discretion of involved editors, if the timelines of these people are accurate and do not include material that may be objectionable as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The site is effectively an open wiki (i.e. anyone can edit) so we ought to be more careful than we might with a time line published by, say, the History department at Cambridge University or some other site with a well known reputation for rigor. But that isn't to say the site should never be linked. However, it also seems to be the case that Biographyfan is involved with creating the content on the time line articles s/he is linking to and as such s/he should suggest the links on the talk page rather than placing the links directly on the article page. Since Biography fan doesn't appear to have made any edits to Misplaced Pages that are not connected to promoting these external links this appears to fit more clearly under the SPAM issue than external links. I support Minderbinder's reversion of the edits. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there are COI issues the simple thing is to post a link to the site on the article talk pages for the article regulars to decide. If you go on a spree of adding links to a site you are associated with then it does look like spamming and you are very likely to be reverted. --Spartaz 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like self-promotion to me, they shouldn't be there... we can't link to every wiki that shows up and wants free publicity, and the fact that it's a wiki means it's going to be less valuable/reliable than other sources. They should all be removed as clear spam. DreamGuy 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the entry for Melinda Gates. It seemed to me that the OurStory link added little or nothing to the article, because the OurStory interface was so confusing. In any case it is a conflict of interest to add links to a site you are associated with to an article. I suggest that Template:OurStory should be nominated for deletion. If the user keeps re-adding this link, without any Talk page consensus, I suggest that OurStory might be added to the m:Spam blacklist. EdJohnston 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like self-promotion to me, they shouldn't be there... we can't link to every wiki that shows up and wants free publicity, and the fact that it's a wiki means it's going to be less valuable/reliable than other sources. They should all be removed as clear spam. DreamGuy 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to consider this, and provide feedback. I saw the note on my talk page, and I will make sure that I post my links to the talk page for an entry, and not just add them. Like I readily admitted, in some cases the content on some of the timelines are comprehensive and useful, and sometimes they are not yet filled out. I will no longer "SPAM" links on the articles, but, if I feel like a graphical timeline would enhance the entry I will, as you suggested, add it for discussion on the article's talk page. I do want to make it clear I am not the author of the timelines. Some of them I monitor, and some of them I am the author of only a few entires on the timeline. Nevertheless, I understand that this could be considered a COI. Also, not all entries on OurStory are user generated wiki style biographies. The ones I happen to be involved with are. But, there are other people on the site writing as primary sources on various historical topics, or personal experiences. My actions shouldn't prevent their contributions from being considered a viable reference for an article. Thanks. Biographyfan 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific process to get independent review for links?
I am wondering if there is any formal process for calling in outside link reviewers (i.e., neutral parties) to get independent examination of links to determine if those links comply with the policies guidelines for WP:EL? I see this as a specialized type of peer review. We have a League of Copyeditors, but is there a League of Link Reviewers, or do we just post individual requests to look at pages here? In some articles there is bickering about whether a link should stay in or go. Calling in a neutral specialist just to look at compliance with policy guideline issues is what I am asking about. Buddhipriya 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:EL is not policy. Please be sure you understand that a guideline is something different. (In particular, as I see it, only policy could overrule a consensus of the article's regular editors). Notinasnaid 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification of terms. Do you know if there a process for getting reviews against the guidelines, or do we just post requests here? Buddhipriya 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since external links are usually more of a content issue, as opposed to an enforcement of official policy, it can be a little tricky to get truly neutral feedback.
- One of the goals of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject External links was to provide a neutral forum to review external links, but it never really got going for some reason. The members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam, including myself, do some of this, but their primary efforts are geared toward stopping major, commercial link spammers.
- Many times, a posting here will get some good feedback, and, if the article falls under the umbrella of an active, subject-specific WikiProject, such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hinduism, you may want to try their talk page as well. As a last resort, major disputes over links are usually taken to WP:RFC#Request comment on articles. Hope this helps. -- Satori Son 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The closest thing to a process is to post the question right here, or at WT:WPSPAM. If you want to add a link to a page that is watched by some project, you could ask your question in that project's Talk page. What I have often heard in the past is that the consensus of the editors working on a particular article's Talk page should be respected. Your query about a 'neutral specialist' sounds like a concept that doesn't exist on Misplaced Pages. I've seen some disputes where a link clearly violated WP:EL but the editor persisted in adding it. Unfortunately that will turn into a user conduct RFC before you can get to a widely-supported verdict. There is always the m:Spam blacklist for difficult cases, and don't forget third opinion which is a very low-weight process. EdJohnston 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification of terms. Do you know if there a process for getting reviews against the guidelines, or do we just post requests here? Buddhipriya 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT and WP:NPOV are policies. Things also change. In the recent past wasn't WP:EL policy? (Requestion 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC))
- "only policy could overrule a consensus of the article's regular editors" This is nonsense, and a recipe for votestacking disaster. Most of the "only guidelines" are far more important, more tested, and more consensus than whatever any group on an individual article page would like to think. DreamGuy 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
See also Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. ∴ here…♠ 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposed Guideline for other wiki links
See Misplaced Pages:Linking to other wikis for this proposal, which is currently in a development phase. LukeSurl 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Considering just how at odds with the current External links rules on wikis, instead of discussing it over there you should probably see if you can get the wording changed over here first... and I don't see that happening anytime soon. DreamGuy 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Open Directory Project
I removed this for discussion:
Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See {{Dmoz}}.) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page.
I'm curious to know when this was added and who agreed to it, because it seems that we're throwing ourselves on the mercy of that project's editorial judgment and policies rather than our own. I saw it misused today where it seems it's being added because it contains a link to a highly POV blog-style entry about a contentious issue. Is there widespread consensus that this project should be linked to? SlimVirgin 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- That should not be in the guideline. DMOZ does not have a policy by which they chose to add websites to their directory. It is done by volunteers (I have been one a few years ago) and that guidelines for inclusion are very loose. Allowing links to DMOZ contradicts the "Links to avoid section" in this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- DMOZ is also not always the best link to use - there's a discussion in the beer articles and project about the use of links to BeerAdvocate.com, which provides better and more thorough coverage of breweries and beers than DMOZ does, or probably ever will. Αργυριου (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that a DMOZ should not be used blindly. Note that the text says "should consider" - not "they should" - that means that editors should look at the corresponding category and see if it helps enhance the WP page by providing an alternative to the EL list. WP is not a list of links, and this provides ONE alternative, but not the only one. I have no problem with the wording as stated. (Full discloure: I am a DMOZ editor) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't inappropriately remove things from the guideline without gaining a consensus first. There has been a ton of discussion on this. Using a Dmoz link on articles with potentially dozens or even hundreds of valuable external links is a longstanding good solution to the problem. The fact that some sites linked from Dmoz wouldn't qualify as Misplaced Pages external links is totally silly. No Dmoz category is likely to ever have every site be one that would merit an external link from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and we need a practical solution for when there are dozens of valuable links possible, besides whining and reverting and pissing matches. 2005 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- This was removed as it contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't contradict the guideline. In fact it is a part of the guideline that has a longstanding consensus from multiple previous discussions. Do not completely arbitrily change the guideline without gaining a consensus first. We went through this before. You know the process. Please don't be rude. 2005 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- This was removed as it contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, but ODP is. So it seems reasonable to let ODP handle the list of links and Misplaced Pages the article content. It indeed seems popular. Your say "I saw it misused today" and that makes it sound like you assume bad faith. // Liftarn
- It may be popular, but the point of our guideline pages is not to advertise popular websites. >Radiant< 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Popular to use in Misplaced Pages. That should prove that it indeed has value. // Liftarn
So its safe to remove these when found? - Denny 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that a discussion on the Talk page would be appropriate before removing them. The policy here says they are acceptable, so just removing them without any comment would not be appropriate in my opinion. One Edit summary made a comment that Google Search results and a DMOZ category are the same. I would like to hear more about your opinions on this, since in my opinion they are completely different. I don't believe that it is germane to talk about how much it has been done - that doesn't make it right or wrong. The EL policy says it can be done. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that dmoz (love the site, for what its worth) is a collection of links back to other external sources. From that respect simple linking to individual dmoz pages while a potential convenience to readers is a complete end-run around all our rules for judging who and what we link to. Adding a dmoz link to a subject that the article covers in and of itself I would say is completely unneeded. Nice, but unneeded. - Denny 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah Denny, I see you already went ahead and removed 16 of them... :-( -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about it for a long while, and actually did remove those specifically since they weren't adding anything to the article. :( - Denny 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with some of them, and have reverted others - some of them had 30, 50 or 111 entries, which in my opinion do add to the article. I left the ones with none or only a few as deleted. Sorry to be skeptical, but according to your logs you asked the question here and then 6 minutes later started removing links. It would have been nice to give people time to answer first :-) I am not saying they should be kept, necessarily, but I am suggesting that there should at least be a discussion first. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that if after reading the Archived version of this discussion (which has been had twice since I became a WP editor) and presumably before then too, we talk about changing the policy, and not doing mass-deletions of DMOZ categories. Previous discussions are: Yahoo Directory and DMOZ, Link to DMOZ, DMOZ Again (that one was about me), Use_of_deep_links_into_DMOZ_categories - you will see that the issue has some passionate advocates on both sides of the argument. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The guideline is very clear: avoid linking to search engine result pages. If you want to link, then you need to explain the reasons why you want to link and the benefits to the article. The EL section is not a dumping ground for a collection of on-line sources that, per policy, should not be included in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- So... should we have a general DMOZ link to an article's given topic, or is it safe to remove it? As we can't ever guarantee any editorial oversight I would think 'no', and would be happy to do drudge work of removing frivilous DMOZ links if that's the right thing. - Denny 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- DMOZ pages are not "search results pages". Please act in good faith. If you want to change the guideline, then get a consensus. Clearly the overwhelming consensus is contrary to what you want as many editors have voiced support for sometimes using Dmoz categories, and many more have added them to articles. 2005 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the Misplaced Pages:External links section titled "Links to be considered":
- "A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories."
Search engine results are not the same as a web directory page. Such as a category page at the Open Directory Project (dmoz). There are many web pages that list relevant links by topic. Each link list, directory, category, and subcategory page should be considered on its merits in my opinion. If the editor of the directory or topic list is putting in relevant links, and is not including problematic links for the most part, then it could be a useful external link for wikipedia.
I suggest we add some kind of clarification such as: "If the category page has more than a few problematic links that violate wikipedia guidelines, then wikipedia should not link to the category." --Timeshifter 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see no difference between DMOZ and Yahoo! Directory or Google Directory]. We should not link any of these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think that DMOZ should be used, as there is no editorial control over it. Buddhipriya 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Alucard and 2005 are right. There have been numerous discussions and consensus building regarding Misplaced Pages's use of DMOZ as an "unofficial" link repository. In addition to the four discussions listed by Alucard, also see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 15#Template:Dmoz and Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 19#Template:NoMoreLinks, both of which resulted in a clear "Keep" results and solid support for our use of DMOZ.
Thus, I would strongly oppose any blanket removal of the DMOZ templates in articles, and I fully support its mention in this guideline. It has an established, albeit weak, consensus for use, it is not a search engine result, and it has just as much editorial oversight as we have here. -- Satori Son 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- there are new arguments, Satori Son, and this discussion proves that the consensus is disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need to go through this yet again. Just because you don't now agree agree means nothing to the consensus achieved. If you want to get something changed, GET A CONSENSUS. If you don't get a consensus, please do not edit this guideline for substance. Edits for typos and clarifications are fine. 2005 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with your principle. Unless there is a clear and wide consensus for adding the DMOZ part, we should not do so. If there is such clear and wide consensus somewhere on this Talk page, please point me to it. Thanks, Crum375 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Scroll up. Additionally the text has been there for about six months. 2005 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did, before posting. I see major disagreements about DMOZ and no consensus for adding it. Crum375 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was added late October, if it has been in that long that's the consensus you're looking for. If you want to remove something that has been stable for so long, you should have consensus for the change, and until there's clear consensus it should stay in, not be revert warred over. Not to mention that it's a bit dishonest to call reverting back in something that has been there for months changing the policy. --Minderbinder 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's WP:AGF about 'dishonesty'. I missed the fact that this change was added in October 2006, but I still feel there is no consensus for it. Was there consensus for the change when it was added? If so, where can I find it? Crum375 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the above. There was an entire "workshop" rewrite of the guideline discussed for literally months. There is no pithy little two sentences to refer to. There was four months or so of give and take where the guideline was made more coherent and focused. And just for the record, as you could see from the threads, I don't like the template part of that paragraph, but accepting it is what happens in achieving a consensus, people accept some non-perfect stuff. They don't just ignore the wishes of the significant majority and remove stuff just because they personally don't like it. 2005 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's WP:AGF about 'dishonesty'. I missed the fact that this change was added in October 2006, but I still feel there is no consensus for it. Was there consensus for the change when it was added? If so, where can I find it? Crum375 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Scroll up. Additionally the text has been there for about six months. 2005 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with your principle. Unless there is a clear and wide consensus for adding the DMOZ part, we should not do so. If there is such clear and wide consensus somewhere on this Talk page, please point me to it. Thanks, Crum375 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need to go through this yet again. Just because you don't now agree agree means nothing to the consensus achieved. If you want to get something changed, GET A CONSENSUS. If you don't get a consensus, please do not edit this guideline for substance. Edits for typos and clarifications are fine. 2005 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Since the DMOZ text has been there for quite a while, and multiple discussions about removing it have not reached a concensus, I really think that a proposal to remove should be the subject for an WP:Rfc, and see if there is a concensus to remove. But please do not just remove it without reaching that concensus. If there are new arguments then they can be stated at the intro to the RfC, and then all interested parties can read them and consider whether that warrants a change or not. Essentially calling something "revert" that has been there so long is not the way things should be around here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:Consensus: "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process. It's unreasonable to look at an edit months ago and insist that other editors produce evidence of other people stating their agreement. If there wasn't agreement, it wouldn't have made it into the policy and stayed there for months. We can certainly discuss and see if there's consensus to remove it - if there are objections, I'd also suggest proposing improvements to the text that would fix those objections instead of just removing it. --Minderbinder 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the discussion to allow DMOZ as EL. I guess I am very confused. Am I the only person here who thinks that allowing DMOZ essentially points our readers into the equivalent of a Google search? Even if volunteers somewhere maintain it, we as Wikipedians have no control over the link collection. So please enlighten me - since to me this seems to be in direct contradiction to the rest of WP:EL. Crum375 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crum, that very point was brought up in the discussions that I and others referenced earlier. There have been arguments made on both sides during those discussions. I don't feel that a link to a DMOZ category (or a category of any other suitable directory that we can all agree on) is anything like the results of a search engine. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be a link into a linkfarm, over which we as Wikipedians have no direct control. I feel that unless there is wide consensus for this kind of change, it should be removed. If there is such consensus, I am still waiting for a pointer to the relevant thread. Crum375 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you have noted, the change was made months ago. It was not reverted. The "Silence equals consent" part of WP:Consensus means that after this much time, there doesn't have to be a referencable thread. There needs to be wide consensus to remove it, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that as of now, this guideline is self contradictory. I am not at all sure that people are aware of that. I will wait for more comments here by others before acting. Crum375 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction. Just saying there is one, and making the rather wild claim that a hand chosen directory list is the same as results from the search engine really does not give anything for people to respond to. Dmoz categories are sometimes a great link for broad topics that could have hundreds of valuable external links. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and it is soemthing that wants to make valuable articles for users. A directory link can serve a good purpose, and that idea (one directory link) has been in the guideline for years. It has only been refined now to eliminate somejunkdirectory.com from consideration, and offered a bit on info when a directory category is a good idea. 2005 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that as of now, this guideline is self contradictory. I am not at all sure that people are aware of that. I will wait for more comments here by others before acting. Crum375 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you have noted, the change was made months ago. It was not reverted. The "Silence equals consent" part of WP:Consensus means that after this much time, there doesn't have to be a referencable thread. There needs to be wide consensus to remove it, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be a link into a linkfarm, over which we as Wikipedians have no direct control. I feel that unless there is wide consensus for this kind of change, it should be removed. If there is such consensus, I am still waiting for a pointer to the relevant thread. Crum375 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crum, that very point was brought up in the discussions that I and others referenced earlier. There have been arguments made on both sides during those discussions. I don't feel that a link to a DMOZ category (or a category of any other suitable directory that we can all agree on) is anything like the results of a search engine. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the discussion to allow DMOZ as EL. I guess I am very confused. Am I the only person here who thinks that allowing DMOZ essentially points our readers into the equivalent of a Google search? Even if volunteers somewhere maintain it, we as Wikipedians have no control over the link collection. So please enlighten me - since to me this seems to be in direct contradiction to the rest of WP:EL. Crum375 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crum375, I took part in some of the DMOZ discussions last year and we included some of the editors from DMOZ. The one distinction you need to remember between a DMOZ directory and a Google search result is that Google makes no judgement about the content reliability or accuracy. It simply applies a computer algorith based on links and content and then ranks websites based upon a specific search term. The famous "Miserable Failure" search term clearly demonstrates how its results can be manipulated. With DMOZ, there is a set of human eyes that evaluates each site for relevance, content and quality before its added. Although this is a human process that has all of its shortcomings, it is still a valuable one.
- I do not believe DMOZ should be used indescriminately, but it has clear value when used to fight spam. I've used it a dozen or more times, and each time, when used with an appropriate message, link spam was dramatically reduced on an article that prior to its inclusion was a haven for frequent spamming. As such, I've always viewed DMOZ as an asset to WP. Calltech 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Combating spam should not be a criteria for using DMOZ, as we could apply the same for Yahoo Directory, or other directories that are "human driven". The concern is that, as there the editorial process for these directories is opaque, we are relying on unknown criteria and in violation of WP:V and contradicting the wording of the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that there IS an editorial process by an individual(s) that has some knowledge associated with a DMOZ category puts DMOZ ahead of Yahoo! or other directories that are more concerned about format and style than knowledge of the content. Yahoo! doesn't have experts in every category where it places websites. Pragmatically, using DMOZ to combat spam in selective instances works - why remove such a valuable tool? Calltech 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Combating spam should not be a criteria for using DMOZ, as we could apply the same for Yahoo Directory, or other directories that are "human driven". The concern is that, as there the editorial process for these directories is opaque, we are relying on unknown criteria and in violation of WP:V and contradicting the wording of the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was a DMOZ editor for several years, and I can assure you that the editorial control is haphazard , at best. There absolutely no proof that directory entries at DMOZ are any different that other directories such as Yahoo directory. This idea of linking to DMOZ is simply not sound, in addition of being contradictory to the language on the guideline (Links to avoid section) despite arguments about consensus, that obviously is being challenged in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't contradict the guideline. If you think so, say why. The consensus on this matter is clear. There is no "challenge" to consensus because some people disagree with it. That's just leads to the childishness exhibited trying to force a change when they see there is no consensus for change. Misplaced Pages has some goofy policies in my opinion, like letting unlogged in users to edit articles, but that IS the way it works here. You want to change something, get a consensus. Personally I'd prefer voting, but that isn't the way it works. Neither is rudely making changes not supported by a clear majority of editors time and again. It's plain there is no consensus to remove the passage now, so accept that... and try to PERSUADE people to change their mind. Don't try and steamroll your opinion over others acting in good faith. 2005 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is clearly no consensus to be using this policy to advocate for driving traffic to DMOZ. Please persuade people to change their mind instead of adding a contested endorsement of another project to a Misplaced Pages guideline. Jkelly 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The burden is not on me. The burden is on you to get a consensus for a change in the guideline, and clearly there is none, so either make a case or move on. If you don't get a new consensus, the existing one stands. You are saying that there would be no consensus to have any external link guideline at all because you don't agree to it. Consensus doesn't work that way. 2005 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is clearly no consensus to be using this policy to advocate for driving traffic to DMOZ. Please persuade people to change their mind instead of adding a contested endorsement of another project to a Misplaced Pages guideline. Jkelly 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't contradict the guideline. If you think so, say why. The consensus on this matter is clear. There is no "challenge" to consensus because some people disagree with it. That's just leads to the childishness exhibited trying to force a change when they see there is no consensus for change. Misplaced Pages has some goofy policies in my opinion, like letting unlogged in users to edit articles, but that IS the way it works here. You want to change something, get a consensus. Personally I'd prefer voting, but that isn't the way it works. Neither is rudely making changes not supported by a clear majority of editors time and again. It's plain there is no consensus to remove the passage now, so accept that... and try to PERSUADE people to change their mind. Don't try and steamroll your opinion over others acting in good faith. 2005 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Denny nails it. This is an end-run around the NOT clause. Those who are stating consensus is required for changes need to get consensus to change WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links before there is any validity to any argument to keeping DMOZ. It conflicts. It conflicts with WP:EL, WP:SPAM as well. So, go get consensus to change those three, and there will be a point to this. Otherwise, no. KillerChihuahua 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have just reverted the edit made by KillerChihuahua that removed the entire section, and invited him/her to join in the discussion at the foot of this page before making changes to WP:EL. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should not be using the rollback button, popups, or valdal fighting tools for these reverts. Revert if that is what you want to do, but add a proper edit summary. Using popups, rollback, or vandal fighting tools should be limited to reverting vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies. I assumed that the note that I left on the edit, the message that I posted to the user's talk page and the note I placed here was enough explanation of the actions I took and why. I assumed that as this was reverting an edit, that the simple revert button was the best way to show that it was just that. If I made a mistake I apologize. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should not be using the rollback button, popups, or valdal fighting tools for these reverts. Revert if that is what you want to do, but add a proper edit summary. Using popups, rollback, or vandal fighting tools should be limited to reverting vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have just reverted the edit made by KillerChihuahua that removed the entire section, and invited him/her to join in the discussion at the foot of this page before making changes to WP:EL. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Your assumption was incorrect. KillerChihuahua 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In order to try to make sure whether what I was doing was sound or not, I did some digging around and want to share the results with you: The first time the EL page was changed to say that linking to the ODP was ok was added to the article was in this edit dated 26 October 2006 and the note on the edit was Paste in from the workshop - which implies that it was a part of a larger discussion. The workshop referred to can be found at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/workshop#Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory. So this change has been in place for 6 months - a lifetime in the world of WP. I am not in favour of simply removing a section that has been there so long and was the subject of a workshop without some discussion (which I have tried to start further down this page). Given the latest coments, it appears that I am out of line with my comments here. I will withdraw from the discussion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) The edit which led to the Seigenthaler controversy was in place for four months before anyone noticed. That this contradiction in policy was not noticed promptly is regrettable, but does not confer some kind of protection to it. KillerChihuahua 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a member of Wikiproject Spam I have included referral to DMOZ as part of spam cleanups, and I agree that it has been helpful for that purpose. However in cases where I have content knowledge, when I have checked the links at DMOZ I find many of them that I would never approve as a content editor, including many commercial sites that do not cite any WP:RS or otherwise fail tests for WP:EL. Various criticisms of DMOZ are noted at Dmoz#Controversy_and_criticism. An example of a web site specifically critical of DMOZ is here. For an example of a specific criticism of Misplaced Pages over-use of DMOZ see here. Alexa, an independent rating service, gives DMOZ only a midrange rating based on its aggregated reviewing method . None of the web sites I provide links to are authoritative, I present them only as examples of the fact that DMOZ is controversial. Buddhipriya 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
DMOZ doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for external links; the fact that it was incorrectly inserted into the guideline months ago, without people noticing that it contradicted policy is unfortunate, but not a license to keep it here. Jayjg 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The Disputed Open Directory Project section
Since we now have a disputed tag on the section, probably best to actually start the discussion again, rather than just referring to all the old ones.
As I understand it, the motivation for doing something like this is a combination of the official policy of WP:NOT#LINK and the desire to provide readers with further reading about the articles. WP:EL says that Some external links are welcome,... but it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.. So we end up with a dilemma which has been seen on many WP pages - links get added and added until it gets too much, someone removes them, there is an outcry and sometimes a long and heated debate. The fact is that wince WP is not a directory, we can not list EVERY site that may just be useful, and thus it becomes a subjective judgement, and subject to a lot of argument.
So the idea was to find a directory that COULD be linked to *as an exception to the rule* so that readers of the article could have a place to go to find many, many more links than Misplaced Pages would ever have in its article. That way we satisfy the needs of the users, and hopefully keep debate down to a minimum.
So far, so good (hopefully). The big question is what should be linked to? Obviously it has to be a directory that has categories that could correspond to WP pages, otherwise there isn't any sort of correlation between them. Hopefully it is a directory which comes as close as possible to mirroring WP's philosophies - you can't pay for inclusion, limited or no ads, etc. The Open Directory Project (or DMOZ as it seems to be known by others) seemed at the time of the previous discussions were had, to be the best one out there that fulfilled the most of those requirements. It's far from perfect, and has a lot of flaws, but at the time there was nothing better.
So, as I see it, this boils down to two questions:
1. Should we use the approach of linking to an external directory in order to direct users to further material on a topic? If not, how are we going to combat the wave of useful sites that feel they just HAVE to be added to the EL section of the articles? This is non-trivial, in my experience.
2. If we do decided to continue adding a link to a directory, then is there one out there that is better than DMOZ, in terms of the sort of characteristics that matter to WP. (I certainly understand that some of you do not like the ODP, but if we are going to link, then we need something better than the ODP to link to). If Misplaced Pages had a directory sister project that was extensive, then that would resolve the issues of the directory having the same standards and control as WP. If they don't have one that is that extensive, then none will be 100% according to the WP philosophies and a compromise must be found.
Hopefully this will help structure the discussion somewhat. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am am ODP editor. I have tried to state the case here as neutrally as I could, though. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let me dispel some myths. There is a misguided perception that "linking is good, this is the WWW after all'. Not so: External links in an encyclopedic article are useful only when these links are of good quality, do not contain objectionable material that otherwise would not be added to the article, do not violate WP:V, etc. The main principle is "EL section is not the dumping ground for material that could not make it to the article due to violation of our content policies." This is a guideline, and guidelines cannot trump policies; rather, guidelines are there to assist editors with understanding and applying policy. Inviting a loophole and making the suggestion that DMOZ (or any other web directory for that matter) is a good thing, is in contradiction with the wording on this guideline ("links to be avoided" section). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Characterizing the opinions of others as "myths" and "misguided perceptions" does not seem particularly helpful to this debate. I would prefer to discuss specifics. For example, which of the 13 items listed under "Links normally to be avoided" (emphasis mine) do you think the Open Directory Project violates? Also, which official policy, as opposed to guideline, do you think it violates? Honestly, I'm not really sure I understand your objections. Thanks, Satori Son 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was not characterizing opinions of other editors that have commented in this page. I was referring to a misguided perception in general. As for the specifics: Links to normally avoid is pretty clear on what we ask contributors not to link to. DMOZ can contain listings of sites that can be assessed to be a "link normally to avoid". For example, let's imagine an editor WANTING to add this external link to George W. Bush: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/ . Most certainly it will be deleted from the article, citing WP:EL, right? But it will not stop that person to adding the DMOZ category http://dmoz.org/Society/History/By_Region/North_America/United_States/Presidents/Bush,_George_Walker/ that contains a link to that site. See the problem now? DMOZ does not have any policies about NPOV, verifiability, and the like (thankfully), because they are a web directory and not an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- But how does solely linking to the DMOZ site itself violate any official policy? Aren't you discussing sites that might be linked from DMOZ? I'm not playing word games here - I think that is a very important distinction.
- Do we really have to follow all of the links on a potential site to make sure they also comply with all Misplaced Pages policies? And what about the sites linked from those? How far down the chain do we go?
- I understand you have some very valid concerns regarding the holy triumvirate of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and I truly am not being dismissive of those. But I just do not think those concerns are critically relevant unless the sites are linked to directly from here. Otherwise, we become content cops for half the web.
- We are not allowing the ODP editors to control what we link to directly from an article. Obviously, that would be an improper abdication of our responsibilities and I would strongly object to it.
- The {{Dmoz}} template is not a perfect solution, but it is the best one we have at the moment. Alucard saying that the link spam issue is "non-trivial" is a polite understatement. He knows how bad it is because he, I, and many others are hard at work at WikiProject Spam trying to keep the 'pedia free from of it. Unless and until we have access to an even better link repository, this is an extremely valuable tool for us, and Misplaced Pages is of a net higher quality because of it. -- Satori Son 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) As my previous input apparently was discarded as not actually participating in the discussion, since it has twice been suggested by Alucard (Dr.) that I "give input" - beyond that which I have already given? bah. I re-post it here, in teh hopes that Alucard (Dr.) will trouble her/himself to read it if it is in a section to her/his liking. "Denny nails it. This is an end-run around the NOT clause. Those who are stating consensus is required for changes need to get consensus to change WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links before there is any validity to any argument to keeping DMOZ. It conflicts. It conflicts with WP:EL, WP:SPAM as well. So, go get consensus to change those three, and there will be a point to this. Otherwise, no." KillerChihuahua 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, of course, that we are not an indiscriminate collection of links. But what official policy states we cannot link to an indiscriminate collection of links? None do. By your argument, there would never be any external links of any kind, because what doesn't strictly qualify as article content cannot qualify as a link. Or even a link from a link. WP:NOT controls what Misplaced Pages is, not what Misplaced Pages can link to. -- Satori Son 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me why there's a lot of discussion about this. If Misplaced Pages wants to partner up with some other project by advocating linking to it throughout our articles, it should be a project that offers something really remarkable. DMOZ is a list of links, something we're expressly not interested in. So, really, what is our incentive to drive traffic to that particular list of links again? Jkelly 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- C'mon, this is too illogical. We are NOT a collection of links, but we link to such things some times. We are NOT a reliable source, but we link to reliable sources. We are NOT and official site, but we link to them. Etc to infinity. Let's stay on topic here. We link to lots of stuff we are not. lol, It would be obviously stupid to just link to WHAT WE ARE! That isn't the point though. The question is whether linking to a directory on those occasions there are far more valuable links that could be used than we can list. Maybe more to the point that you are avoiding, we link to Dmoz on occasion so we do NOT become a list of links. 2005 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
For those who wish to remove it, what do you propose as an alternative? If an alternative isn't offered, the default alternative in most cases is that editors see no external links and start adding them, in many cases spamlinks. I can understand the argument for removing it, but taking it out causes other problems. --Minderbinder 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- An alternative what? An alternative list of weblinks? I'm not really following this "vaccination" argument you're making. Jkelly 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Any alternative. On articles that have many potential links, a link to a directory like this can substitute for a long list of links. Are you OK with having a bunch of links instead (or constantly fighting to keep the list short) or do you have an alternative to propose? --Minderbinder 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no need for an alternative. Too many links are unacceptable, period. Either you use the content of these links as sources, or you use just a few links that are significant. That is what this guideline is stating. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Any alternative. On articles that have many potential links, a link to a directory like this can substitute for a long list of links. Are you OK with having a bunch of links instead (or constantly fighting to keep the list short) or do you have an alternative to propose? --Minderbinder 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a directory of links... but often a directory of links is one of the things we SHOULD link to according to WP:EL ("unique resource no appropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages"). DMOZ was chosen because we are an open project and we -should- have a systematic bias for open projects. DMOZ is not the only choice, but if quality is equal it should be preferred. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- This guideline spells is out: we do not link just for the sake of linking. And that includes web directories such as DMOZ. If there is a problem with spam, adding a link to DMOZ is a poor solution. A link should be assessed on its value, and we should not encourage or suggest linking to DMOZ (or any other web directory) in this guideline. If an editor wants to ad a DMOZ link, let the editor discuss this in that article's talk, as you will need to do in many instances when discussion other ELs. There is no need to carve an exception for DMOZ, as many of the DMOZ categories are not maintained well, or not maintained at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- "we do not link just for the sake of linking." Nobody suggests that. Please don't make strawmen. "many of the DMOZ categories are not maintained well, or not maintained at all" and should not be linked to, as the DISCUSSION AT THE TIME made clear. Strawman #2. Why don't you address the issue instead? What should we do if there are say 100 links of approximately equal value that could be added to an article? Randomly chose five? Have endless pissing matches about which ones should be included? Have no links on articles that merit the most links? Enough of the irrelevancies please. Contribute something constructive and specific about what should be done when there are 100 possible very valid links? 2005 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- This guideline spells is out: we do not link just for the sake of linking. And that includes web directories such as DMOZ. If there is a problem with spam, adding a link to DMOZ is a poor solution. A link should be assessed on its value, and we should not encourage or suggest linking to DMOZ (or any other web directory) in this guideline. If an editor wants to ad a DMOZ link, let the editor discuss this in that article's talk, as you will need to do in many instances when discussion other ELs. There is no need to carve an exception for DMOZ, as many of the DMOZ categories are not maintained well, or not maintained at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a directory of links... but often a directory of links is one of the things we SHOULD link to according to WP:EL ("unique resource no appropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages"). DMOZ was chosen because we are an open project and we -should- have a systematic bias for open projects. DMOZ is not the only choice, but if quality is equal it should be preferred. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- DMOZ doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for external links; the fact that it was incorrectly inserted into the guideline months ago, without people noticing that it contradicted policy is unfortunate, but not a license to keep it here. Jayjg 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that does sometimes happen, and of course something inappropriate shouldn't stay just because nobody took it out at the time. Musical Linguist 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- There was lots of discussion. There was no incorrect assertion. Please try to act in good faith. Additionally the text about linking to any web sirectory was there for a very, very long time with much discussion about it. Making patently false statements does not help your cause. 2005 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are no "causes", 2005. If material was added to a guideline that contradicts the guideline, and editors raise concernd as some of us have done here, you cannot only dismiss these if you provide a counter-argument that is different than "it has been there for a while". Address the concerns expressed, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- "If material was added to a guideline that contradicts the guideline..." It doesn't. You STILL have not even made a claim how it does. You also didn't answer my question. What should we do? No more arm waving please. You want to remove something that offers a practical aid to editors when in a difficult situation and is widely thought well of and used. You have suggested NOTHING to deal with the problem. Be constructive please and stop dodging the issue: when there are 100 approximately equally valuable external links, what should be done? Write something. Make a proposal for pete's sake, maybe people will like it. Saying you don't like something is no proposal, and offering no counter suggestion for the problem being addressed is no help. 2005 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are no "causes", 2005. If material was added to a guideline that contradicts the guideline, and editors raise concernd as some of us have done here, you cannot only dismiss these if you provide a counter-argument that is different than "it has been there for a while". Address the concerns expressed, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- DMOZ adds something beyond the scope of which the article should contain itself. In this case, it is a list of links maintained by similarly motivated 'editors', as is wikipedia itself. I find it often a well deserved addition to an article and occasionally a partial solution to WP:EL debates. I find the discussion about linking DMOZ as violating wikipedia policy unfounded and beside the point. I have long used odp links here and never found it contrary to policy, or had it cited as such. I have also dabbled as an odp editor and find the internals I have known as a suitable ally for the wikipedia community. ∴ here…♠ 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- You say: "In this case, it is a list of links maintained by similarly motivated 'editors', as is wikipedia itself". Well, not really. Editors at DMOZ do not have any accountability or formal editorial process to chose what is included in categories. Some categories do not even have editors allocated to them. Once you are an "editor" for a category, you pretty much WP:OWN that category. There is no formal review process for adding links to a category, and other editors do not have much of a say on what a category editor decides to include or exclude (beside some forum discussions if happens that a category have more than one editor). Yes, DMOZ is volunteer generated content, but that is where the comparison stops. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- If, as you say, you spent time editing at dmoz, you already know that's not the case. The dmoz guidelines say:
- You say: "In this case, it is a list of links maintained by similarly motivated 'editors', as is wikipedia itself". Well, not really. Editors at DMOZ do not have any accountability or formal editorial process to chose what is included in categories. Some categories do not even have editors allocated to them. Once you are an "editor" for a category, you pretty much WP:OWN that category. There is no formal review process for adding links to a category, and other editors do not have much of a say on what a category editor decides to include or exclude (beside some forum discussions if happens that a category have more than one editor). Yes, DMOZ is volunteer generated content, but that is where the comparison stops. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
| “ | The ODP follows a peer review process, so no individual editor owns his or her category. Even if you are the only editor listed in a category, there will be other editors who will be able to edit and add sites to your category. These editors include parent category editors, editalls, metas and staff. | ” |
- The directory also has very specific site selection criteria. I'm uncertain why you persist on spreading disinformation. It's not a search engine and the template doesn't violate any guidelines or policies. Many people find adding dmoz links to appropriate for some articles. As others have noted, nobody's saying that it should always be added, but in many cases it can be a valuable source of additional information. - EurekaLott 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- While I was an editor at DMOZ, these guidelines were followed loosely at best. Metas and staff did not get involved much at all. Maybe that has changed now, but the fact is that many categories are under-staffed and not well monitored, and most importantly the link inclusion criteria at DMOZ differs from Misplaced Pages's. That is the main issue at hand. Nevertheless, the concern is about an encouragement in the guideline to link to a specific web directory, when actually the guideline itself has already a good explanation about what to link and what not to link, and should not carve an exception for DMOZ. Let editors discuss a specific link to a DMOZ category, on its merit, rather than encourage blanket linking to DMOZ as in the disputed wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take sometime and explore some categories at DMOZ and compare the links there to the ones we would accept in Misplaced Pages. A good example: http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Fascism/ vs. Fascism#External links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with linking to a directory in some cases - that is, I don't think our guidelines should include directories as a straight category in "links to be avoided". But it does bother me that we actively encourage linking to a particular website with whom we are not affiliated rather than laying out what would make a good directory link for our encyclopedia. That way when dmoz is appropriate it can be used, and when it isn't (as in Jossi's example), it would not be receiving extra support from this guideline. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Let editors decided if a link to a DMOZ category is warranted in the same manner any other link is assessed for compliance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake, THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. It says "consider". It doesn't say "always link". My goodness, what a waste of time about absolutely nothing. 2005 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is an inappropriate comment, 2005. Editors that care about this project are having a vigorous debate on an issue they consider important. As said before, we do not need to tell editors on a guideline to consider violating the same principles explained elsewhere in the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake, THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. It says "consider". It doesn't say "always link". My goodness, what a waste of time about absolutely nothing. 2005 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Let editors decided if a link to a DMOZ category is warranted in the same manner any other link is assessed for compliance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Ok, I saw this over at the spam wikiproject. The primary use of the dmoz links to me is to help curb linkfarming, which we are not. Frankly I don't care whose linkfarm it is, as long as it is reputable, and has high quality (non spam links). (which as far as I know dmoz is) I find it rather scary when articles have longer external link sections to a bunch of fansites then actual text in the article. If there are that many good sites, I highly advise using them as inline citations. In otherwords when we find the external link section getting long, its time to think about using a linkfarm. —— Eagle101 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No concensus, put it back
From what I can tell, there is no concensus leaning toward inclusion ( by numbers ). I assume that is reason to place this text back into the article. Similar text has been in this guideline since at least July 2005. A discussion leaning toward inclusion at this point is certainly no justification for removal, despite lack of consensus. Back to the status quo. Here is is back in:
- Nov 2006,
- Sep 2006: A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories.
- Jan 2006: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Misplaced Pages, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
- July 2005: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Misplaced Pages, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
- Jan 2005: The article is only a few lines long (!) ...
∴ here…♠ 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to re-instate the current text either. The text was added, and now it is challenged based on new arguments that have not been responded to. We may need to find a way to address the concerns expressed. A version based on previous incarnations of the wording may be better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The text was added months ago. If there's no consensus we stick with the stable wording, which is leaving it in. At AfD, if there's no consensus to delete an article, the article stays - this is the same situation. Since there doesn't seem to be support for removing it, I'd suggest proposing tweaks to the wording that address your concerns and trying to get consensus for a wording change. Otherwise, the wording goes back in. --Minderbinder 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it ain't broke, don't fix it!. So far there are legitimate counter arguments, but not many examples of where the use of this clause has been abused. And in reality using DMOZ to fight spam works! Why take away such a valuable tool? There are no perfectly managed directories and there are lots of cases where DMOZ is not appropriate, but I only recall one incident where an editor went overboard. It was then discussed and his edits reverted with his agreement. Now compare that with the massive amount of SPAM that has been avoided by using it as a deterent. As mentioned by Minderbinder, this was discussed and agreed upon last year. There are no new arguments here, but there are fair minded objections. Without a clear consensus, the original text should be reinstated. Calltech 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus for inclusion of a directory link under certain circumstances, and the ongoing consensus remains. Obstinate disagreement does not invalidate an ongoing consensus, particularly since you have refused to state ANY alternative, and yourself said the point of the text was correct. The consensus text will be added back, and once again, if you have any objections to anything in this guideline, use this talk page to bring up a proposal and reasons for it. Removing or adding substantial text from a guideline that states it is a consensus of editors is supremely rude to your fellow editors. Please don't do it again. 2005 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- That said, it is certainly possible the wording of the section could be improved. So anyone can feel free to MAKE A PROPOSAL to edit its wording, keeping in mind the goal of a directory link is as a fall back for when there are dozens of possible links. Until such a proposal gains consensus though, the other wording goes back in. 2005 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus for inclusion of a directory link under certain circumstances, and the ongoing consensus remains. Obstinate disagreement does not invalidate an ongoing consensus, particularly since you have refused to state ANY alternative, and yourself said the point of the text was correct. The consensus text will be added back, and once again, if you have any objections to anything in this guideline, use this talk page to bring up a proposal and reasons for it. Removing or adding substantial text from a guideline that states it is a consensus of editors is supremely rude to your fellow editors. Please don't do it again. 2005 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, I take exception on your characterization, and your tone of voice. There is no need to tell others "don't do it again", please WP:AGF. The wording needs to be tweaked as per the concerns raised. Stubbornly claiming consensus when there is a dispute related to the current wording, will not do. yes, the text may go back, but it will need to be tweaked to respond to the numerous editor's concerns raised in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't pretend you didn't do what you did, or that you have not done it numerous times before. The guide says the text is there by consensus, so please act in good faith based on that. This is not an article space article where you can just change wording based on other criteria. Changes here require consensus to be made. Now you have been told this many times. Please do not act otherwise in the future. Secondarly I am not stubbornly claiming consensus. That is nonsense talk. Consensus exists. Deal with it. Consensus is not "unanimous consent". I disagree with an aspect of that text, but that doesn't mean consensus does not exist. Even if significant disagreement appears, that does not mean that the old consensus does not stay intact. It does stay intact, until some other consensus replaces it. That means the text absolutely does not "need" to be tweaked. It means it is YOUR responsibility to convince a consensus of editors that your concerns have merit and should be addressed. Your confrontational style does little to lead to that conclusion, so I'd suggest a change in that, but the bottom line is if you propose something the consensus of editors thinks makes sense, then that will be a fine thing. However, if the consensus of editors does not want to address what you think "needs" to be addressed, then it won't. 2005 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, I take exception on your characterization, and your tone of voice. There is no need to tell others "don't do it again", please WP:AGF. The wording needs to be tweaked as per the concerns raised. Stubbornly claiming consensus when there is a dispute related to the current wording, will not do. yes, the text may go back, but it will need to be tweaked to respond to the numerous editor's concerns raised in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal
"Dozen of links" can be paired down citing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. As for the disputed text, I propose to go back to a tweak on a earlier version:
- When deemed appropriate, a link to one web directory listing can be added with preference to open directories. If no good directory listing exists, or if the directory includes links that do not fit within the criteria specified in this guideline, do not link to such directory.
This wording addresses the concerns expressed:
- It does not recommend a certain directory;
- It does not contradict the current wording in the guideline about "Links to be avoided";
- It forces editors to assess the quality of the directory in the same manner as any other external link.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- This would be a major step backward in several ways. First, saying "one" directory will lead to 1) pissing matches about "link to my directory", "no link to this one." Directories are in general bad links, and they should not be linked to at all when there are other valuable links.
- Second, "or if the directory includes links that do not fit within the criteria specified in this guideline" is totally absurd. You need to get over this. It's not our business to care about every link on pages we link to. For instance, we link to CNN articles that may link to some crap reseller site. It is foolish to not link to the CNN article just because a minor percentage of links are crap. The same with Dmoz. They have categories to regional business lists. We should not refuse to link to their Automobiles category because they happen to link to a car dealers among the many subcategories of automobile information. It makes no sense to hold sites we link to to the criteria of the Misplaced Pages itself -- and this is especially true when talking about something like a directory. If 95 of a hundred links on a page would qualify for external links on an article, but five would not, it would just be stupid to disqualify that link because of the five. Third, this is baffling: "It forces editors to assess the quality of the directory in the same manner as any other external link." I can't even imagine how you don't see that as ludicrously wrongheaded. 2005 23:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- ""Dozen of links" can be paired down citing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY" What is that supposed to mean? If there are 75 links of equal value, then there are 75. Why would the solution be to just randomly choose some? All that would do is lead to endless edit wars. The reality is 75 equal things are in fact equal, so none should be listed and one replacement that links to most of them is the best choice in light of WP:NOT.2005 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- See [[WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It is all there and it is policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- We know that. We assume that. Why do you mention it? It is not relevant here. 2005 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- See [[WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It is all there and it is policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are certain criteria that DMOZ satisfies that most others don't.
- DMOZ is established with a huge inventory of websites (if a website is notable, it is in DMOZ)
- DMOZ does NOT display advertising
- DMOZ is not a self-inclusion, self-editing directory (editors control inclusion and content)
- DMOZ does not charge for inclusion
- DMOZ has editors assigned to each category with some knowledge of that category
- DMOZ has established guidelines against advertisement-like submissions
- DMOZ has in place guidelines controlling the management of the directory
- DMOZ is not controlled by a small group of editors. There are a number of industry specific directories that are controlled by small groups whose own self interest supercedes the industry it serves.
- To me, these criteria closely parallel WP. DMOZ is not perfect by any means (we've already discussed this here AND in the past) and we should always be evaluating others, but right now it is the best available IMO. I highly recommend leaving the original wording as it was before these discussions were initiated. Any minor changes that make it better are always good, but trashing it, or opening it to other unnamed directories creates an entirely new set of problems as 2005 indicated. Calltech 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- To me, these criteria closely parallel WP. Not so. See DMOZ#Controversy_and_criticism ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- C'mon, you can't seriously be pretending Misplaced Pages doesn't as much controversy as Dmoz. That's silly. There are plenty of Misplaced Pages haters, not coincidentally often the same people. 2005 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Dozen of links" can be paired down citing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY" What is that supposed to mean?. Simple. Add {{linkfarm}} and ask editors to pair down the number of links as per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You continue to offer no constructive suggestion. Once again, the ongoing issue is dozens of equally valuable links. Between two (or 100) EQUAL things, the only "paring" that can be done is random. And also your suggestion is for cantankerous edit wars for no useful purpose. It really seems that you need to give this more thought. Random changes and edit wars is not remotely a better choice than a Dmoz link. 2005 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Random edit wars need to be dealt with the dispute resolution process. And a guideline cannot set policy, rather it should explain it. The policy that this guideline is trying to explain is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and should not attempt to make allowances that contradict WP:V.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- We know that. It doesn't. Let's focus on the topic please. 2005 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Random edit wars need to be dealt with the dispute resolution process. And a guideline cannot set policy, rather it should explain it. The policy that this guideline is trying to explain is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and should not attempt to make allowances that contradict WP:V.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You continue to offer no constructive suggestion. Once again, the ongoing issue is dozens of equally valuable links. Between two (or 100) EQUAL things, the only "paring" that can be done is random. And also your suggestion is for cantankerous edit wars for no useful purpose. It really seems that you need to give this more thought. Random changes and edit wars is not remotely a better choice than a Dmoz link. 2005 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- To me, these criteria closely parallel WP. Not so. See DMOZ#Controversy_and_criticism ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Amended proposal
- When deemed appropriate, a link to a web directory listing can be added. If no good directory listing exists, or if the directory includes links that do not fit within the criteria specified in this guideline, do not link to such directory.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- As stated above this continues to open the door to edit wars, inclusion of bad quality directories, and also adds a silly criteria, and which again offers trolls the ability to just be a nuisance. If a directory has 100 links on it, its totally silly not to link to it if 99 are great links and one is 404 or below average quality. 2005 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally would not mind wording that said something like when there are too many links of near equal value that a directory link should be used "with a preference for Dmoz." This would make it possible to link to some niche directory when the Dmoz category is bad, but also allows the "trump card" we need by making it clear that if all else fails, and there is a decent Dmoz category, that is the end of the war. I really can't imagine why there would be objections to that, unless a person just likes edit wars on major articles. 2005 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, sorry. This is a guideline. As a guideline, it does not set policy, rather, it should explain policy. If there are trolls and spammers that want to add 99 links to an external link section, slap a {{linkfarm}}, and tell them to go are read the policy of [[WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That is all you need to do. And if there are many good links in these, move them all to talk and ask editors to use these as a source to expand or better the article's text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we all understand that is how you would prefer to deal with this problem, but the solution that is preferred by a majority of editors, including many active members of WikiProject Spam, is to use the {{Dmoz}} template instead. And since, despite your vague generalizations, that approach is not in direct conflict with any Misplaced Pages official policy, the wording here at WP:EL should, and did, reflect that preference. -- Satori Son 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but I would argue against an argument for inclusion based on "preference". For example, my preference is to do what I said. But I do not impose my preference by means of specific wording in a guideline. Let editors use their own good judgment when to keep a link, remove a link, or add a link to DMOZ, Yahoo directory, Alexa, or any other web directory. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- And a small request, please do not use the "we" form when you comment. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we all understand that is how you would prefer to deal with this problem, but the solution that is preferred by a majority of editors, including many active members of WikiProject Spam, is to use the {{Dmoz}} template instead. And since, despite your vague generalizations, that approach is not in direct conflict with any Misplaced Pages official policy, the wording here at WP:EL should, and did, reflect that preference. -- Satori Son 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- We know a guideline doesn't set policy. Again please don't go off on irrelevant asides not relevant to the discussion. And also please don't mix concepts nonsensically. We aren't talking about a troll adding 99 bad links. Bringing up nonsensical strawmen out of left fireld just wastes everybody's time. Please stay on the topic: what to do when there are far too many equally valuable possible external links; secondarily, given the widespread view that a directory link should be used in these circumstances, what sort of directory link should be used. 2005 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should start changing your tone of voice, 2005. I take exception with the way you are addressing my comments. If you cannot engage in a discussion on its merits, I will not respond to your comments. Enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't we all assume a little more good faith here. There's no one editing on this page that doesn't want a good encyclopedia. We just have different ideas on some tactics and some of the value judgments at the peripheral of the main chore of developing good articles. Instead of lecturing each other (and I'm as guilty as anyone else with my last comment). Perhaps we should start trying to dig a little deeper into each others concerns so we can understand them and come up with a solution that addresses the real issues without leaving people who are doing good work feeling unsupported. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, please stay on topic. If you don't want to engage in discussion, then don't, but no one will waste time responding to you then. If nothing else, don't clutter this page with off topic comments. I've invited you several times to respond to specifics, and you never do. Fine. We can just move on from this topic since clearly there is no consensus to make changes. 2005 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should start changing your tone of voice, 2005. I take exception with the way you are addressing my comments. If you cannot engage in a discussion on its merits, I will not respond to your comments. Enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- We know a guideline doesn't set policy. Again please don't go off on irrelevant asides not relevant to the discussion. And also please don't mix concepts nonsensically. We aren't talking about a troll adding 99 bad links. Bringing up nonsensical strawmen out of left fireld just wastes everybody's time. Please stay on the topic: what to do when there are far too many equally valuable possible external links; secondarily, given the widespread view that a directory link should be used in these circumstances, what sort of directory link should be used. 2005 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Links are only ever equal when the content and presentation is effectively identical - and then choosing randomly is as good a way to choose as any other. When there are lots of good links to add we should do the same as we do when there is lots of good content to add - use good editorial judgment. Prioritizing content is one of our major roles as editors and applies just as much to the external links section as to summarizing the lead. Pointing people to a directory of all and everything on a subject is not a substitue for actually providing them with a well considered list of a few good links (a service which can actually provide significant value to readers). I appreciate that the use of appropriate directories can also be useful, but I'm not a fan of using dmoz (or any directory) to fight actual spam. We should provide a link to an appropriate directory if the directory is pointing our readers to something valuable. If it's just pointing them to crap, I don't think we should include it. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well said, Siobhan. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Links are only ever equal when the content and presentation is effectively identical - and then choosing randomly is as good a way to choose as any other. When there are lots of good links to add we should do the same as we do when there is lots of good content to add - use good editorial judgment. Prioritizing content is one of our major roles as editors and applies just as much to the external links section as to summarizing the lead. Pointing people to a directory of all and everything on a subject is not a substitue for actually providing them with a well considered list of a few good links (a service which can actually provide significant value to readers). I appreciate that the use of appropriate directories can also be useful, but I'm not a fan of using dmoz (or any directory) to fight actual spam. We should provide a link to an appropriate directory if the directory is pointing our readers to something valuable. If it's just pointing them to crap, I don't think we should include it. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for the tone of the above remarks. To restate my concern above in a less preachy fashion - I think this guideline needs to be careful about not compromising editorial decision making on articles. I see the idea of saying "If there are lots of links that meet the criteria they're all as good as one another - just link to something that links to them all" (which is very crude paraphrasing) as abdicating our responsibility as editors. I believe sorting through the information and making these decisions so readers don't have to is one of the main differences between an encyclopedia and a portal. And I really cringe at the idea that of using directories as a way to fight off the addition of link cruft. This may be because my understanding of the tactic is wrong. I see us providing a link to dmoz so all the poor quality sites get added there and are two clicks away instead of one. And I guess I see that as an unpleasant thing to do to our readers.
- On the other hand, I know when you're dealing with editors who are more use to adding to networking, fan and portal sites, it's much easier, faster, and ends up with fewer hurt feelings if there is a clear line to point to and an unambiguous standard. For those in favor of the "consider a link to a dmoz directory" wording, is this one of the main motivations? -- Siobhan Hansa 04:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it is often the case links are effectively identical. Let's be realistic here. "We should provide a link to an appropriate directory if the directory is pointing our readers to something valuable. If it's just pointing them to crap, I don't think we should include it." Well that's the status quo. Again, be realistic. No one is saying a dmoz link should always be used, or a link to a crap category should be added. That is not an issue. I hate to keep saying this, but all this going off topic really doesn't do anything but waste time. "We should provide a link to an appropriate directory if the directory is pointing our readers to something valuable." Saying that is embracing the text that has been there. 2005 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was trying to talk about two separate issues here. When we're talking about lots of good links I think we need to embrace our role as editors and make decisions about which ones are best. In such circumstances a directory may be one of the best links to provide. The if it's just pointing to crap issue was in response to the idea I've heard in this discussion that having a dmoz link helps fight spam. In that case I think we are effectively just trying to push spam to another source and linking to that. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Amended proposal
- When deemed appropriate, a link to a web directory listing can be added to the external links section. Inclusion of such link should be evaluated on its merits and in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some wording from m:When should I link externally could also be used in this context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would like dmoz to be mentioned by name, but am willing to compromise. Fighting spam is a secondary function of a directory link. First and foremost, it offers content that is not appropriate to include in the article itself. If a particular category on dmoz is found to be well edited and appropriate, then it is likely a good candidate for an external link. I am also confused as to why the pre-existing text has not remained in this guideline throughout this discussion. As of now, there has been no concensus to remove the wording from the article. Imagine someone over at WP:CSD beginning, removing A7 from article for discussion, this is not how things work around here. Leave it in until you have a new version or concensuss to remove.
- My rewording, trimmed a bit: Web directories may be linked when appropriate as a resource beyond the encyclopedia's intended scope. Directories should be neutral and generally evaluated in the same manner as any other link. ∴ here…♠ 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Web directories should almost never be linked. Watering down the language is a terrible idea. if anything it should be strengthened to prevent directory links to be added. The most important concept is a directory link should never be included among external links if there are any more external links than official site ones. Dmoz should be called out specifically to prevent the inclusion of all the useless link lists out there. If no good Dmoz category exists, then a case could be made for another directory link on a talk page. A link to Dmoz or any other directory should almost always be the only external link on any article. Directories should be a very rare alternative, not a regular option. The language that has been there states that. If anything it should be even stronger. 2005 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- : shrug :, I wouldn't say almost never. I imagine this will be an ongoing discussion through the life of wikipedia and the various compatible web directories. The quality of the link is what matters, and I also find dmoz the often-best-option when a directory is appropriate. ∴ here…♠ 08:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Linking to a linkfarm really isn't a good idea ever. DMOZ isn't any better then any other link farm and is often worst then most... just because it is run a little similar to wikipedia is no reason to give it preference, if anything we should suggest that editors look at a site like DMOZ to find individual sites to like to rather then spam... or even no external links at all, nothing wrong with that... also having a link to DMOZ isn't going to stop any of the spammers I've ever meet (threat of black listing works way better(warning 3 or 4)) --T-rex 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's sometimes quite clearly the best idea. Dmoz isn't given preference because it is similar to the Misplaced Pages. Again let's stay real here. Dmoz is by FAR the largest directory in existence. Some people don't like it because they think it is full of oligarchal nutjobs, but that isn't really relevant. In specific situations, sure sometimes there will be other directories better. But it is the most comprehensive directory out there, which has to be the starting point. A Dmoz link should only be used when a directory link is the best external link solution available, which will be rare, but it does occur. When there are dozens of good links available, choosing no external links at all is too anti-user to be a reasonable solution. A Dmoz link is far better for users. Saying editors should "consider" a category link to the largest directory in existence in problematic situations seems a few miles short of a bad thing. 2005 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see being biggest as being a particularly useful guide here except that it is convenient because it is likely to have a category. But it says little about the quality of individual categories. I think the best directories for particular subjects are generally more likely to be found in practitioner communities than on a general directory service. By specifically recommending dmoz (or any other directory service) we automatically bias content. And we make it harder for editors to look at different possibilities and discuss them simply on their merits. This is where I believe the guidelines overstep into editorial decision making in a bad way. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's sometimes quite clearly the best idea. Dmoz isn't given preference because it is similar to the Misplaced Pages. Again let's stay real here. Dmoz is by FAR the largest directory in existence. Some people don't like it because they think it is full of oligarchal nutjobs, but that isn't really relevant. In specific situations, sure sometimes there will be other directories better. But it is the most comprehensive directory out there, which has to be the starting point. A Dmoz link should only be used when a directory link is the best external link solution available, which will be rare, but it does occur. When there are dozens of good links available, choosing no external links at all is too anti-user to be a reasonable solution. A Dmoz link is far better for users. Saying editors should "consider" a category link to the largest directory in existence in problematic situations seems a few miles short of a bad thing. 2005 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Linking to a linkfarm really isn't a good idea ever. DMOZ isn't any better then any other link farm and is often worst then most... just because it is run a little similar to wikipedia is no reason to give it preference, if anything we should suggest that editors look at a site like DMOZ to find individual sites to like to rather then spam... or even no external links at all, nothing wrong with that... also having a link to DMOZ isn't going to stop any of the spammers I've ever meet (threat of black listing works way better(warning 3 or 4)) --T-rex 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- : shrug :, I wouldn't say almost never. I imagine this will be an ongoing discussion through the life of wikipedia and the various compatible web directories. The quality of the link is what matters, and I also find dmoz the often-best-option when a directory is appropriate. ∴ here…♠ 08:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Web directories should almost never be linked. Watering down the language is a terrible idea. if anything it should be strengthened to prevent directory links to be added. The most important concept is a directory link should never be included among external links if there are any more external links than official site ones. Dmoz should be called out specifically to prevent the inclusion of all the useless link lists out there. If no good Dmoz category exists, then a case could be made for another directory link on a talk page. A link to Dmoz or any other directory should almost always be the only external link on any article. Directories should be a very rare alternative, not a regular option. The language that has been there states that. If anything it should be even stronger. 2005 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- "I think the best directories for particular subjects are generally more likely to be found in practitioner communities than on a general directory service." - examples please. And "By specifically recommending dmoz ... we automatically bias content"?? You just provided another argument for DMOZ where virtually all other directories fall short. This should also be added to my list above:
- DMOZ provides an unbiased computerized ranking of websites and the order in which they are displayed.
- Practitioner community directories are probably the worst when it comes to bias and self interest. By nature, they are smaller, with fewer guidelines, and subject to the whim (and bias) of the hosting website and editors. Listings are often providing based on advertising (Featured Listing) or affiliation with the host. None of this is true with DMOZ.
- Again, where are the New arguments that are deemed significant enough to overturn the existing language that was published after consensus reached last year?. Calltech 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just read this and above sections... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, where are the New arguments that are deemed significant enough to overturn the existing language that was published after consensus reached last year?. Calltech 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are several proposals on the table, and all I hear is an argument of "it was consensus". Why not to look at these proposals on their merit? The proposals does not disallow DMOZ, or any otehr web directory. Rather, it encourage editors to make good judgment when contemplating adding such a link, What is wrong about that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Calltech - on the automatically biasing content issue, I'm not sure I understand your argument. You seem to think we aren't biased. But we are, and intentionally so. Our neutral point of view is explicitly biased in favor of significant opinions of experts in the field. Having something that lists everything written on a subject is not something that any of our policies aspire to. We should be favoring expertise. I'm also not clear on the "computerized ranking" comment. I didn't think dmoz worked that way, I thought it was up to the category editor.
- I'm not suggesting we recommend community practitioner directories, I'm well aware there are plenty of terrible ones and I don't advocate for them. My pint is simply that we should not be trying to direct editors towards a particular directory or even a particular type of directory. We should be emphasizing the quality aspects that make a good link and leaving the decisions about particular links to article editors. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Another round, revised my wording...
- When deemed appropriate, a link to a web directory listing can be added to the external links section. Inclusion of such link should be evaluated on its merits and in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline.
- Web directories may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.
- It seems clear that there is no consensus on any of the proposals. I support the idea of having some sort of boilerplate language that helps with spam control, but I simply am not convinced that DMOZ is superior to any of the alternative directory sources. Alexa, an independent rating service, gives DMOZ only a midrange rating for quality. See: . The directory provided by Alexa is more likely to be meaningful than that of DMOZ because it uses an algorithm that includes traffic statistics and inbound links as part of the evaluation method. That said, I think that the language given above is moving in the right direction by saying that "a web directory" may be appropriate, but that other factors need to be considered as well. Are there any other web directories that have templates like the dmoz template? Buddhipriya 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alexa just uses Dmoz and then fiddles with it in a mostly obtuse way, so that is no solution. 2005 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems clear that there is no consensus on any of the proposals. I support the idea of having some sort of boilerplate language that helps with spam control, but I simply am not convinced that DMOZ is superior to any of the alternative directory sources. Alexa, an independent rating service, gives DMOZ only a midrange rating for quality. See: . The directory provided by Alexa is more likely to be meaningful than that of DMOZ because it uses an algorithm that includes traffic statistics and inbound links as part of the evaluation method. That said, I think that the language given above is moving in the right direction by saying that "a web directory" may be appropriate, but that other factors need to be considered as well. Are there any other web directories that have templates like the dmoz template? Buddhipriya 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully a compromise proposal
Web directory links should be used only occasionally. They should only be used an an alternative, not a normal choice. That is why the current wording is superior to what has been suggested. Opening the doors to a directory link for any article is not a step forward. To try and address some concernes I'd simplify the current wording: On articles where many meritable external links exist, rather than creating a long list of links, editors should instead consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) if that category is comprehensive. If a topical directory exists that editors believe is superior to the Dmoz category, they should discuss using that directory instead on an articles talk page. No promotion of Dmoz other than as the largest directory it should be the starting point. Better directories would have the option of being included instead if a consensus supports it. And, to me, most importantly, a single directory link is not normally encouraged, but offered as a rare option. instead is a key concept. 2005 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to introduce the concept that where there are lots of links that could be added editors should not be choosing between them. I really believe that one of our major role as editors is about prioritizing information for readers. I don't see how a link to a directory instead of an editor vetted list is a good thing for us to be doing at all. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please be specific in what you want to see happen when editors can not agree on a list of under ten (or choose your number) external links? This isn't about something besides choosing. Let's try and stay focused on the issue. So far the only option you seem to support is edit wars or (even worse) mediation and bad will. We are talking about situations where "choosing" has not worked or is extraordinarily arbitrary. You can't seem to get past the idea that sometimes sincere people have sincere disagreements where everybody is basically equally right. This "let's have edit wars" idea is a no starter. the current wording is obviously superior to that. 2005 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey come on now, your crack about staying focused on the issue is unfair. I've been saying all along that this is about us doing our job as editors - about us making good choices, and about having guidelines that support that rather than having guidelines that restrict editors in doing that well. The external links section is a content issue. When editors can't agree they should follow the dispute resolution process (messy, drawn out and occasionally nasty as it is) as they do for any other content issue. There is nothing in our policies that support us preempting that process with a "if you can't agree, give up and link to this". I also think this uses edge cases as the basis for a guideline that should be useful for all articles. It's a very low percentage of our articles where regular editors can't come to a compromise if they discuss the issue. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well then your suggestion is to insert a section about dispute resolution. Frankly I consider that terribly wrongheaded since this is not a "dispute" issue. The "dispute" is not the point, and leads to lawyering with the fanatics getting their way most of the time. You should reexamine this statement: "It's a very low percentage of our articles where regular editors can't come to a compromise if they discuss the issue." That's because in most cases now a Dmoz link is used! I'd suggest taking a look at the bigger picture. 2005 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is not the suggestion. You may have missed the point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well then your suggestion is to insert a section about dispute resolution. Frankly I consider that terribly wrongheaded since this is not a "dispute" issue. The "dispute" is not the point, and leads to lawyering with the fanatics getting their way most of the time. You should reexamine this statement: "It's a very low percentage of our articles where regular editors can't come to a compromise if they discuss the issue." That's because in most cases now a Dmoz link is used! I'd suggest taking a look at the bigger picture. 2005 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey come on now, your crack about staying focused on the issue is unfair. I've been saying all along that this is about us doing our job as editors - about us making good choices, and about having guidelines that support that rather than having guidelines that restrict editors in doing that well. The external links section is a content issue. When editors can't agree they should follow the dispute resolution process (messy, drawn out and occasionally nasty as it is) as they do for any other content issue. There is nothing in our policies that support us preempting that process with a "if you can't agree, give up and link to this". I also think this uses edge cases as the basis for a guideline that should be useful for all articles. It's a very low percentage of our articles where regular editors can't come to a compromise if they discuss the issue. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please be specific in what you want to see happen when editors can not agree on a list of under ten (or choose your number) external links? This isn't about something besides choosing. Let's try and stay focused on the issue. So far the only option you seem to support is edit wars or (even worse) mediation and bad will. We are talking about situations where "choosing" has not worked or is extraordinarily arbitrary. You can't seem to get past the idea that sometimes sincere people have sincere disagreements where everybody is basically equally right. This "let's have edit wars" idea is a no starter. the current wording is obviously superior to that. 2005 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Jossi says, that's not my suggestion at all. I believe we should not be recommending a particular site in our guidelines. My suggestion is simply that we do not include a sentence that implies any individual directory is preferred. The vast majority of our articles do not have a dmoz link so your implication that we would have a high percentage of disputes if we didn't have a guideline recommending it is hyperbole. In my experience of cleaning up external links sections I can't recall having had to go to dispute resolution over any of them, whether or not a dmoz link ended up being included. If there were actual discussions about what might be a good selection of a few external links that were cut short (or not attempted) by someone pointing to this guideline and a replacing well chosen links with a link to dmoz, I think that's a disservice to our readers. The "big picture" is far more than the relatively small number of articles where there are actual disputes. Our guidelines need to help guide all our editors make good decisions, not simply be about providing strong statements to stop opposition. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you are backing off your suggestion now there isnt anything to talk about. Arguing against clear guidelines to help editors without offering any alternative isn't constructive. On the other hand, if you are now (finally) stating that the passage is fine just without Dmoz, well, that renders your comments puzzling, but fine. That is a much more minor point. As for hyperbole, your sentence doesn't make since. You are the only one who advocated dispute resolution instead of a directory link. It's obvious that a dmoz link has helped end edit wars on many articles. I hope you aren't disputing that. 2005 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could you point me to a diff where I made a suggestion that I'm now backing off of? I'm not sure you've been reading my comments properly. I only ever said that dispute resolution is Misplaced Pages's process for content disputes and we shouldn't presume to change that. I've never suggested we need to incorprorate it into the guideline - we don't do it for any other section that might result in differences of opinion, why would I, or anyone else think we need it here? Why you find my comments puzzling when this entire discussion is about whether we should be explicitly recommending dmoz I'm unclear on. As to it being "obvious that a dmoz link has helped end edit wars on many articles." again, I don't think you are understanding my comments. In the big picture, a few thousand articles (which is how many dmoz links we have - not how many have ended edit wars) is not that significant in the million plus articles we have. In the cases where a dmoz link has been added (whether part of an edit war or not) when using dispute resolution instead would have resulted in a better selection of a few good links then I think the result is a poor one. If your desire to have dmoz in here is so that you can shut these sorts of situations down quickly without having to justify the benefit of the link to regular editors of an article (as they would apparently have to do for any alternative), I think you're misusing the guideline. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- "...is not that significant in the million plus articles we have..." The case for it is clear from both the perspective of this guideline and from the perspective of the spam project. If it isn't significant to you, then why are you not letting it go? As for rolling back to the old invitation to freely add directory links, that is different than merely saying we should not highlight dmoz. That should be another discussion. The current text clearly calls out a Dmoz link in ONE scenario, "rather than creating a long list of external links..." 2005 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you are backing off your suggestion now there isnt anything to talk about. Arguing against clear guidelines to help editors without offering any alternative isn't constructive. On the other hand, if you are now (finally) stating that the passage is fine just without Dmoz, well, that renders your comments puzzling, but fine. That is a much more minor point. As for hyperbole, your sentence doesn't make since. You are the only one who advocated dispute resolution instead of a directory link. It's obvious that a dmoz link has helped end edit wars on many articles. I hope you aren't disputing that. 2005 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Jossi says, that's not my suggestion at all. I believe we should not be recommending a particular site in our guidelines. My suggestion is simply that we do not include a sentence that implies any individual directory is preferred. The vast majority of our articles do not have a dmoz link so your implication that we would have a high percentage of disputes if we didn't have a guideline recommending it is hyperbole. In my experience of cleaning up external links sections I can't recall having had to go to dispute resolution over any of them, whether or not a dmoz link ended up being included. If there were actual discussions about what might be a good selection of a few external links that were cut short (or not attempted) by someone pointing to this guideline and a replacing well chosen links with a link to dmoz, I think that's a disservice to our readers. The "big picture" is far more than the relatively small number of articles where there are actual disputes. Our guidelines need to help guide all our editors make good decisions, not simply be about providing strong statements to stop opposition. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indent)Why I don't "let it go" is because I believe our guideline should be appropriate for the majority of our articles rather than the minority. Using hardcases to build guidelines is generally a bad idea and I think that's the case here. I do a lot of work on spam fighting. I know it's easier to point to a guideline or policy. But when the guideline is a poor one for good editors, and when it is a sop to spammers (we don't want your link but put it in this other site and we'll just link through to it) I'm very much against it. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would accept a small modification to the suggested wording by ]:
- Web directories may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Personally changing the guideline to encourage directories makes no sense to me, but doing it without presuming Dmoz first is silly, unless an editor's purpose here is to engage in arguments. By their nature, directories are often almost exactly identical. Leaving the door open for people to spam their clone directories of dmoz is just a bad idea. 2005 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The most important part of the existing wording is... Rather than creating a long list of external links,. Without that phrase, someone needs to advance an argument why we should have some random directory link in every article. I'm afraid I can't imagine why this rather sudden urge to allow random directory links in every article. 2005 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Our guideline already suggests limiting the number of external links. "A few" right at the top. A directory can be one of them. There is no "sudden urge to allow random directory links". There has been a line in the guidelines suggesting a directory might be appropriate since July 2005. Suggesting we should have a directory instead of a few well selected links is new however. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's six months old. You are suggesting to going back to the invitation to spam one directory link per article. The rewrite addressed that very poor idea, and stated when a directory link was appropriate, specifically "rather than" a long list of links. If you want to change that, please make a case for why a directory link should be allowed on every article. I certainly don't see a need to increase spam and edit wars for no concrete gain. 2005 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- A directory link should be allowed on any article where it is one of the best external links available for the subject and it provides encyclopedic value to readers of the article. Just like any other link. Because we should not write guidelines that arbitrarily limit editors or bias their decisions. I'd never seen the previous guideline as an invitation to spam, and I'd never seen directories as a particular problem on the articles I edited. But if that's the issue, how about we take out all mention of directories? They can be evaluated just like any other link. That addresses my concerns at least as well as well as taking out a recommendation of dmoz. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The suggestion of having a directory instead of other external links was made by you yesterday (bottom of your two comments here) and is different from the guidelines' "rather than creating a long list of links" since an alternative to a long list of links includes a short list with one link being a directory. Perhaps the intention was ifferent, but the phrase does not provide a strengthing of our guidelines. In fact the one above can be considered to weaken them since "rather than creating a long list of links, editors should instead consider linking to" suggests that creating a long list of links is a viable alternative if editors reject the idea of a guideline. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stating that directory links should follow the rest of the criteria feels to me enough to address 2005's concerns. I do not believe the above wording encourages linking a directory, nor validates such a link without reservation. In general, almost all external links should be discouraged, which should be clear throughout this guideline. ∴ here…♠ 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Directories never meet the criteria of the guideline so that's a non-starter. They never meet "What should be linked" points three or four. They are just link lists (directories that also have articles or whatever could be linked to but not necause they are link list but because the article would meet points 3 or 4.) If there are not too many links, a directory should be culled for useful links, not linked to. If there are too many links, a directory link should be considered. Again, why is there now this desire to link to ransom directories? What wording is being advocated to be added to "What should be linked"? What logic is there to have external links, and an external link to external links? (LOL) Sorry but dramatically weakening the guideline without any reasoning behind it is an odd idea at best. 2005 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- 3) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
- 4) Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
- Directories meet both just fine. 3) excessive amount of detail. 4) review of links, meaningful relevant content ; If the directory resource does not meet 3 and 4, it should not be linked. I guess I wasn't around at the start of all this, but we seem to be close to recreating the language I see now under, Links to be considered: A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories. (open directory link added) I like seeing the {{dmoz}} template link as well, but don't feel strongly. ∴ here…♠ 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you are going to take the position that a list of other resources is "excessive detail", fine, but that just seems silly. Directories have no content of their own. Bending over backwards to have them fit criteria clearly not intended for them again begs the question, why do you want to link to link lists when a long list of links is not involved? Articles should have meritable links themselves. There is no good reason to include a link list rather than the meritable links themselves, unless there are way too many. 2005 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think we see directories on Misplaced Pages from very different perspectives. I tend to think that directories that may be appropriate for an article tend to fall broadly into one of two different types - 1) Lists to, normally "official", pages for relevant, specific but distinct entities (say association chapters, or laws on the subject) and 2) resource directories where the consensus of editors is that it enjoys a high reputation with practitioners or experts in the field, and it is suitable for the general readership of the article. In the first case we can provide a jumping off point to a wide range of similar sites where the readers' preferred destination might depend on something specific to them (their location for instance), but if the directory didn't exist, we wouldn't reproduce that list on Misplaced Pages. In the second case the site's reputation is part of what makes it a good link (with the expectation that it's link management provides value) and it provides a focused service while allowing for a broader set of links than Misplaced Pages can provide. And again, if it didn't exist, we wouldn't be trying to recreate it.
- If you are going to take the position that a list of other resources is "excessive detail", fine, but that just seems silly. Directories have no content of their own. Bending over backwards to have them fit criteria clearly not intended for them again begs the question, why do you want to link to link lists when a long list of links is not involved? Articles should have meritable links themselves. There is no good reason to include a link list rather than the meritable links themselves, unless there are way too many. 2005 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Directories never meet the criteria of the guideline so that's a non-starter. They never meet "What should be linked" points three or four. They are just link lists (directories that also have articles or whatever could be linked to but not necause they are link list but because the article would meet points 3 or 4.) If there are not too many links, a directory should be culled for useful links, not linked to. If there are too many links, a directory link should be considered. Again, why is there now this desire to link to ransom directories? What wording is being advocated to be added to "What should be linked"? What logic is there to have external links, and an external link to external links? (LOL) Sorry but dramatically weakening the guideline without any reasoning behind it is an odd idea at best. 2005 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stating that directory links should follow the rest of the criteria feels to me enough to address 2005's concerns. I do not believe the above wording encourages linking a directory, nor validates such a link without reservation. In general, almost all external links should be discouraged, which should be clear throughout this guideline. ∴ here…♠ 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's six months old. You are suggesting to going back to the invitation to spam one directory link per article. The rewrite addressed that very poor idea, and stated when a directory link was appropriate, specifically "rather than" a long list of links. If you want to change that, please make a case for why a directory link should be allowed on every article. I certainly don't see a need to increase spam and edit wars for no concrete gain. 2005 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Our guideline already suggests limiting the number of external links. "A few" right at the top. A directory can be one of them. There is no "sudden urge to allow random directory links". There has been a line in the guidelines suggesting a directory might be appropriate since July 2005. Suggesting we should have a directory instead of a few well selected links is new however. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The most important part of the existing wording is... Rather than creating a long list of external links,. Without that phrase, someone needs to advance an argument why we should have some random directory link in every article. I'm afraid I can't imagine why this rather sudden urge to allow random directory links in every article. 2005 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I read your comments correctly, you seem to see directories as places that build up links because we link to them. That is, whatever their state when we link to them, part of what hapens is that anyone who would have added a link to the article adds it to the directory instead. Is that correct? And if so, is that because you think it's a desireable thing to be building up those directories from Misplaced Pages contributors (albeit not on Misplaced Pages)? Or are you simply looking for a quick way to push the long lists of links off Misplaced Pages and this happens to work? Or something else? -- Siobhan Hansa 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are talking about. Something like an official list of chapters has nothing to do with a directory, and is covered by the offical sites part of the guideline. Aside from that, a directory lists links to websites. There is no reason to ever link to something like that, unless an article has too many meritable external links. Again, what possible reason (except space) would we link to a list of links instead of the linked-to sites themselves? 2005 05:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If I read your comments correctly, you seem to see directories as places that build up links because we link to them. That is, whatever their state when we link to them, part of what hapens is that anyone who would have added a link to the article adds it to the directory instead. Is that correct? And if so, is that because you think it's a desireable thing to be building up those directories from Misplaced Pages contributors (albeit not on Misplaced Pages)? Or are you simply looking for a quick way to push the long lists of links off Misplaced Pages and this happens to work? Or something else? -- Siobhan Hansa 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indent) I think there are plenty of circumstances where the official site section doesn't fit but a link to a listings directory could be useful, still I don't think that's an area that's holding us up on this. I think I am beginning to understand the difference in our views of this a bit better. I don't agree the only reason for not including a long list of links is simply space (though we don't want an article with more links than text either). We shouldn't include a long list because we shouldn't be sending our readers off on an unfocused journey. It is the job of editors to review, prioritize and present information so that readers don't have to and this applies to external links as much as it does to the rest of the article. If there are 100 meritable links a portal or directory might present them all, but an encyclopedia should choose the best selection it can that won't overwhelm the reader. I've always seen this as one of the essential value adds that we provide as an encyclopedia. Do others not share this view? -- Siobhan Hansa 13:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It was not easy, but I am glad that we have managed to find common ground and fnd a fornmulation that addressed all involved editros' concerns. Thank you all for your patience, and special thanks to Siobhan for finding a version that worked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Random section break
- When there are 100 meritable links, it is not our job nor decision to narrow that to an acceptable few. If we choose a handful of equal links out of a hundred, we are doing a disservice to the reader and those websites not chosen. A single link to DMOZ keeps WP clean, gives the viewer a list of websites and topics that HE or SHE may want to view, and allows the websites the means to be reviewed, included and displayed. Everyone wins, its democratic and fair, and the user gets choices. This is NOT a common occurence, but happens enough that a guideline was developed last year to advise editors. Editors can always arrive at a consensus to do something different, but when there is dissent, using the guideline is the fallback and provides the basis for a potential dispute resolution. Identifying DMOZ was the best directory at that time and is still now, unless someone can show a better directory, IMHO. Calltech 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well stated. The guideline spells out what should commonly occur, then it also spells out an advisory for what is a good idea in rare/difficult situations. Edit wars to turn 100 links into 9 is a lot of things, but it is hopelessly unrealistic as a solution. A directory link makes sense in some cases. A directory link does not make sense in the vast majority of cases. Mentioning the by far most comprehensive directory also makes sense, although that wording could possibly be tweaked to make the point better. 2005 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If "A directory link does not make sense in the vast majority of cases", then we do not need the text in this guideline. There is no need to spell exceptions in guidelines, rather, we describe common uses that explain policy, not exceptions that may be in violation of policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- There will be 100+ meritable links for virtually every mainstream subject. Such a guideline would indicate that almost all our featured articles ought to have just a dmoz link and no others. This isn't the way Misplaced Pages works now, and there are no policies which would support that interpretation for our guidelines. And please stop implying anyone is suggesting edit warring is a way to deal with 100 meritable links (or spam come to that). No one has suggested edit warring. It's expressly forbidden by our policies (not to mention common sense). What has been suggested (at least by me) is that external links are a content decision that should be considered like any other content decision, by discussion and consensus building. Edit warring isn't an acceptable way to deal with any content dispute - external links included. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well stated. The guideline spells out what should commonly occur, then it also spells out an advisory for what is a good idea in rare/difficult situations. Edit wars to turn 100 links into 9 is a lot of things, but it is hopelessly unrealistic as a solution. A directory link makes sense in some cases. A directory link does not make sense in the vast majority of cases. Mentioning the by far most comprehensive directory also makes sense, although that wording could possibly be tweaked to make the point better. 2005 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- When there are 100 meritable links, it is not our job nor decision to narrow that to an acceptable few. If we choose a handful of equal links out of a hundred, we are doing a disservice to the reader and those websites not chosen. A single link to DMOZ keeps WP clean, gives the viewer a list of websites and topics that HE or SHE may want to view, and allows the websites the means to be reviewed, included and displayed. Everyone wins, its democratic and fair, and the user gets choices. This is NOT a common occurence, but happens enough that a guideline was developed last year to advise editors. Editors can always arrive at a consensus to do something different, but when there is dissent, using the guideline is the fallback and provides the basis for a potential dispute resolution. Identifying DMOZ was the best directory at that time and is still now, unless someone can show a better directory, IMHO. Calltech 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer the first of Here's suggestions. But two is OK and Jossi's just change above doesn't alter it's meaning to me. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to test for what we mean by "directory", would About.com pages be considered directories? Now and then I see them on article pages and while I personally dislike about.com because of its aggressive advertising and popup ads, other editors have challenged me when I have tried to remove it. So what exactly is a directory? Buddhipriya 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Another Proposal
- Links to web directories are generally not recommended. However, as an alternative to adding a long list of external links that meet guidelines, a link to a directory, preferably an open source, is acceptable. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. - Calltech 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Caltech, that is exactly what prompted the challenge to the wording. A long list of ELs need to be dealt by asking involved editors to pair down the list to a few links based on WP:NOT#LINK, use the material on these links as sources for the article, and applying editors; best judgment to these endeavors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jossi, I believe the specific reference to and recommendation of DMOZ in the guidelines was what prompted this discussion and subsequently the use of directories as external links. If you look at the first part of this discussions weeks ago, you'll see what I mean. I used your suggested wording of the use of DMOZ in the above proposal, but with a reversal of the slant regarding the use of links to directories in general. Further, there is nothing in this wording that prevents editors from paring a long list on their own. Calltech 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very good. It addresses the points raised, and includes the previous consensus concept. I replaced the section added recently without consensus. We could go back to the consensus text, but this does address the concerns raised. 2005 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, it does not. See WP:CCC to learn that there is no longer consensus when there are substantial arguments as presented challenging a previous consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Read what you referenced. It doesn't say you can add text you want because you don't like other text, which you then remove. If no consensus on new text can be achieved, then EITHER the old text stays or the old text is removed. Adding completely different text that plainly has no consensus is ridiculous. 2005 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really believe that saying, Web directories may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link, as per the criteria described in this guideline. addresses 2005's and Calltech's concerns. Again, almost no link are generally recommended -- directories included. Further the alternative to a long list of links implies that dmoz would replace the list, also inappropriate. A few key links plus a dmoz category is fine, in my opinion, but should not be championed as recommended. ∴ here…♠ 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- We aren't going to have silly text in the guideline that says "sites of one kind should be evaluated like other sites." Duh, so let's move off that tangent please. Mindender's current edit addresses the issues. 2005 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- " Sayig "Duh" and saying "ridiculous" is not a useful way to present your arguments. There is no longer consensus on your favorite version, and we are trying to reach a compromise given the numerous comments on this page for such need. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jossi, the top of the guideline says Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus. Please abide by that. The text is now at the last version that had a consensus. if you say a consensus no longer exists, add that it is disputed, but do not make changes to this guideline that you know very well do not reflect consensus. Please follow the instruction at the top of the guideline and behave in a resonsible manner. 2005 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- The wording by user:here addresses the fact that DMOZ is suitable for inclusion. Let's not add directives to a guideline. Guidelines are there to explain policies, not to tell editors how to fight spam. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your objection to using a directory as an alternative to a bunch of links, what is it? --Minderbinder 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- At this point there seems to be no objection other than apparent stubborn obstructionism. I've returned the text to the last stable version before this unfortunate incident began. 2005 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Mindbinder's wording is great, but I don't think it's terrible either. I would prefer something that was clearer that long lists aren't acceptable (instead of this simply being an alternative) and that this is for cases where consensus building has failed. I appreciate the usefulness of having explicit steps in the guidelines for articles where editors are simply looking for any excuse to include links. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- A web directory may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link. Since long link lists should be avoided, in cases where many external links meet the guideline one option for editors to consider would be to make use of a well-chosen link to a directory. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. 2005 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. After all the discussions and concerns raised, you cannot just go back to the disputed version. I have restored the last compromise version. And I would also appreciate if you stop describing other editors efforts as "obstructionism", unless you want other to describe yours as "trolling". Let's continue in looking for a compromise version that we can call consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but yes. After all the discussions you simply can not make these changes without getting a consensus. At this point your actions have moved beyond raw arrogance to bordering on vandalism. DO NOT CHANGE THIS GUIDELINE WITHOUT GAINING A CONSENSUS. Stop acting like you can just bully things to be your way. Others of us have been working on achieving consensus wording while you simply change and move and alter things however you please, despite having exactly no one supporting your position now. The guideline is being changed back, again, to the version that had been in place for SIX MONTHS. Please contribute to the discussion to change the wording, but not change this guideline without a clear consensus to do so. 2005 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. After all the discussions and concerns raised, you cannot just go back to the disputed version. I have restored the last compromise version. And I would also appreciate if you stop describing other editors efforts as "obstructionism", unless you want other to describe yours as "trolling". Let's continue in looking for a compromise version that we can call consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- A web directory may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link. Since long link lists should be avoided, in cases where many external links meet the guideline one option for editors to consider would be to make use of a well-chosen link to a directory. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. 2005 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Mindbinder's wording is great, but I don't think it's terrible either. I would prefer something that was clearer that long lists aren't acceptable (instead of this simply being an alternative) and that this is for cases where consensus building has failed. I appreciate the usefulness of having explicit steps in the guidelines for articles where editors are simply looking for any excuse to include links. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- At this point there seems to be no objection other than apparent stubborn obstructionism. I've returned the text to the last stable version before this unfortunate incident began. 2005 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your objection to using a directory as an alternative to a bunch of links, what is it? --Minderbinder 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, it does not. See WP:CCC to learn that there is no longer consensus when there are substantial arguments as presented challenging a previous consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very good. It addresses the points raised, and includes the previous consensus concept. I replaced the section added recently without consensus. We could go back to the consensus text, but this does address the concerns raised. 2005 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jossi, I believe the specific reference to and recommendation of DMOZ in the guidelines was what prompted this discussion and subsequently the use of directories as external links. If you look at the first part of this discussions weeks ago, you'll see what I mean. I used your suggested wording of the use of DMOZ in the above proposal, but with a reversal of the slant regarding the use of links to directories in general. Further, there is nothing in this wording that prevents editors from paring a long list on their own. Calltech 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Caltech, that is exactly what prompted the challenge to the wording. A long list of ELs need to be dealt by asking involved editors to pair down the list to a few links based on WP:NOT#LINK, use the material on these links as sources for the article, and applying editors; best judgment to these endeavors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That could work too, it avoides the "alternative" wording, but implies that every article for which there are lots of links ought to have a directory. I also wonder if it really provide the sort of clear wording you need when working with entrenched link-adders? Could we consider leaving off A web directory may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link, since this effectively says evaluate links in accordance with this guideline, site this under "Important points to remember": Long lists of links are not appropriate. Where editors have not reached consensus on a small list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory should be used until consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your text sounds fine to me. 2005 03:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Siobhan. I think we are pretty close. I would be happy with this tweak to your proposal: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Long lists of links are not appropriate, Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the EL section with the {{linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on a small list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory could be used until consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.
- Hey, that looks pretty good. Nice tossing in of the WP:NOT#LINK to stress policy. What is the definition of "a small list of links?" (Requestion 07:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
- I don't think we can define a "small list", it's going to be different for different articles. If we put in a number large enough for our bigger, mainstream articles it could easily be seen as a traget for articles that only have a couple of lines of content. If we make it small enough that even our stubs wouldn't be overwhelmed it will look ridiculous because our feature articles often have quite significant lists - but it's a small number for the article. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting the addition of hard number. In this case it is probably best to be vague. I was just curious what others thought since someone in the future is bound to question it. To me a "small list" is less than 10 external links. (Requestion 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
- I don't think we can define a "small list", it's going to be different for different articles. If we put in a number large enough for our bigger, mainstream articles it could easily be seen as a traget for articles that only have a couple of lines of content. If we make it small enough that even our stubs wouldn't be overwhelmed it will look ridiculous because our feature articles often have quite significant lists - but it's a small number for the article. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think those tweaks are a good improvement. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, that looks pretty good. Nice tossing in of the WP:NOT#LINK to stress policy. What is the definition of "a small list of links?" (Requestion 07:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
- That could work too, it avoides the "alternative" wording, but implies that every article for which there are lots of links ought to have a directory. I also wonder if it really provide the sort of clear wording you need when working with entrenched link-adders? Could we consider leaving off A web directory may occasionally be appropriate and should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link, since this effectively says evaluate links in accordance with this guideline, site this under "Important points to remember": Long lists of links are not appropriate. Where editors have not reached consensus on a small list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory should be used until consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I asked this earlier but no one replied, perhaps the question was not seen. Just to test for what we mean by "directory", would About.com pages be considered directories? Now and then I see them on article pages and while I personally dislike about.com because of its aggressive advertising and popup ads, other editors have challenged me when I have tried to remove it. So what exactly is a directory? Buddhipriya 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't consider about.com to be a directory. I think of directories as pages that list related entities of some sort and provide contact information for them (for most of the directories we're likely to use this is normally a URL). Those "entities" could be organizations, but are most likely to be informational websites about a subject. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I asked this earlier but no one replied, perhaps the question was not seen. Just to test for what we mean by "directory", would About.com pages be considered directories? Now and then I see them on article pages and while I personally dislike about.com because of its aggressive advertising and popup ads, other editors have challenged me when I have tried to remove it. So what exactly is a directory? Buddhipriya 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think many people would describe About.com as a web directory. The article here doesn't, and I can't remember ever seeing it on the List of web directories. The site has some good content, but it may also have an objectionable amount of advertising.
- I also think "should be evaluated in the same manner as any other link" is needlessly wordy. Every external link needs to be evaluated, so the addition is essentially meaningless. I prefer the existing "a web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article" wording. Including the word category is important, because it indicates that contributors should add subpages of quality directories, and not the front pages of unknown vertical directories - EurekaLott 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Adding news articles to external links
User:EnviroGranny added some news articles (from yahoo, fox news, etc) to several wikipedia articles , without actually adding any text new to the article. I don't think we should be doing this. It just leads to a long list of external links. Instead, they should be added to the talk page or not added at all, if it doesn't tell the reader anything new. If they are used as references, it should be placed inline with the text. I don't know what the guideline says of this. Any comments? Pizzachicken 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You got it right: If these are possible sources for an article, add them as sources. I would suggest you move these links to talk, and invite editors to evaluate them and augment the article's content based on these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reliable sources often fall under the guideline of what we should be linking to. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think news article links are certainly by their nature going to be better types of links than most links put on articles, so barring some other unstated reason (too many links already?) I can;t for the life of me see why you wouldn;t want them there. If they are falsely listed as sources and have not been used as sources, then don;t have them in a Sources section, but don;t removed news article links from External links just because they are news articles. That sounds backwards to me. DreamGuy 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- That certainly does sound backwards to DreamGuy. Check his edit history. He regularly deletes large, informative, encyclopedic websites in favor of new articles that have little or no information found in the article and are often only a few paragraphs long. He's on a mission to clean out large numbers of external links that aren't news articles or professor home pages. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, I regularly delete large, websites that are UNRELIABLE, UNSOURCED, and often SHEER SPAM. The fact you continue to dispute these changes whereever they happen shows you don't understand the entire concept of the external links policy. If there are large sites that have actual RELIABLE and sources information, they certainly can stay whether they are news articles or sites by professors or whatever. But an encyclopedia simply cannot refer readers off to pages thrown together by people with no credentials or demonstrated knowledge whatsoever. It's completely irresponsible. DreamGuy 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheaters Detective Agency
References to information that doesn't exist on external links pages are being made up by Woxd. Please see Private investigator. Is this the appropriate section to make that complaint? Can the Private investigator and Cheaters Detective Agency pages be locked from editing please? I don't know how to approach this and this person is destroying my first works on Misplaced Pages. Alibond 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Diffs please? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alibond has had similar confrontations with others on Cheaters when someone has attempted to contribute unbiased information, and he once posted a request for others to help him attack me. If you have time, please review the discussions on the articles mentioned and Alibond's contributions on Misplaced Pages. Under these circumstances it is impossible for anyone to contribute meaningful unbiased information to Cheaters Detective Agency and Cheaters.
- The information Alibond is referring to was pulled by me off of the website owned by Cheaters Detective Agency. It was changed on the company's website soon after Alibond first commented on it.
- I changed it from this: Revision as of 00:08, 17 April 2007 Cheaters Detective Agency is a group of private investigators featured on, and licensed by the Cheaters television show.
- To this: Revision as of 12:11, 24 April 2007 Cheaters Detective Agency is a group of private investigators featured on, and licensed by the Cheaters television show.. The company is no longer actively accepting new assignments. Instead they are focused on providing business and marketing support to independently licensed agencies. My reference was the firm's website: http://www.cdacase.com/cda/License%20Interest%20page.html
- This is how my reference read on the Cheaters' web site when I retrieved it:
- Yes, Cheaters Detective Agency is Licensed, and in good standing, as a Private Investigative company in the State of CA under the CA Dept of Consumer affairs license# 2532. Although we maintain an active investigative license we are not actively accepting new work at this time, Instead we are completely focused on providing advertising, marketing, and investigative business support to licensed investigative agencies who choose to join the expanding Cheaters national brand, as independently licensed and operated offices.
- This is the same paragraph on the Cheaters' web site today:
- Yes, Cheaters Detective Agency is Licensed, and in good standing, as a Private Investigative company in the State of CA under the CA Dept of Consumer affairs license# 25322. Although we maintain an active investigative license, generally cases are directed to our nearest licensed office. We act as the headquarters office and also conducts most of the advertising, marketing, and investigative business support to many licensed investigative agencies who have chose to join the expanding Cheaters national brand, as independently licensed and operated offices.
- Google's cache still contains the text as I first found it: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ZM6mbWvAtlwJ:www.cdacase.com/cda/License%2520Interest%2520page.html+Yes,+Cheaters+Detective+Agency+is+Licensed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
- I referred to the same page when deleting a link to Cheaters Detective Agency on Private Investigator and I explained why in the discussion forum for that article (in the section "Cheaters Detective Agency"). I also deleted an 800 number and a link to a Cheaters business opportunity that Alibond had placed on Cheaters Detective Agency, I explained why in detail on the discussion forum for Cheaters Detective Agency. Woxd 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ratemyteachers.com & Studentsreview.com
I have been removing links to Ratemyteachers.com from school articles on the basis of criteria 2 and 11 in WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." and "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."
A couple of times other editors have replaced the links, claiming that RMT.com is appropriate. I just don't agree with that and I wonder if I'm behind the times. I can't find any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline about it besides the two that I've cited above. Has this been discussed anywhere? Why do people think that it's more acceptable to link to than a blog? ... discospinster talk 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like a well founded decision to me. There is no reason to link this site from school articles. Carry on ;). ∴ here…♠ 23:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- A similar site, www.studentsreview.com, should alo be removed when found. -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. Here are the links: Ratemyteachers.com and Studentsrreview.com. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up a few. Seems that one editor added exactly the same OR sentence with a link to ratemyteacher.com. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree with this 'policy'. Criteria 2 doesn't seem to be met as I don't feel they fall in to the 'factually inaccurate or misleading' or 'unverifiable' category. How do you determine the collective information provided by these review sites is any more accurate or any less misleading than any information provided by the schools themselves? Same with US News & World Report and other review sources. These links can provide useful information about schools, both positive and not-so-glowing. They also are independent of the school, so not controlled by the school. Criteria 11 doesn't seem to fit, either. These aren't blogs, they're collective reviews and/or ratings. Would we also ban links to Consumer Reports because of their reviews? How about any reference to book, movie, music, or other reviews? In the case of some schools, there is little meaningful and useful information released by the school aside from the occasional self-promoting press release, so sites and sources such as these, USNews, etc. provide a useful service. averagejoe 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with removing these. They aren't really a source of information, just a site where people can log on and make whatever comments they want, true or not. I don't see how these sites are any more relevant than linking to a forum or collection of blog responses. This isn't comparable to consumer reports or other published reviews, since in those cases we have an author/publication of the reviews - in this case it's just a collection of anonymous posts. --Minderbinder 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reputable publications have their imprimatur, while a collection of user generated content without an editorial process does not. We cannot attribute these reviews to these websites, as these websites are not responsible for user generated content. We can also not attribute the material to individual reviewers as these are anonymous. Thus, deleting these links is appropriate as per WP:V and this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V is about inclusion in WP and is irrelevant here.
- Reputable publications have their imprimatur, while a collection of user generated content without an editorial process does not. We cannot attribute these reviews to these websites, as these websites are not responsible for user generated content. We can also not attribute the material to individual reviewers as these are anonymous. Thus, deleting these links is appropriate as per WP:V and this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, note our policy of WP:NOT. The criteria for inclusion in WP is not "to provide a useful service", but to provide material that is verifiable and published in reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are usefull sites for sure, but they arn't quite the things that wikipedia's school articles should be linking to either... --T-rex 08:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely this is a guideline. As such, any local consensus of editors can override it, and people on link cleaning missions should respect that consensus, except where this guidline is a reflection of policy. I don't think this guideline gives editors authority to remove links favoured by a local consensus, no matter how neat and tidy it may be to remove all links of a given class, or to a given contentious site. Or am I wrong? Notinasnaid 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- But what do you mean by "local consensus"? ... discospinster talk 12:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it not the case that each article is effectively governed by the editors who choose to edit it and participate in discussions on its talk page, and that this is where a (local) consensus is formed; furthermore that this is the only consensus that counts (subject to policy)? Notinasnaid 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Local consensus is just another way of saying people ignoring what should be done by vote stacking. Local consensus is nonsense. Consensus should always be based upon the overall consensus of the encyclopedia, when known. On issues that have not been brought up elsewhere, going with a local consensus may work for lack of anything better to do, but when a broader consensus and guideline and policy comes about, that always is what people need to follow. DreamGuy 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is it not the case that each article is effectively governed by the editors who choose to edit it and participate in discussions on its talk page, and that this is where a (local) consensus is formed; furthermore that this is the only consensus that counts (subject to policy)? Notinasnaid 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
These kinds of websites certainly do not ate mentioning in any article unless the existence or content of a page on one of them somehow because newsworthy related to the topic. For example, if some teacher sues some site about such a page, or gets fired because of it. Otherwise it's just pure unencyclopedic nonsense, and likely to be spam as well. DreamGuy 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Local consensus" means that people who have staying power in editing an article and who care enough to comment on the article's talk page probably have a better idea of which external links are most appropriate on a subject than does a drive-by editor on a mission to clean out all links that don't meet his personal interpretation of WP:EL. External links are NOT sources and should not always be held up to the same standards as sources unless they are also used in that way (in which case, they should probably be deleted from the external links section to avoid duplication). Otherwise, we end up with great, informative and large websites deleted in favor of short, uninformative websites that happen to be BBC News articles or the rantings of some professor. People who regularly edit an article and are informed about a topic should have some idea as to whether an external link is a useful resource, unreliable bunk, or spam. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, local consensus means a small handful of people whoi think they WP:OWN an article regularly ignore policy. And you're the prime example of this. And your wikistalking me everywhere is getting really annoying. DreamGuy 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let's run with this a bit. Suppose you or I remove an external link from an article, citing this guideline. It is consistently reverted by one of many of the regular editors of the article, who simply state "no consensus for change". Attempts to raise it on the talk page come to the same conclusion. What would your next move be? Is there some grounds for warning each and every one of the editors, and if so, what is the warning? Or is there somewhere we can recruit an angry mob to change the balance of consensus in the article? Notinasnaid 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Talking about this in an abstract way, rather than in relation to a specific case, you might start by considering whether the consensus of the regular editors is appropriate and that this guideline should be over-ruled in that instance. There are no warnings for people acting in good faith who disagree with your opinion on what's appropriate. If you still think it's an unreasonable link, to the extent you're not comfortable with it staying, you can ask for a request for comment, or post on an appropriate WikiProject or some other neutral place to get input. Of course it doesn't mean the new editors will support you over the regular editors. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
City/State listings
I would like clarification on whether or not information links like Starting a Business, Small Business Community, Small business Administration, Office of the Secretary of State etc are valid links. for example:
Business
- Start a Business in Minnesota
- Small Business Community of Minnesota
- Small business Administration of Minnesota
- Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State forms and documents
I would have thought no one would think not. But I was mistaken. Is this valid content? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiamori (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
- I checked your contribution history, and you appear to have added the same set of links to the articles on about 20 different towns in Minnesota. The above four links seem to have the common theme of 'starting a small business in Minnesota.' Since they have a how-to aspect, I would argue they don't belong anywhere, per WP:NOT. If they go anywhere, I argue it should be only in the Economy of Minnesota article. Links to four articles on how to start a business don't help anyone interested in Rochester, MN learn more about Rochester. So they don't have encyclopedic value. EdJohnston 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense, I've submitted them to economy of Minnesota Thanks Kiamori
- Thanks for your response. I respectfully suggest that you remove these links from the individual towns. And would it be possible for you to put something on your user page, at User:Kiamori? Since this page is blank, this makes your signature show up as a red link, which sometimes suggests inexperience. EdJohnston 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposal on BAN of links to Political Party websites
IO thought this up while thinking up a response on the talk page of Saskatchewan New Democratic Party. I'll make this quick and to the point: I propose a ban on all external links to political party sites, their affiliates/non-profits/caucuses/ect (with one exception, the parties article should have a link to a home page because that is relevant) . The reasons for include that parties (esp. opposition) are very likely to publish things against other parties, possibly fugging the details in the process. All in all, they are not ever a source of NPOV, and a link to a news site is better in every case. Anyone? Comments? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- In general, this is a bad idea as a policy. Why should be intuitively obvious. Αργυριου (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Links to outside sources do not have to be NPOV, the POV of the site just has to be apparent to anyone going there, which it definitely would be in these cases. A political party website is pro-their own party, obviously. Banning the very sites most directly representing the view of the topic of the article is a horrible, horrible idea. What's next, removing all the company home pages from articles about those companies because they are pro-themselves? IT's completely unworkable and not at all what the External links policy is about. DreamGuy 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I mean when parties publish articles on their website who's only purpose is to attack the other parties, then someone will go and put it in the article and reference it (and people should know that referencing to a basic propaganda site can't pass RS). Do we need to put every rumour that the Democrats post on their site about the Republicans on Republicans? No, of course not! We already follow this (for the most part) by not doing this. We might just want to formalize it so that newbies can understand right away that they can't (instead of politely asking them 20 times not to link to the site, followed by a block for linkspam).
- And of course you link the party from the article (if you actually read my post and not just the title you'd see that). I have not proposed removing all links, just the ones not relevant to topics (like on Republicans saying "the Democrats say this and this about the Republicans). Now please go re-read this several times so that I don't have to repeat myself later and you accuse me of asking to ban external links from relevant articles. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are arguing not about removing links from External links but from not allowing biased sources as citations for claims of fact. Of course biased references should not be treated as factual, but they can be used to cite proof that someone has made a claim. Reporting that people make biased claims is not being biased yourself, it's just reporting the facts. Now of course some claims are minor enough that including them at all is "undie weight" per NPOV policy, but that has to be hashed out at the article level. Banning all political sites just is completely unworkable. DreamGuy 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Official websites
Is there absolutely no exception to the inclusion of official websites. I know EL guidelines state, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." (emphasis added), but is "should" all-inclusive regardless of what the official website has to offer. Either way, it would be nice if the guidelines were modified to clarify the issue.
The reason I am asking is that I recently found myself caught up in a dispute regarding an official website. Basically, I didn't believe a website that offers very little about a person other than promoting his/her products/services should be added to that person's biographical article.
Similarly, I don't believe the Microsoft official website should be on Bill Gates's article, otherwise one could argue that the Microsoft website should be added to every article related to Microsoft, and doing so would add unnecessary redundancy — almost to point of giving a *spammy* feeling to wikipedia, which I know is not the intent.
Anyhow, I am not trying to carry on the previous dispute here, as the matter was settled through consensus and I shall respect the outcome, but as I have mentioned earlier, I would appreciate if some clarification was made in the guidelines to avoid such matters in the future. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the site is the official site then I can see very few reasons why you wouldn't link to it from the article. In the examples you gave I would definitely link to the sites. That doesn;t make Misplaced Pages spammy, providing that the article isn't spam in the first place. If the article meets Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion then a link (one link, more than that, say to other parts of the same site, is spammy) is certainly called for in all but extreme circumstances (illegal content, etc.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs).
- By "spammy" I meant in cases where the official website is attached to 100 articles, or possibly more. As mentioned, I know the intention by the individual poster was probably not to spam, but rather to make a seemingly very legitimate edit. Yet, taking all into consideration, it does feel like an ingenious method of circumventing our spamming policies.
- Again, that is just my point of view, so if the consensus is to keep the status quo, it's fine with me. However, I would like, if possible, to have this reflected into the actual guidelines including the exceptional cases you've noted above so that it becomes easier to argue a point if a similar case arises in the future.
- Lastly, if you feel this is an isolated case and that it's unlikely to recur, then I'm fine with keeping the current form of the external links guidelines as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- If an individual has an official website then it probably should be linked to. Linking to the home page of the Microsoft website from articles on Microsoft products or from Bill Gates doesn't seem so appropriate - I'd say a link to a product's page (or page about Bill Gates - depending on its content) on the Microsoft site would probably be appropriate and a wikilink to the Microsoft article (which I would hope would be in the main body of text). If you're talking about a big organization, it's conceivable there are products etc. out there where the manufacturer no longer has any info on their website about it. In those cases I don't see the point in linking to the company's website if we have a Wikipediia article on the company - just wikilink to the company article instead. But I think those are uncommon circumstances and are best dealt with by building a consensus on the talk page about what is best for readers. There maybe respected fan sites or an archive that provide good info, or the company's site may be the best think for some other reason. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
while we're talking about 'web directories'... botw.org
What is the general consensus on the quality & relevance of Best of the Web Directory ? It has been in existence for a long time, but has relatively few links here. Is it a possible alternative to DMOZ? I ask because over the last few days, it has been added to about a dozen pages by a small number of users ( Linksearch results ). This type of activity normally suggests the link in question is being spammed, but I'm a fan of "intelligent use of quality web directories" and most of the pages it was added to are subjects that(IMHO) could use a directory link. --Versageek 17:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of allowing this commercial directory because it requires payment ($200 one time or $70/year ) to get your site listed and displays advertiser sites first. Calltech 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here is one of the main link builders Special:Contributions/MisterCharlie who today alone has added 14 links to BOTW. Calltech 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that is some serious spamming. Looks like it is all cleaned up now. I've been sitting on the fence post about this DMOZ debate. There definitely has to be some wording about non-commercial directories or we are going to have more of this kind of thing. I can see it now, a spamming link farmer will point to WP:EL as a defense. (Requestion 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC))
- Careful where you throw that "s" word around. I was merely adding relevant external links in a manner consistent with how other external links were being applied. Not some irrelevant links. And as I stated earlier (below), if there is a decision that this is no bueno, that would be the last you see of these. We are most certainly not looking to spam your project, or hinder your efforts in any way. MisterCharlie 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that is some serious spamming. Looks like it is all cleaned up now. I've been sitting on the fence post about this DMOZ debate. There definitely has to be some wording about non-commercial directories or we are going to have more of this kind of thing. I can see it now, a spamming link farmer will point to WP:EL as a defense. (Requestion 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC))
- Sorry about that. Didn't intend to be throwing that "s" word around in front of, uhh, exuberant linkers. This WP:EL page is for talking about the policy of external links. Someone should open up a botw.org thread over at WT:WPSPAM. (Requestion 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
- With the help of an assistant, I have been trying to add the listings in a manner that we felt added to the quality of the page. The BOTW directory has a lot of categories, and we are by no means attempting to add category pages that don't contribute as a resource to the wiki page. Additionally, we have been adding them to pages that already contain a relevant DMOZ listings as well, so the external link isn't coming from out of left field. Each of the BOTW category pages that were added as an external link went to a category that contains pretty comprehensive resources for the subject matter. And yes, we are a commercial directory - just as the Yahoo directory is a commercial directory. We do not require that you pay to "get your site listed", but we do offer an expedited review fee for those who wish to submit their site. On the flip side, we employ a team of editors that include tens of thousands of sites on a weekly basis at no cost to the site owner - simply to build a comprehensive resource of quality sites. As fellow netizens, we respect what it is you are trying to do, and certainly do not want to interfere with the project. We would love to be included in the "intelligent use of quality web directories", but should the consensus decide otherwise, I will of course refrain from adding additional links going forward. MisterCharlie 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are by definition spamming the Misplaced Pages. Please read this guideline and stop adding any links to your directory. Any of the links you added should be reverted. 2005 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Having looked at Special:Contributions/MisterCharlie and the BOTW link that was added today to the Final Fantasy article, I agree that all these links should be undone, per WP:EL, 'Links normally to be avoided'. EdJohnston 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are by definition spamming the Misplaced Pages. Please read this guideline and stop adding any links to your directory. Any of the links you added should be reverted. 2005 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Unclear sentence
I moved this from the links to be avoided section, because I can't figure out what it means. SlimVirgin 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
- I restored it, as there was no consensus to remove it. If you get people to agree it should be removed, THEN remove it. DreamGuy 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Slimvirgin - that sentence is supposed to stop people adding links in place of writing content (i.e. putting i a link to a brief biography instead of adding the bio details to the article). Can you think of better wording that would be more easily understood? -- Siobhan Hansa 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Another way of saying this, SM, would be, in the positive rather than the negative would be: "Link only to these sites that are factually accurate and verifiable". Which is already addressed elsewhere in the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Broken wikilink in normally avoided #2
In #2, the "See Reliable sources" points to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Using online sources, which no longer exists. The text that used to be there now seems to be at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/examples#Use of electronic or online sources. I'd make the change, but I only lightly follow the action here, so I'll leave it to the regulars. AndroidCat 17:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
EL to be reliable sources: Possible?
Policy currently states:
- Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
Does this mean each EL link has to be a reliable source? How is that even possible to determine for a website link? RS applies to the content of an article, not to an External link. Am I correct? There is virtually no article which doesnt have a "non-reliable" link on the EL section. The criteria should be relevance and quality of the Exteral Link. I'm having a debate right with an editor over a controversial article where he removed some of the EL's are not reliable sources. Thats only because they're telling another viewpoint of his faith with which he doesnt agree with. If he's asked he'll reply that the information on the link is not accurate or verifiable. I disagree. This is a problem for Controversial articles, as you can see. Whats the solution for this and other cases like this? --Matt57 23:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Does this mean each EL link has to be a reliable source?" No. That passage just states that factually innacurate and unverifiable original research that misleads ALSO can't be externally linked to, and instead of defining it again, it just refers to where reliable sources define it. 2005 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. What should be done in the case of controversial subjects? One group of editors will say its not accurate, the others will say it is. --Matt57 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Accurate in what way? 2+2=4 or Islam is the one religion of the one God? Someone can say "it is factually inaccurate to say the world is round" but that assertion of innacuracy is not demonstrably provable. A link can say Islam is the one religion of God because that presents one point of view, and can't be demonstrably shown to be innaccurate. 2005 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. What should be done in the case of controversial subjects? One group of editors will say its not accurate, the others will say it is. --Matt57 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it has to be a reliable source. Otherwise why to link to it? EL section is not a dumping ground for material that is not compliant with WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Being a "reliable source" is not the same as WP:RS. It obviously would be stupid to have two guidelines if one was supposed to be the same as the other. Misplaced Pages external links do not have to meet the same criteria as sources. That's the current fact. If you want to propose to merge WP:EL with WP:RS go ahead, but that is not the status quo. 2005 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just read the lead to this guideline. It is all spelled out there: Misplaced Pages articles can include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If a site contains material that is factually inaccurate (violates WP:V or unverifiable research (that violates NOR and V). Remember that RS is a guideline, but WP:NOR and WP:V are policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about controversial articles like those on Islam? Half of the links are critical of Islam, half are not. Half the editors will claim some links are not accurate, while the other half will say they are. So I assume if we can prove that the site is accurate, then it should stay there, correct? Thats the only way to go about it? I'll change the title of my section here, did not mean to be that dramatic about it. --Matt57 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If a site contains material that is factually inaccurate (violates WP:V or unverifiable research (that violates NOR and V). Remember that RS is a guideline, but WP:NOR and WP:V are policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion should not be framed around the critical nature of a linked site. Rather, it should be framed on the quality of the content, its accuracy and its reliability:
- When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.
- ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you tell me the name of article in question, I can take a look and offer some assistance in the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats a good guideline. Thanks for the offer to help. Here are two examples (,) of people removing links saying these are not reliable sources. This is completely wrong and this is just one article. These links are critical of Islam but the editors who removed them do not agree with the viewpoints and they removed them now. Thats probably their actual motivation for removing them. How can this be dealt with citing WP policy? If what they did is against policy only then can this be easily tackled. This is a complicated issue for Controversial articles as you can see. All articles for Islam are spammed with links which may not be reliable. I take that if the content of a link can be verified that its reliable? But, how do we verify all the content of a webpage? This looks difficult. --Matt57 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will take a look and comment on the article's talk page, if I have anything useful to contribute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
- Your mission is not to verify all contents of a website. That's a fool's errand. Misplaced Pages doesn't do that. Some external links would never make it as sources. For example, we could link to the Vatican's website from a variety of articles, and use it as a source for some things, but it could never be used as a source for: "The one and only God is a Catholic God." Obviously the Vatican's website does not have a neutral point of view about the true nature of God. But it is perfectly valid to link to the Vatican site (as well as others with conflicting opinions) from external links. 2005 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. It most acceptable to use the Vatican website to assert that their viewpoint is "The one and only God is a Catholic God". You are confusing WP:RS with WP:NPOV. RS discusses the reliability of sources, WP:NPOV discusses attributing significant viewpoints to those that hold them. What we are discussing here is the reliability of the linked site. Is the Vatican a reliable source for the curia's theological viewpoints. Of course! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just take the Vatican website and use the criteria established in RS:What is a reliable source. Is it a reliable source, or not? Of course it is. The take this EL http://www.americablog.com/ and apply the same criteria. Can that site be considered reliable for anything else than in an article about the blog? Of course not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- In a nutshell this is where you get confused. Yes we can cite the vatican website that it is THEIR OPINION that God is a Catholic God, which you need to see is not the point. What we can't do is have this line in an article "The one God is a Catholic God." and then cite the Vatican site for that statement. Clearly they have a point of view and can't be a reliable source for THIS PARTICULAR statement. On the other hand, they could be a perfectly reliable source for "Pope Urban the XXV was pope from 1312 to 1325." On the other hand, we can link to the Vatican site's 500 page discussion of the nature of God from the nature of God article. Perhaps your confusion can be cleared up thusly: "External links need to be able to meet the criteria for reliable sources for something; they don't need to meet the criteria for the article they are linked." Another example would be the Reagan library site could be a fine external link on the Ronald Reagan article. It could be a useful source for his birthdate. But this line "Ronald Reagan was the greatest president ever" could not be added to the article with a cite from a Reagan library page saying that. It's an important distinction. External links have to be the sort of site that could qualify as an source in general, but not everything the site says needs to qualify as sourceable material. Again, in a nutshell, external links can present a point of view. Sources can not, except when saying it is a point of view. Citing "Ronald Reagan is the greatest president ever" does not make it so. Linking to a site that says that is fine. In terms of the issue raised here, if something on a site is demonstrably, plainly untrue in an objective way, it should not be linked. However something that says either "Islam is a false religion" or "Islam is the one and only religion" could be linked. 2005 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats a good guideline. Thanks for the offer to help. Here are two examples (,) of people removing links saying these are not reliable sources. This is completely wrong and this is just one article. These links are critical of Islam but the editors who removed them do not agree with the viewpoints and they removed them now. Thats probably their actual motivation for removing them. How can this be dealt with citing WP policy? If what they did is against policy only then can this be easily tackled. This is a complicated issue for Controversial articles as you can see. All articles for Islam are spammed with links which may not be reliable. I take that if the content of a link can be verified that its reliable? But, how do we verify all the content of a webpage? This looks difficult. --Matt57 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you tell me the name of article in question, I can take a look and offer some assistance in the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- ????? We are not talking about sources to support an edit. We are talking about the external links section in articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Um, exactly. I hope that clears up your confusion. The passage cited at the beginning of this section refers to reliable sources to explain something, but to answer the original question, every page on an external link most definitely does not need to qualify as a reliable source for that article to be listed as an external link. It should though qualify as something verifiable and authoritative in general. 2005 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Another way to summarize it is to say that someone can't object to an external link simply because they went through a linked to site and found a single sentence that was not verifiable or offered an opinion as fact ("greatest president ever"). 2005 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- ????? We are not talking about sources to support an edit. We are talking about the external links section in articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point, I am afraid. This is what I am referring to: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (From WP:RS)l and this from WP:V: In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. A website that is of questionable reliability, should NOT be linked to. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well of course, and also not the issue. THIS guideline makes it clear what can or can not be linked to. WP:RS covers sources, not external links. Not-coincidentally they basically say the same thing, but the guideline to refer to when considering the reliability and worthiness of an external link is this one, not WP:RS. In answer to the original question, WP:RS was mentioned only so as not to say the same thing in two places. 2005 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point, I am afraid. This is what I am referring to: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (From WP:RS)l and this from WP:V: In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. A website that is of questionable reliability, should NOT be linked to. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with 2005 here. I think WP:EL is much too strict. The criteria for a useful link should be very different (and substantially weaker) than the criteria for a reliable source. IMHO a link should exist when its likely to be useful to our readers. A source needs to be strong enough that we are comfortable putting their information into wikipedia's voice inside an article. jbolden1517 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree with jossi on this. If wiki is to be a quality encyclopedia, then it shouldn't link to garbage. True that a link need not be scholarly, but it should be reliable.Bless sins 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't we argue about what's actually being advocated. Nobody is arguing for linking to garbage, what they are arguing for is linking to information that is useful but not necessarily reliable. For example linking a biographical article to a blog of the person its about. Not a reliable source of information but interesting for the reader of the bio. jbolden1517 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- A a biographical article link to a blog of the person its about, is a reliable source. See WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it a reliable source? It isn't peer reviewed, it isn't fact checked. There is no history to verify that what's said one day isn't changed. The person doing the writing is highly biased and motivated away from a NPOV. This is exactly the point of discussing this kind of link, from a RS standpoint its terrible yet from a providing information (that is not wikipedia's voice) it is very useful.
Another similar example would be a political speech. Linking to the full text of the speech might be useful for determine what was said but not for what is true. jbolden1517 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, whatever concensus is reached, please change the article page accordingly. If the article says "See Reliable sources", then users will continue to interpret this as meaning ELs must satisfy the conditions imposed under the article WP:RS.Bless sins 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Then link, by all means
>> "When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means."
- Who wrote that? You explain to this guy at User talk:Requestion#Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction that WP:EL#What to link does not mean any website that contains reliable content and is somehow related to the article topic has a right to get a link. And that it doesn't mean everybody who removes a spamlink is a cyber-bullying fundamentalist. Femto 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was added a couple weeks ago by Jossi (April 21st). I don't see any discussion on that. AndroidCat 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there are objections about the wording, let's discuss. I am under the impression that it is simply explaining policy, as all guidelines should. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that section should be reworded to stress what the focus is. Maybe I'm wrong, but the focus to me seems to be how to get content in an external link to be used in an article. Isn't this what an article's discussion page for? The problem Femto mentioned that I'm having with my workforall.net nemesis is that they are interpreting this section literally as an open license to add any external link spam that they see fit. (Requestion 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
- By the way, in case I came across a little grumpy, I apologize — but just read the abovelinked complaint by someone whose spam got removed to see what kind of reasoning this little paragraph is causing! In the eyes of those who desperately fight to get their links included it's a blanket permission. Against it, you cannot justify the removal of a link anymore. Even WP:COI and WP:SPAM become irrelevant because "what to link" seems to override the weaker "should avoid" language of later sections. The "What to link" section already refers to the "following guidelines" for further details; these explanations are simply out of place there and should be removed entirely. Femto 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Against it, you cannot justify the removal of a link anymore." I don't know what you mean by that. The guideline strongly prevents linking to garbage, and requires sites jump through pretty high hoops to be linked. I don't have an opinion I guess on out of place-ness and need for the passage, but the most important point is we have an entire guideline, not a bunch of unrelated sentences, and summarizing sentences are not specifics. If someone is adding inappropriate links, one sentence or passage here doesn't give them the licensce to do that in the face of the rest of the guideline. 2005 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- How do you defend against: "My links are fully compatible with the guideline. They're a useful resource, tasteful, informative, factual, and impossible to summarize in the article. You're a vandal if you remove them. They should be linked, WP:EL#What to link said so right here." - Even if you eventually manage to get through to someone that in spite of the positive language in this section the rest of the guideline still applies, that's an exercise I'd rather do without. Femto 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"you may then consider adding that link" is a major improvement over "then link, by all means". 2005 23:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- That new wording would be a good improvement. Even better would be to mention posting the link on the discussion page and talking about it. Isn't "sourcing" the focus of that section of text? (Requestion 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
- I wonder if the paragraph isn't getting us into instruction creep - we should ask ourselves how useful it is to keep adding more text to the guideline and and what this bit is really trying to achieve. But if it's to stay, I like 2005's suggestion, and emphasizing using the talk page can also be good. Also we could begin the paragraph with "When assessing external links you need to start by asking yourself" instead of "simply ask", which should help emphasize there's not a simple test and as long as your link passes the test it's on the page. And I think we need to make sure the "reliable sources" description here is the same as elsewhere in the guideline? -- Siobhan Hansa 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is an improvement. Why does this section of text encourage the editor twice to add the external link? In my experience nobody needs to be encouraged to add links, they'll do that on their own. Also, isn't this section about "sourcing?" Can't we cut out all that adding cruft and just say post it to the talk page? (Requestion 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
- If it's about sourcing I think it needs rewording significantly since I didn't get that when I read it :-) So it's supposed to make people stop and think "Is the link I want to add really further reading? Or is it something that would be a useful source to build the article from?" and then get them to act appropriately? -- Siobhan Hansa 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- If that section isn't about sourcing then what is it about? For sourcing purposes, why not let all the other WP:EL rules determine if it's a good external link candidate. No need for any special exceptions. (Requestion 00:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
- I made a suggestion below about wording for another sentence that I think overlaps this one. If I'm right about what these two are supposed to mean, I think it makes sense to amalgamate them. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like us to take a stab at rewording or eliminating this paragraph. Even with the recent tweaks I find it unclear and (I think) unnecessary. Do others agree it's basically covered by the Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. point in "links to be avoided"? If not, what is in this paragraph that isn't in that sentence? -- Siobhan Hansa 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think just get rid of it for the time being. It was added without consensus and most editors in this conversation find major problems with it. Could be proposed later with different wording. Nposs 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it's problematic and creepy. No matter how refined the wording, you cannot adequately explain in one paragraph what this is trying to convey. Removed it. Let's keep something like "When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." though. Femto 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, Siobhan - I don't think it adds anything to the article, and we are seeing instances of editors trying to twist the wording in this EL document to get what they want and otherwise circumvent the WP common understanding of how things are done. Keep it simple. Femto, I agree to delete it for now. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good solution everybody. It simplifies, it reduces some confusing wording, and it stresses WP:CONSENSUS policy by suggesting discussion. I like it. (Requestion 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
Multiple official sites
Can someone weigh in on the external links for Verio? It's one of those articles where depending on how you look at it, there could be many "official" sites. --Ronz 15:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to be an acceptable number of links there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Care to explain why you find the links acceptable? --Ronz 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Opening up the spam can of worms
OK. I'm going to give this a shot. I'll probably lose but...
- Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services... (#4 under to avoid)
I think this is too strong, or at least it is interpreted too strong. Most websites exist primarily to sell a product or service or to push a particular POV. Arguable the NYTimes websites exist primarily to sell their archives and columnist sections. I'd like to propose we weaken this to:
- Links to sites where the link's effect or purpose on wikipedia would be primarily marketing related, that is to sell products or services
So do I have any support for this at all or lone voice in the wilderness? jbolden1517 22:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The current text is one of the clearest in the guideline so I'd leave it. 2005 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it is very clear. I just think its incorrect. That plus bans on strongly POV websites if actually applied fairly it would kill almost every link on this site. jbolden1517 23:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Concur with 2005. And you are right, it would open up commercial website spammers to all forms of creative lawyering. Calltech 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've always found that line to be quite clear. Unless I'm missing something NYTimes websites don't seem to be being removed because of the wording do they? -- Siobhan Hansa 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- No NYTimes was meant as an extreme example just to show that the guideline as written (and rigorously applied) is a problem. But for example a few days ago a web app that walked a buyer through a well written comparison of various mainstream bike brands was deleted under this guideline. There is no question that was a useful link to our readers. And there is no question that the bike stores intent was for you to walk into the store with a clear idea of what you wanted to buy. But who cares? jbolden1517 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd probably care about that. Advice about a product from a place that is trying to sell you the product ought to be considered suspect by default - not necessarily in a mean way, they're doing their best to serve customers within the context of their business. But there's an inherent conflict of interest that ought to make this a non-default decision. If the link isn't added by someone affiliated with the bike shop and editors can agree the advice is unbiased you can probably build a consensus on the talk page to over-ride the guideline in the best interests of the article. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- We can't stop people reading things in obtuse ways, but the sentence seems as clear as it can be stated. Pages that primarily sell a product should not be linked to. The New york Times is a newspaper. Sure it wants to make money, but it obviously is not what is being addressed. of all the things in the guideline this is one that there almost never is a problem with. If a page is just selling DVD it can be linked to. If a page has a detailed review of the DVD that qualifies under the guideline to be linked, the fact it also sells the DVD doesn't disqualify it. 2005 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- No NYTimes was meant as an extreme example just to show that the guideline as written (and rigorously applied) is a problem. But for example a few days ago a web app that walked a buyer through a well written comparison of various mainstream bike brands was deleted under this guideline. There is no question that was a useful link to our readers. And there is no question that the bike stores intent was for you to walk into the store with a clear idea of what you wanted to buy. But who cares? jbolden1517 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Would everybody agree with that sort of wording? Something like, Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services... (4a) However, if an editor not affiliated with the commercial site wishes to add a link to such a site, they are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page. While there is an inherent conflict of interest in adding any commercial site, a consensus of editors should feel free to link to pages where the information is unbiased and useful to readers even if the site itself is not? jbolden1517 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's just the wrong direction. There is no "inherent conflict of interest". There is only meritable material that qualifies under the guideline. Basically, does a page merit a link if the widget-selling aspect is ignored? If a Michelin site goes into exhaustive, authoritative detail about the automobile tire, the fact is what matters, not that they happen to want you to buy their tires. Do other reliable/authoritative/meritable sites consider the michelin site reliable/authoritative/meritable or not? Don't go down the instruction creep path. Have a clear statement in a clear guideline. Links that merit links get linked. What we are saying is a page that simply sells a product does not merit a link. 2005 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- 2005 the people reading it that way aren't being obtuse, they are following the guideline as written. And that's the problem the language in the guideline is very strong, "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.". This addresses the site not the page. "Links to pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" would also solve the problem jbolden1517
- The problem with "Links to pages ..."' instead of sites is that a common spammer technique is to add links to seemingly harmless info-mercials that are just one click away from their goal. In the case of your bicycle website example, if the site was that great, then why didn't they just override WP:EL with a WP:CONSENSUS? (Requestion 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
- Because there are a lot of legalists who are concerned about creating a precedent for spammers. In other words there was a consensus that the link would be useful to the readers and there was a consensus that the primary purpose of the site (and the wizard) was to help people pick which bike to buy (from that store). It just so happens that helping people pick the right mainstream bike brand is actually fairly useful.
- Now I didn't understand your point about harmless info-mercials one click away.... Could you elaborate? jbolden1517 00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about precedents as much as I'm worried about spammers interpretering WP:EL incorrectly and using that against me. Simpler rules would reduce this problem. What I meant by "harmless info-mercials" is a funnel strategy, something that can slip by the spam radar but still get the PR juice. (Requestion 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
Shorter version
OK howabout, Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services... (4a) However, if an editor not affiliated with the commercial site wishes to add a link to such a site, they are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page. A consensus of editors should feel free to link to pages where the information is unbiased and useful to readers even if the site itself is not" ? jbolden1517 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This just seems like an unnecessarily fine distinction to make. If it is a great link, it should stand up to the process of consensus building (which could include reversions and discussions on the talk page.) This is just a guideline, after all, and there's always the possibility of "ignoring the rules" for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Nposs 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Unclear sentence
I moved this from the links to be avoided section, because I can't figure out what it means. SlimVirgin 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
- I restored it, as there was no consensus to remove it. If you get people to agree it should be removed, THEN remove it. DreamGuy 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't restore such poor writing, please. What does it mean? SlimVirgin 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you just don't understand how things work here. DON'T REMOVE THINGS you don't understand. It has a long consensus to stay here, it is necessary, and if you don't understand then don't mess with it. Get freaking consensus BEFORE going ballistic all over the page. That's a simple, basic, fundamental concept here on a project page of this standing. I could understand if you were just some newbie who doesn't understand how things work, but you've been here for years. Taking it upon yourself to delete whole sections, especially when you KNOW people are opposed to their removal, us way, way out of being bold territory into acting like you think you just just up and make all the rules yourself and expect other people to just accept them. Knock it off. DreamGuy 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't restore such poor writing, please. What does it mean? SlimVirgin 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Slimvirgin - that sentence is supposed to stop people adding links in place of writing content (i.e. putting i a link to a brief biography instead of adding the bio details to the article). Can you think of better wording that would be more easily understood? -- Siobhan Hansa 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why would it always be a bad thing for people to do that, Siobhan? SlimVirgin 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The reasoning that I've seen in the past is two fold:
- That throwing links into the EL section isn't an appropriate way to add content to an article from a "think of the readers" perspective.
- That, much as we're stricter on Fair use images than we have to be in order to encourage people to make available more free content, we should be stricter on the EL section to encourage people to create actual GFDL and encyclopedic content, since EL's are the least valuable content people can provide for an article.
- Come to think of it, the "unique" wording was also important - in order to ensure we didn't get 5 links to (non-copyvio) videos of the people in a sailing boat, nine almost identical deep bios, or 233 versions of the same or similar interviews etc..
- The reasoning that I've seen in the past is two fold:
- Why would it always be a bad thing for people to do that, Siobhan? SlimVirgin 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I had a brief look through the archives but couldn't find the discussions I remember. These isn't my position 100% - so I may not have captured the argument entirely accurately. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Another way of saying this, SM, would be, in the positive rather than the negative would be: "Link only to these sites that are factually accurate and verifiable". Which is already addressed elsewhere in the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- This line is more about encouraging people to add content, not ensuring the links are reliable (which as you say, is mentioned elsewhere). In fact it might be more like the section Jossi added that we've been discussing above - now that (I think) I understand that one... -- Siobhan Hansa 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- But it doesn't mean anything as written. Please don't keep restoring it. It's really bad writing. SlimVirgin 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Others have found it to be useful. Please don't simply delete it. Would something else work instead? Like:Links should not duplicate or significantly overlap content already provided, either in the article itself or in other external links. If the link you want to add contains content that ought to be in the article, please rewrite the content for Misplaced Pages (using the page as a source), rather than adding it as an external link. this feels a bit long-winded and clumsy, but I'm trying to start with clarity over neat wording. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- But it doesn't mean anything as written. Please don't keep restoring it. It's really bad writing. SlimVirgin 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This one to me is more about keeping people from adding a linkfarm, especially ones that are repeat info (both in other links and the article) and links that aren't reliable sources. Mostly I think it is to discourge the EL section from being a link directory; no other item mentions such in the list. JoeSmack 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What's with the deleting?
Is there something else going on that I don't know about? A campaign to trim guidelines down, or a desire to go back to a golden age of Misplaced Pages when guidelines were perfect? Why the deletion of sections that have been guiding editors for some time as well as recently developed consensus? Is it so unreasonable to expect a bit more communication and cooperation about significant changes? This isn't exactly a sleepy guideline. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the writing in here is really poor, and apart from that the advice is wrong, inconsistent with the policies in some cases, and written in a very patronizing style as if for children. The writing needs to be tightened considerably, and the wording made consistent with the policies and best practice. SlimVirgin 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This, for example:
When assessing external links you need to start by asking the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it would never qualify to be used as a reliable source for anything," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you may link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is a reliable source", you may then consider adding that link as well. Better still, discuss in talk page with other editors about the appropriateness of adding any new links.
- It's just plain wrong. We link to all kinds of sites that wouldn't be used as a reliable source (except in an article about themselves, perhaps, but that includes just about everything). Also, there's no need to write as if two people are having a conversation. And we don't ("better still") discuss adding links on the talk page: if we had to do that, nothing would ever get done. SlimVirgin 02:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed on this removal. jbolden1517 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. SlimVirgin 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The section is already being discussed on this talk page above. Deleting the section without commenting in that discussion is a poor model of cooperation. Your edits do not reflect consensus on this talk page and your interpretation of policy is disputed by others. You've deleted sections that have recently been developed under consensus and other sections which you hadn't brought up on the talk page and clarified your objections to. It's very dramatic, but not particularly informative. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The rude and incomprehensible deletion has been fixed again. Slim Virgin you are acting beond rudely here. Please stop. This passage in particular has been discussed and agreed on by many editors who initally disagreed. Rudely ignoring consensus and removing it is just plain weird. 2005 04:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The section is already being discussed on this talk page above. Deleting the section without commenting in that discussion is a poor model of cooperation. Your edits do not reflect consensus on this talk page and your interpretation of policy is disputed by others. You've deleted sections that have recently been developed under consensus and other sections which you hadn't brought up on the talk page and clarified your objections to. It's very dramatic, but not particularly informative. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
sites with meaningful content
- "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
- Wrong; it might be very suitable. Changed to "Sites with relevant content that have not been used as a source for the article."
- "wrong"? If the definition of the site we're talking about is one that has "content that is not suitable for inclusion" saying "it might be very suitable" doesn't make any sense to me. If it were very suitable the section wouldn't apply to it. Also your proposed change implies that a site which is used as a source cannot then be used as an EL (at least that's how I read it. From a reader perspective external links serve different function from sources. If we have an proscription on using links to sites that are sources in our EL section we probably won't direct our regular readers to the best external further reading/viewing content that we could. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Long lists of links
- "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the {{linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template."
- Removed because of the Open Directory thing, which often supplies nonsense that we shouldn't be linking to.
- I think we need to provide some sort of alternative for very low quality links in large number. Like dmoz to all fan sights for the rolling stones in the rolling stones article or Or dmoz of republican blogs in a "republican party" article jbolden1517 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The wording is "a well chosen directory" and dmoz is provided as a possibility, it's not a requirement. Have you reviewed the discussion which built this consensus from a few days ago? This wasn't my first choice of wording (nor anyones I don't think) but I thought it was a good compromise that dealt respectfully with the things people wanted from the guideline. Do you have a new suggestion or some insight that might help define the issues better or address the ones that have been raised? I'm wondering because you say it's just the dmoz wording. But you didn't delete just the dmoz wording, so it seems like there may be more to this from your perspective. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Removed because of the Open Directory thing, which often supplies nonsense that we shouldn't be linking to.
- Previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_16#Open_Directory_Project_2. The guideline should stand, even without the DMOZ section for the time being while this is rehashed. Nposs 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Section should stay. Open Directory mention should stay. I constantly patrol pages for unencyclopedic links and spam and so forth. This is a hugely impotant section, as it's what I point to as explanation when I remove ten tons of crap/spam/vanity/etc. The Open Directory link is also a very helpful tactical decision to stave off people who want to add links they feel are justified. This is all necessary and should not be removed at a whim by some editor going wild. DreamGuy 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sites which fail to meet criteria
- "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article."
- Can someone give an example of such a site, other than the website of the subject of the article?
- An important political speech on a topic. Say for example a speech by the president. Political speeches aren't peer reviewed so they aren't RSes and politicians aren't authorities but this could still be a very important link. Another example might be information from highly biased but knowledgeable sources. Like co-conspirators in a crime. jbolden1517 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Material doesn't have to be peer-reviewed to be a reliable source. Political speeches are reliable primary-source material. Highly biased sources may also be reliable sources: almost all sources are biased. I can't think of a single example of a non-reliable source that contains information about the subject from knowledgeable sources, other than the subject's website/self-published material, which is dealt with elsewhere. That makes this a redundant and possibly confusing paragraph, which is why I removed it.SlimVirgin 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- An important political speech on a topic. Say for example a speech by the president. Political speeches aren't peer reviewed so they aren't RSes and politicians aren't authorities but this could still be a very important link. Another example might be information from highly biased but knowledgeable sources. Like co-conspirators in a crime. jbolden1517 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you are confused, that's fine, it's not confusing to most people, so it stays. If you'd like to SUGGEST a REWORDING so that people can understand it better, fine. Don't just remove it completely.DreamGuy 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can someone give an example of such a site, other than the website of the subject of the article?
Any site that does not provide a unique resource
- "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
- Removed because incomprehensible. I can't even figure out what it's trying to say.
- Perhaps you could particpate further in the discussion you started about it. We can work on the concept or wordsmith it there. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- As other editors have mentioned already, this is trying to express the important idea that the point of external links should be to amplify the content of articles, not draw away readers to other websites. It is intended to encourage editors to add content to Misplaced Pages rather than link to every site that is simply relevant to topic. It is worth finding a way to reword this and reincorporate it. Nposs 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a long standing part of the guideline. Just because somebody can't understand it is no reason to remove it, especially since it is quite clear and no explaination has been given for the lack of understanding. 2005 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
site registration
- "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."
- Would mean we couldn't link to the New York Times archives.
- News articles are more appropriate as references, and when used as references - adding a link to an article that requires registration is fine. The point of this guideline is to discourage people linking to whole websites that require a subscription (or other form of registration) to view the content. Nposs 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is a real problem with putting ELs in WP that are not just as accessible as WP is. So yes, this means we should avoid links to the closed areas of the NYT archives (note that the NYT archives are not entirely closed). There is longstanding consensus around this, and I have not so far seen a case where an alternative open source could not be found. UnitedStatesian 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think we agree: I don't believe that anything that requires registration should be linked in the external link section. References (which belong in the text of the article), however, can link to content that requires subscription to view. Nposs 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure. An article reference that is Web content requiring registration or subscription is bad - unhelpful, at least to some readers, and unable to be checked. This type of content is not a good source for WP articles. I am sure alternative sources can be found and referenced (by even - gasp! - using a non-internet reference instead!). UnitedStatesian 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This has been discussed on this page multiple times, and it seems like the consensus is that references are governed by a different set of guidelines. I would suggest that you move this discussion about links in references to the appropriate page. (The idea seems to be that providing a link to an online version of a reference (if one is available), even if it requires a subscription to view it (e.g. old NYT articles) is acceptable.) Nposs 03:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure. An article reference that is Web content requiring registration or subscription is bad - unhelpful, at least to some readers, and unable to be checked. This type of content is not a good source for WP articles. I am sure alternative sources can be found and referenced (by even - gasp! - using a non-internet reference instead!). UnitedStatesian 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think we agree: I don't believe that anything that requires registration should be linked in the external link section. References (which belong in the text of the article), however, can link to content that requires subscription to view. Nposs 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is a real problem with putting ELs in WP that are not just as accessible as WP is. So yes, this means we should avoid links to the closed areas of the NYT archives (note that the NYT archives are not entirely closed). There is longstanding consensus around this, and I have not so far seen a case where an alternative open source could not be found. UnitedStatesian 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- When we are linking to a few of the best available resources for a general readership, linking to sites that require subscription is rude not a courtesy, these aren't sources that we're going to mention anyway, they don't have to be in the article at all. Subscriptions also make it impossible for editors to compare sites to decide on the best selection of links or to see if a site is suitable without paying the fee. And allowing linking to subscription sites would bring us into a weird conflict with our guideline against linking to sites that primarily exist to sell a service. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto with site registration paragraph. No reason not to link to sites that require subscription as a courtesy to the reader. SlimVirgin 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Same disagreement here: Linking to sites that require registration is definitely NOT a courtesy to readers who expect links to open internet content. UnitedStatesian 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- As UnitedStatesian. less clear than subscription. But still to be avoided. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK with indicating a preference for non registration sites? jbolden1517 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Its absurd to not link to something that uses flash but link to registration pages, especially paid ones. There isn't any reason to link to registration pages unless we lift the prohibition to link to browser-specific sites and stuff like that. In any case removing the passage is completely inappropriate without a consensus to do so. 2005 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Massive non-discussed changes
There have been several major, undiscussed changes inflicted on this guideline today... very bizarrely after we seem to have settled on a consensus after much discussion. This is a guideline that states it is a product of consensus. I admit I have a hard time understanding the pure arrogance it takes to ignore the consensus statement at the top of the article, but no matter how rude you want to be, repeated changes that do not have a consensus are not going to be let in, no matter how many times you make a change. The registration stuff for example has been in there more than a year. Just removing it is beyond arrogant, but it is also just a waste of people's time because it isn't going to stay out unless there is a consensus to do so. Please play nice and make proposals for changes on this page, and don't make changes to the guideline because you don't like it or don't understand it. Use this page to convince others your position makes sense, and if you can't that's the way it is. 2005 04:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I'd add a suggestion. An incremental approach works much better: pick the one phrase in the GL that bothers you the most, and address it on the talk page, then move on to the next one. Trying to gain consensus for a wholesale rewrite of the GL in one shot is going to be extraordinarily difficult. UnitedStatesian 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. That's a very good point. The last major rewrite of this guideline took THREE MONTHS of discussion, including an entire workshop rewriting that people commented on. Making one change without consensus is one thing, but multiple major changes will never get anywhere as they will just be reverted if only to keep the lineage of the guideline coherent. If someone doesn't like something in the guideline, either choose one thing to discuss at a time, or do a workshop rewrite. Slashing and burning is if nothing else just a waste of everybody's time. 2005 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know what the heck some people think they are up to, but they can't just come in here and yank out whole sections that they disagree with. I reverted it the other day when one of the same editors tried to do so and I will also do it again in the future if I need to. This is a hugely important page and arbitrary removal of items that certain editors feel is inappropriate without any discussion is just ridiculous. So thanks, 2005, for undoing them. DreamGuy 18:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sentence Clarification/Deletion
In the intro section of this GL there is the sentence "Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references." This is confusing. For example: if the reference link is a reference for some NPOV or OR text in the article, the link will be deleted along with the bad text, as it should be. This sentence at least needs some modifier. Alternatively, since this GL has just finished stating that it does not apply to references, I think this sentence can be deleted completely. But it doesn't work standing alone. Comments? UnitedStatesian 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the sentence is meant to stand alone, The guideline of this article refers to external links other than citations. Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references. (emphasis mine). The sentence is question is part of a point, that this guideline applies to ELs and not RSs. jbolden1517 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I feel the "Care must be taken not to delete links that are being used as references." sentence should removed and replaced with a link to the appropriate WP:CITATION? guideline. This EL guideline does not need to be telling people to be careful. BTW, embedding external links in the references is one of the latest pro-spammer tricks since they see it as a safe haven. (Requestion 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
Proboards external links ban
What's up with this? Are Proboards sites actually banned from external links? If so, why?--Amadscientist 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are a couple versions of the url that show up in the wikimedia blacklist (meaning that they cannot be added to page), but there doesn't appear to be any ban. In general, links to forums are strongly discouraged under the external link guidelines for a number of reasons. They tend to fail important tests: encyclopedic content, no original research, verifiable, etc. Is there a specific example you are thinking of? Nposs 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Forums are almost NEVER encyclopedic. In fact I can't really think of any examples that would be acceptable. I delete any and all forums/message boards/discussion lists/etc. on sight. DreamGuy 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki's: "substantial number of editors"
I'd like to get additional opinions on a potential link to a wiki. The site has twelve thousand editors, and someone has argued that that number isn't "substantial" and that a hundred thousand would be required. That seems unrealistic if not borderline ridiculous. If anyone wants to join in the discussion, it is at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Lostpedia and the site for a potential link is Lostpedia . Thanks. --Minderbinder 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- 12,000 editors for a single purpose specialized wiki. You are talking something like 1/1000 viewers and a representative sample. I'd say that's easily enough assuming that more than a few hundred were active. Misplaced Pages has many more topics. jbolden1517 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting way to look at it. Feel free to weigh in on the article talk page, on this particular issue there seem to be a few editors who flatly reject any non-official links, regardless of whether they meet EL. It would be nice to get some outside opinions. --Minderbinder 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, the substantial number of editors thing doesn't in any way in and of itself make any wiki meet the standard guidelines for encyclopedic links. As a general principle, wikis competing with Misplaced Pages should not be linked to, as they have very drastic problems with verifiability, reliability, etc. There wouldn't be a wa of judging quality on other sites without seeing if they cite their information from reliable sources, etc. DreamGuy 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- They don't have to be reliable. He's not asking to cite just to link. In other words this is an issue of notability not reliability. jbolden1517 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's reputation rather than simple notability - we should still have an expectation that the material is reasonably accurate and it's not full of specious claims and coverage of unencyclopedic info. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Non-official sites that don't stand up to WP:RS fall under WP:EL links to avoid. Not sure if this site is reliable or not, but notability is not the only consideration. Nposs 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you all need to read the guideline, Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.. 12,000 fans of Lost on their primary wiki constitute a recognized authority on Lost. If you don't believe that, you don't believe that then what are you doing on wikipedia? We aren't talking medicine here this is a TV show, there isn't much that can be known. jbolden1517 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a peculiat position; 12,000 fans are a recognised authority? Recognised by whom? And why should a self-selected group of people with a strong point of view count as a reliable source? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the recognized authority issue is very much the point and not one we have a good answer to. We normally say it needs to be recognized by other experts in the field. With pop culture subjects we get into muddy water. Such experts are rarely academics or paid up members of an association. You get a few writers who concentrate on TV, but most of the time the experts pretty much are fans. In the end I think if this wiki is recognized by the Lost fan community as a significant, reliable place to go for encyclopedic information then it might well be appropriate. That encyclopedic bit is important though - if it's the best place to find out which cast member is sleeping with whom, or to get the most outrageous suggestions about what will happen next, then I think, well, not so much. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- To quote WP:RS their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand The public is well aware that for television shoes and movies obsessive fans are far and away the experts. The entire plot of Galaxy Quest is based on the assumption that the audience knows about and agrees with this theory. jbolden1517 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like that for a revision to #11. We change it to Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. For pop culture subjects a site wide recognized by fans as a source of reliable and encyclopedic information is considered reliable" everyone agree? jbolden1517 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the whole pop culture thing is still being worked out and is too muddy to write this sort of assessment into a guideline at this point. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- This skates on thin ice, IMO. Would this then allow blogs and personal webpages for hategroups, which could conceivably be staffed or run by an expert but not necessarily contain the experts blogs? Lsi john 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the whole pop culture thing is still being worked out and is too muddy to write this sort of assessment into a guideline at this point. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like that for a revision to #11. We change it to Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. For pop culture subjects a site wide recognized by fans as a source of reliable and encyclopedic information is considered reliable" everyone agree? jbolden1517 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the guideline right now says the opposite. And right now all over this encyclopedia articles are being regularly harmed because we can't link to knowledgeable amateurs who are well regarded. jbolden1517 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Call me crazy be but..
Is there any support for the idea of replacing the whole guideline with something like: For non-citation external links editors should only link to a small selection of sites. All links should be to pages that are authoritative, have an established reputation for providing reliable, encyclopedic information on the subject of the article, and are generally accessible to our audience. Just a thought - it seems like we all try to use guidelines to micro-manage things sometimes. A real overhaul like this might be more what we need. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a moderate improvement to the nutshell, but I find the additional specifics to be useful and appropriate for inclusion. One can think of the details as a FAQ of sorts, explaining common questions and issues with the general you are expressing. ∴ here…♠ 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)