Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:35, 21 December 2006

Archives
Sorted by subject /workshop: Discussion of 2006 rewrite Sorted by date Archive 1: 2003 - 2005 Archive 2: January 2005 - March 2006 Archive 3: April - July 2006 Archive 4: July - August 2006 Archive 5: August 2006 Archive 6: August - September 2006 Archive 7: September - October 2006 Archive 8: October 2006 Archive 9: October - November 2006 Archive 10: November 2006 – not yet full

Lyrics sites

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 Beatles Music Lyrics? -GTBacchus 19:42, 21 November 2006 (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. Notinasnaid 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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. -- ReyBrujo 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. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Wjhonson 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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. -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 26 November 2006 (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. Wjhonson 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. -- ReyBrujo 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"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. Wjhonson 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Wjhonson 18:29, 26 November 2006 (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. ---J.S (t|c) 02:40, 28 November 2006 (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? Wjhonson 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. --Trödel 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

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? --Monotonehell 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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." Cindery 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a guideline about external links, not sources. Also, what do you think in WP:V even comments on adding external links to a site a person owns or maintains? 2005 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an absolute prohibition in this guideline, primarly because people have generaly agreed that there should be. It it rooted in Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, which is rooted in WP:NPOV not WP:V. This issue has been a pretty clearly established aspect of NPOV. --Barberio 00:06, 23 November 2006 (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.

Cindery 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. 67.117.130.181 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. That way the video can't vanish as it easily can from YouTube. -- Mwanner | Talk 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. 2005 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your intention, but "agent of" and/or "maintains" can mean someone who publishes and maintains a link at YouTube. Cindery 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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).

Self-published sources (online and paper)

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.

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.

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)

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:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• 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.

Cindery 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Help sought at VoiceXML

User:Calltech and I clearly have quite different interpretations of this guideline, as is becoming evident at VoiceXML. 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.

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.)

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 W3C 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.

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.

CallTech, if you think I've at all misrepresented your position, my apologies, and please restate it yourself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel, and I agree that this has been a calm discussion and that there is simply a difference of opinion here.

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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. 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".

WP:EL: "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 VoiceXML#Future Versions of the standard and you've acknowledged that.

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. Calltech 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional note - I went ahead and softened the notice under External Links. Both came from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. Both messages request users submit new links first to Talk page, but the second one is not so harsh. Calltech 14:50, 23 November 2006 (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

Thanks for your comments here, Paolo. This was discussed on Talk:VoiceXML a few days ago. My observation on voicexml forum was that it requires registration (and payment) which is against guidelines WP:EL#Sites requiring registration. 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 DMOZ Open Directory Listing - VoiceXML external link within the article, you'll effectively see all of these sites including voicexml forum. Calltech 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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). - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Use "further reading" instead of "external links" sections

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.

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? Zunaid© 11:20, 23 November 2006 (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". - Jmabel19:03, 23 November 2006 (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. Wjhonson 19:09, 23 November 2006 (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. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Wjhonson 20:19, 23 November 2006 (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. 2005 23:50, 23 November 2006 (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 WP:CITE which is the parent policy to this page uses the term "Further reading". --Monotonehell 15:51, 24 November 2006 (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. 2005 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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 sources exist. --Monotonehell 23:38, 23 November 2006 (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?

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. Zunaid© 07:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Video and photo sharing sites

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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. WP:V 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 RS. 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 copyright 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. Wjhonson 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

Cindery 20:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:V 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 WP:RS is a disputed guideline. A new formulation is being worked out at WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you refrain from deleting the examples given for video and photo sharing sites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Wjhonson 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a silly attitude. At least you could have kept the explanation, if you do not like to have the examples there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you both please refrain from editing/reverting each others changes, and instead continue discussion here. Thanks/wangi 20:34, 23 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. 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. 2005 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Video sharing sites should not be linked to for the reasons widely discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#YouTube_art_as_primary_source and here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_amendment ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. --JJay 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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, Lonelygirl15 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. --JJay 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. Jayjg 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. --JJay 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

--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.

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. Cindery 23:12, 23 November 2006 (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. 2005 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitary Section Break because this is such a long thread

(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.
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. jesup 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletions without reference to the content or its status are happening, and at high speed. See Spartaz 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. jesup 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried actually looking at what's being deleted? I just looked at half a dozen of Spartaz'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. -- Mwanner | Talk 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. Wjhonson 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 one day's worth. That's the kind of content you're dealing with at YouTube. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:31, 26 November 2006 (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. Wjhonson 02:41, 26 November 2006 (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. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:50, 26 November 2006 (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. jesup 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. jesup 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 --Spartaz 18:08, 26 November 2006 (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. Wjhonson 18:23, 26 November 2006 (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. --Spartaz 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.
The Katana 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.
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". jesup 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? --Spartaz 05:24, 27 November 2006 (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!, Cindery 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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). Cindery 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolute restrictions

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.

The copyright issue is absolute, it is an almost direct copy of the language in Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. 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 WP:NPOV means you must not edit with this kind of conflict of interests.

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. --Barberio 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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.)

RE site you are an agent for or maintain--that's strongly discouraged, but not actually an absolute restriction. Cindery 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. --JJay 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A guideline cannot prescribe absolute restrictions on anything. You can refer to existing policies, if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. --Barberio 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language links

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-- RCEberwein | Talk 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll give some examples. - Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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? -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 25 November 2006 (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". Wjhonson 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Summaries like nonsensical revertion won't help you. -- ReyBrujo 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. 2005 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Benefit" and "Promote" are synonyms. Wjhonson 03:15, 26 November 2006 (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 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. --Siobhan Hansa 02:55, 26 November 2006 (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". -- Mwanner | Talk 02:59, 26 November 2006 (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. Wjhonson 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"To inform" and "to promote" are synonymous. Wjhonson 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of the intent issue don't you understand? -- Mwanner | Talk 03:03, 26 November 2006 (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". Wjhonson 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Intent matters. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the word "intent" must be present. As I've now done. Wjhonson 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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? - Rainwarrior 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the new section that covers it. - Rainwarrior 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First I reverted edits by User:Satori Son 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. Calltech 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 WP:BRD 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. -- Satori Son 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.

Calltech 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's even better as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, I see more Wikilawyering in our future as spammers and other special interests continue to parse that sentence in different ways. Clarity is paramount. -- Satori Son 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind. I was thinking as I woke up that it should say "main" and not just "intent". Wjhonson 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites of non-notables, and anonymous websites

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? Jayjg 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, unless it fits this policy. Did you have a specific link in mind? Fagstein 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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. 2005 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. Jayjg 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. SlimVirgin 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. 2005 06:35, 27 November 2006 (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 wikipedia 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. --JJay 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. Jayjg 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. 2005 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep making assertions without meaningful content; please make a coherent argument. Jayjg 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. 2005 01:13, 29 November 2006 (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. --JJay 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

JJay, I can't see why you're reverting exactly, and what is a "recognized authority"? SlimVirgin 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. --JJay 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 Andrew Sullivan or some of the hundreds or articles in our category:blogs. 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--JJay 03:27, 27 November 2006 (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. SlimVirgin 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.--JJay 04:31, 27 November 2006 (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. SlimVirgin 04:38, 27 November 2006 (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. --JJay 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. Jayjg 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. Jayjg 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. --JJay 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 reliable sources, 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. Jayjg 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. --JJay 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". Jayjg 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.--JJay 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. 2005 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. Jayjg 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an issue with the wording of the guideline. In Timpani, 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 WP:EL. – flamurai (t) 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The current guideline would not exclude those links at all, since they are by non-anonymous professionals. Jayjg 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. --JJay 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

JJay, which part of your version of EL would disallow http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ as a link in George W. Bush? Please unequivocally prove that the source is "unreliable". Jayjg 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 --JJay 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 WP:RS, then why not just scrap WP:EL and insist that external links meet WP:RS instead? Finally, the consensus version is, of course, the current version, which also appears to have a consensus of the current editors. Jayjg 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. --JJay 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. Jayjg 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 WP:Common Sense. In the meantime, I'm not here to play mind games and if you need more opinions on your link try the Village Pump. --JJay 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 here). 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. AnnH ♫ 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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? SlimVirgin 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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. 2005 23:16, 27 November 2006 (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? SlimVirgin 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, which is policy. WP:RS 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. SlimVirgin 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So point me to the part in WP:V where it says it applies to external links. Should be easy, assuming you're familiar with the content policies.  :) --Milo H Minderbinder 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, Satori Son 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For log or numerous quotes, you can use Wikiquote and use the {{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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 WP:RS#Popular culture and fiction: "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". --Milo H Minderbinder 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. 2005 23:24, 27 November 2006 (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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2006 (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. 2005 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 verifiable material. Note, not "verified", but "verifiable". Jayjg 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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 verifiable information is addressed? Jayjg 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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. 2005 01:29, 29 November 2006 (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. Cindery 17:39, 28 November 2006 (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. Wjhonson 15:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a guideline

WP:EL 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. 2005 00:05, 27 November 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Jayjg 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. 2005 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition...

"Links to websites that allow self-publishing, except when the copyright status and ownership is clear."

Anyone have a problem with this guideline? ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain where you would add that. What do you mean exactly by self publishing? --JJay 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. Schi 23:54, 27 November 2006 (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 "Rules lawyering". Maybe we could discuss the intended implications? That might also help (if this is adopted) by clarifying intent. jesup 00:04, 28 November 2006 (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. ---J.S (t|c) 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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. jesup 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? --JJay 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. ---J.S (t|c) 00:15, 28 November 2006 (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."

---J.S (t|c) 00:26, 28 November 2006 (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. Cindery 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Oh, Cindery, start indenting your comments. I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. (rewording for civility) Cindery, please start indenting your comments, otherwise I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. ---J.S (t|c) 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you take him more seriously if he indented? :)--Spartaz 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was getting at... I just didn't say it well.---J.S (t|c) 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded. ---J.S (t|c) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (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.:-) Cindery 22:39, 28 November 2006 (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. Cindery 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines cannot bypass established policies

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2006 (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. --I already forgot 01:24, 28 November 2006 (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. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:48, 28 November 2006 (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. ---J.S (t|c) 02:33, 28 November 2006 (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? I inquired about this during workshop editing and only 2005 responded, saying that they (or at least WP:V) 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. WP:NPOV#Undue weight), 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)? Schi 05:46, 28 November 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but if you have a better wording, I'm open to discussing it. ---J.S (t|c) 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The concerns are valid and need to be addressed

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 crappy stuff 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 crap 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:

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: Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. These links belong in an "External links" section near the bottom of the article, as per our Manual of Style. 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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2006 (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.

Cindery 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. I have changed the offending words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Careful wording is needed to avoid misinterpretation as well as making this guideline compatible and not competing with established policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2006 (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. Cindery 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

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. -- ReyBrujo 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What template? Shouldn't this go on the template's talk page? ---J.S (t|c) 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ehem... sorry, I was multitasking with a template and got the heading mixed. -- ReyBrujo 02:56, 28 November 2006 (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? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion of the inclusion of anonymous websites aside, I do agree with Milo H Minderbinder 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? -- Satori Son 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". (Radiant) 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A locked page is always the wrong version: 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". Notinasnaid 17:26, 28 November 2006 (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. Cindery 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus, Cindery. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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, here , 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. 2005 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about that probably does call for a poll, then, Jossi. Cindery 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No polls, please. The issues need to be argued and agreed upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Notinasnaid 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I started whit a proposal for the lead, above at #The_concerns_are_valid_and_need_to_be_addressed. You are welcome to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 :-( -- ReyBrujo 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating links to other wikis

There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam about linking to a non-Wikimedia wiki. Looking at the criteria for links to wikis, here's what the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL says:

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

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, --A. B. 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed not that long ago, in a now-archived talk page, found here. Generally, folks were concerned about weeding out links to wikis with factual inaccuracy/instability/unverified original research, and keeping links to wikis with WP:WEB-like authority. Schi 05:31, 28 November 2006 (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. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:35, 28 November 2006 (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. ---J.S (t|c) 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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 (Jimbo Wales) and a former Wikimedia Foundation board member (Angela Beesley). 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 WP:WEB. 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 limiting commercial access 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! --JossBuckle Swami 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. Calltech 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Video links

For viewing the film M, this edit replaced this link on tesla.liketelevision.com with this one on video.google.com. 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.) - Jmabel | Talk 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 WP:C. That's said, perhaps we should let the bickering over YouTube die down before we even begin to think about other videolinks providers. --Spartaz 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is either official? I don't know anything about liketelevision.com. ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe the film is in the public domain.

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. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 30 November 2006 (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! -- Shadowolf 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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..." -- Mwanner | Talk 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Shadowolf 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, this is happening in a number of places. Some clarity would be very useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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). This here 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). -- Shadowolf 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2006 (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 social networking sites (such as MySpace, except those officially managed by the subject of the article), discussion forums or USENET." -- Shadowolf 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... schi 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) -- Shadowolf 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new opening

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? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good. It might, though, be worth including something along the lines of Jossi'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:

"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." -- Mwanner | Talk 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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." — jesup 23:40, 28 November 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. schi 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2006 (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". 2005 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 . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My questions to you:

1. Do you agree that ELs should be added to an article only of they add value to an article?
2. If you agree, what would be the measuring stick for "added value"?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It would have helped to this discussion, if you answered the questions, rather than skirt them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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, User:Schi 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. 2005 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. Jayjg 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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 Classical Fencing, linked to from Fencing (sport). (And yes, Fencing (sport) needs more EL cleanup - I've already done some.)

jesup 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2006 (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. Cindery 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 WP:V 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. schi 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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to consider your previous comment, "How does your response helps (sic) this discussion?" Please assume good faith. I see no reason to believe that folks here aren't interested in finding common ground and advancing the project. schi 06:52, 29 November 2006 (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.

To get back on topic, I like the last proposed revision, here's a slight tweak, and an addition to the second chunk:

"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.

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)

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. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that quite a bit. jesup 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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:

"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.

"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."

"This guideline refers to external links other than citations, for guideline for instructions on citing sources see WP:CITE. "

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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 requirements 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. jesup 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is again:

"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.

"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 requirements for a citation, consider using it as a source first."

"This guideline refers to external links other than citations, for guideline for instructions on citing sources see WP:CITE. "

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

"This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon our cherished principles to attribute to reliable sources. 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 requirements as a source for the article, and cite to the link instead.

"This guideline refers to links placed in the "External links" section of articles. For instructions on citing sources see WP:CITE. "

--Trödel 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Trödel. I will go with that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2006 (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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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. 2005 03:40, 2 December 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 09:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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 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. ∴ here…♠ 04:16, 2 December 2006 (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 WP:COPYRIGHT; (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 WP:V, WP:NOR. or WP:NPOV. The lead should avoid getting into these details and only explain 'why do we want/need links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No contradiction, WP:CR 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. ∴ here…♠ 04:31, 2 December 2006 (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... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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. ∴ here…♠ 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not. The formulation is in contradiction with established policy, and a guideline cannot bypass policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have partially restored the previous version, removing the disputed statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Wp:cite#Further_reading.2FExternal_links, no need to disuade the link via WP:CITE.

Misplaced Pages articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Misplaced Pages which are accurate and on-topic. A reasonable selection of well-chosen external links is useful for many articles. This page provides guidelines for choosing the best links to include with each article. They expand upon wikipedia's central principles to attribute to reliable sources. 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 requirements as a source for the article, and cite to the link instead.

If feel the second sentence is important, add it back in. ∴ here…♠ 05:46, 2 December 2006 (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 attribute to reliable sources. 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 Misplaced Pages:Citing sources

∴ here…♠ 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with user:here 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". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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. Jayjg 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. 2005 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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? ∴ here…♠ 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't misinterpret the intention. He doesn't agree with it, which certainly is not the same. 2005 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. schi 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 attribute to reliable sources. 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 Misplaced Pages:Citing sources

∴ here…♠ 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. 2005 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New articles vs. mature articles

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.

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? -- Mwanner | Talk 13:59, 29 November 2006 (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. 2005 22:43, 10 December 2006 (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. 2005 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please delete...

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...Stevage 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." Fagstein 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. Stevage 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator

Sorry if this is not entirely the correct place for posting this. This article on an old abandonware 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? Zunaid© 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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. jesup 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Fagstein 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fraternities and sororities

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 Delta Sigma Pi, Alpha Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Psi, or Alpha Epsilon Pi? Is this appropriate at all? Metros232 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, no - WP:NOT: 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. jesup 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Obvious commercial links on user talk pages/user pages

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? Notinasnaid 11:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• We have WP:SPAM, among others, and WP:NOT an advertising service. This user seems indeed to be missing the point. I've deleted his page as a copyvio, by the way. (Radiant) 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal talk page

Am i free to link to commercial site from my home page? exmaple (link removed) or (link removed) --Darrendeng 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. --Spartaz 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. Wjhonson 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, be careful. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Conex_India. 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. ∴ here…♠ 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If the link constitutes advertising, it should be removed, notwithstanding Wjhonson's opinion. --Improv 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent change?

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? Shinobu 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"wikimyspace"

I have made a proposal on the proposal pump 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). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: internal cite in "Hijacked Websites" section; no refs section

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). --Ling.Nut 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No consensus

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 WP:CITE if you must. 2005, comments above? ∴ here…♠ 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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. 2005 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I will obviously not respond to your uncivil comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:2005, if you want to create your own version, please get consensus for it on Talk. Jayjg 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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? Jayjg 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this edit by Musical Linguist, which puts your various claims in perspective. Jayjg 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems yet another administrator opposes 2005's version, as he has just reverted you. Jayjg 17:27, 3 December 2006 (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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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? Jayjg 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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. 2005 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. 2005 21:27, 3 December 2006 (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 Judaism, 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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The page has been protected because of the edit war mentioned in this section. Please discuss it here. (Radiant) 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing that you recognize your actions as edit warring. Note: it takes two, not one, to edit war. --jpgordon 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So would you care to weigh in on the guideline itself? New voices would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:41, 3 December 2006 (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. 2005 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we were asked to comment at WP:VPP, here is my opinion when comparing the two versions in this diff. 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".

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 WP:V 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 WP:V#Sources), and of course Misplaced Pages:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! applies. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous websites

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. A website with definitions or documented sourcing of slang or neologisms.
6. 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)
7. A directory of links on a topic (this very guideline recommends linking to DMOZ, which is edited anonymously)
8. 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.
9. 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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. --Improv 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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?) 2005 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. --Trödel 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at Recipe 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. Apple Pie 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 4 December 2006 (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. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:11, 4 December 2006 (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? Jayjg 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If one must verify the contents of a website by looking up an outside source, then the website itself is unverifiable; instead, we have used an outside source for our information, because we had no way of knowing the reliability of the information on the website. Jayjg 18:56, 4 December 2006 (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?--Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 4 December 2006 (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.

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.

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.

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. -- Siobhan Hansa 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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. -- Siobhan Hansa 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. 2005 21:31, 4 December 2006 (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? schi 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. 2005 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. --Siobhan Hansa 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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. --Siobhan Hansa 03:39, 5 December 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument? I am not say that, Milo. What I am saying that, as editors of an encyclopedia, we have the responsibility to ensure that what we link to from our articles include relevant, useful, reliable information. The idea that the EL section is a dumping ground for what could not make it into the article, needs to be removed from this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2006 (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"? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:19, 4 December 2006 (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? schi 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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). --Milo H Minderbinder 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.) 2005 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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:

• J.S's example above is excellent, and demonstrates how EL is properly used without becoming "a dumping ground". Please consider reading it:

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.

• 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 WP:V, but until I see something on WP:V 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. schi 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of the "recognized authority" type of yard stick. --Siobhan Hansa 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good start. 2005 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. schi 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2006 (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. schi 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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? schi 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. An anonymous website is a site whose author is not known. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Known by whom? schi 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 Paul Smiths, New York which links to http://history.rays-place.com/ny/brighton-ny.htm -- Mwanner | Talk 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 Thomas Hooker, rather than to a reputable published source, such as ancestry.com? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 Thomas Hooker biography (which links to a 1906 article in Connecticut Magazine; the online archives 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. schi 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. 2005 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion forums

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.—Who123 20:24, 3 December 2006 (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. --Improv 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? Stephenjh 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. Crum375 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. Nandesuka 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. Stephenjh 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. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Improv. Online fourms are not to be linked to from wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a external link farm. If you like a certain fourm, then bookmark it. They are most definetly not a reliable source, and do not meet WP:V. They are places for people with a Point Of View to go. Misplaced Pages is NPOV. If we are to remain any kind of respectable an encyclopedia, we can't start linking to crap. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:47, 4 December 2006 (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? Flamesplash 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Embedded Citations. I've proposed to rename this article to Misplaced Pages:Embedded links, which I will do shortly if no objections arise. Can add it more explicitly here after unprotection. Thanks! ∴ here…♠ 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 WP:MoS#External_links 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.

Flamesplash - where in the guidelines did you see an example for inline linking? I checked through but couldn't spot it. --Siobhan Hansa 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Two questions

Hi guys,

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 SHA hash functions#External links 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:

• Description of the algorithms
  • Proposed NIST SHS (SHA0)
  • Specifications for a SECURE HASH STANDARD (SHS) (SHA0)
  • …

• Cryptanalysis
  • Interview with Yiqun Lisa Yin concerning the attack on SHA-1
  • Lenstra's Summary of impact of the February 2005 cryptanalytic results
  • …

• Implementations
  • …

However a quick round of past featured articles doesn't seem to confirm that. —Gennaro Prota 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"official" media tie-ins and related products

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? --LQ 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Satori Son 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy is too "positive"

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? - Brian Kendig 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. Why don't you propose an alternative wording? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the way I worded it in my rewrite from late October. Somewhere along the way my wording was changed. - Brian Kendig 08:10, 5 December 2006 (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 New_articles_vs._mature_articles) 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 What_is_the_purpose_of_an_EL_section_in_an_encyclopedic_article? section below. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:External links#Fan sites discussion, below.) - Brian Kendig 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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." 2005 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article?

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? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• 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) Crum375 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.) 2005 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much what I would have said. EVula // talk // ☯ // 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. jesup 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Just in my experience from editing Timpani: 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). – flamurai (t) 05:47, 5 December 2006 (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. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:09, 5 December 2006 (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. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• To include a small selection of useful external links that provide readers with additional information about the subject of the article, and that does not diminishes the article's quality. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2006 (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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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. AnonEMouse 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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. Zunaid© 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a very pertinent distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Crum375 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion are not obliged to go look for references, that is the obligation of the person who wrote the stub. AnonEMouse 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 <references/>, 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. Crum375 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 FA 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. --Siobhan Hansa 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. AnonEMouse 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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. --Siobhan Hansa 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2006 (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. jnestorius 17:47, 5 December 2006 (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. Crum375 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, WP:MOS 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." schi 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 Links normally to be avoided 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. --Siobhan Hansa 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 Bolivian Foo, 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). jnestorius 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 WP:EL 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 Boliviafoo, 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. Crum375 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. jesup 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. schi 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. Crum375 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. schi 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. Crum375 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. --Siobhan Hansa 23:34, 5 December 2006 (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. Jayjg 20:48, 5 December 2006 (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 Talk:Frances Oldham Kelsey. --Trödel 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That rules out the valid page with too much detail to be included, or links to copyrighted material relevant to the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And others, see above. AnonEMouse 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WebCite (Link Archiving) Proposal

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 WebCite archive, which is specifically designed to archive cited URls.

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 WebCite when citing a URL.", followed by a more detailed explanation:

(new proposed section starts here)

Citing Webpages and Webdocuments (URLs)

URLs are inherently unstable and the cited material may disappear (link rot) 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 WebCite can and should be used to permanently archive an URL before citing it (or archive it as soon after it has been cited).

For example, to cite the URL http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html the citing author would go to www.webcitation.org, go to "archive" and create a snapshot of the cited page (or use the WebCite bookmarklet to cache the cited page). Then the citing author replaces the cited URL with the the archived URL, e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/5Kt3PxfFl.

A webcited reference may look like this:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, WebCited December 4th, 2006.

Alternatively, in addition to the WebCite URL, the original URL might be given:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, original URL: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html, WebCited December 4th, 2006.

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:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, WebCited December 4th, 2006, archived URL:http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html&date=2006-12-04

Note that a specialized service such as WebCite is recommended because archives such as the Internet Archive based on crawlers only archive a subsection of the web, and do so pretty randomly and arbitrarily, not allowing "on-demand" archiving like WebCite. Although the Internet Archive invites URL suggestions, it often takes as much as 6 months before the suggested URL is actually archived.

Also note that caching on the Internet is frequently done and does not constitute a copyright violation (see also Webcite FAQ).

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 JMIR Instructions for Authors).

(new proposed section ends here)

Eysen 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Two problems:

• Who pays for it? From their FAQ:

  Who is going to pay for this?
  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.

• 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.

— jesup 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.

• Regarding the criticism that the "original URL is lost", this is not correct. See WebCite technical documentation. 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 --Eysen 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 Web archiving 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? ∴ here…♠ 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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. Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying (cached October 27, 2005), The Guardian, October 27, 2005

— jesup 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• In response: WebCite 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 WebCite 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).--Eysen 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Citing sources) 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources. — jesup 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been causing User:Eysen too much trouble on this ;), based on WP:COI, 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. ∴ here…♠ 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. DGG 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 (...)" --Eysen 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently Created Another Shortcut

I recently created another shortcut link to this article called WP:LINKS however, due to the recent editing dispute could not add it here. Once this dispute is resolved would editors consider adding it? Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update: Administrator Jossi took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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.DGG 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Malicious links

Recently on the helpdesk there was a question regarding malicious external links (see here). 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. James086 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Try at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. These sites, if harmful, can be blacklisted (preventing these links from being uploaded into Misplaced Pages). -- ReyBrujo 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the site has been reported to the spam blacklist at meta. James086 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates with external links

Sometimes users create templates holding external links and then include the templates in several articles. Some examples are GoT-Sites and Speedrun articles external links. 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. -- ReyBrujo 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Wiki Suggestion

I know wikis have been discussed above, but there appears to be a hole in the wiki EL restriction as currently written.

• "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

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.

• "Links to any self-publishing websites where guidelines are not in place or enforced that restrict the promotion of products, services or other websites. Calltech 19:54, 9 December 2006 (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. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikivideolinks.org, cause for concern?

Cause for concern? I recently noticed an editor linking to a site called wikivideolinks.org and it gave me pause. Given the stricter and stricter view about licensed content that WP:EL 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? (→Netscott) 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all links to that wiki from five articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi... I suspected that'd be the proper course of action. (→Netscott) 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite item 1.

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 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. NOR 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.

I would like to rewrite the para above as:

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.

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.

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. Filceolaire 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

External links dispute - probably resolved but with a disgruntled new user

Could an person experienced in handling new user's thoughts on addition of external links to Misplaced Pages take a look at User talk:Manofwar4662 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 (talk to me) 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why the immediate reversion after unprotection? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have attempte to merge the two different formulations. A bit wordy, maybe, but it hopefully reflects all points discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2006 (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. 2005 23:43, 10 December 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 02:13, 11 December 2006 (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 of October 21, 2006 ]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? You are adding wording that was never in the guideline. the above linkobviously has no relation to that. Aside from that, the Oct 21 edits have nothing whatever to do with what you are adding! 2005 03:43, 11 December 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. 2005 08:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How to link section

I've recently started using the {{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 Honda S2000:

• S2000 US Official Site
• "2007 S2000 - The Official Honda Web Site". American Honda Motor Co. 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-11.

I think this suggestion should be added and IMHO strongly encouraged as a preferred choice in the How to link section. Zunaid© 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question

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. Crum375 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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 ". 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? Crum375 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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 Jenna Jameson for an example. AnonEMouse 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. Crum375 18:59, 11 December 2006 (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. 2005 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'? Crum375 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

EL and "further reading" are the exact same thing. It's just a different name. --Milo H Minderbinder 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. 2005 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. Crum375 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

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. — Frecklefoot | Talk 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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. schi 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. 2005 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Oh My Goddess!, 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? - Brian Kendig 17:18, 16 December 2006 (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. 2005 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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. - Brian Kendig 16:14, 17 December 2006 (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. 2005 21:43, 17 December 2006 (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." - Brian Kendig 02:07, 18 December 2006 (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. 2005 08:06, 18 December 2006 (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? - Brian Kendig 14:34, 18 December 2006 (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. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:18, 18 December 2006 (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. 2005 21:29, 18 December 2006 (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 fansites, 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. - Brian Kendig 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 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. 2005 23:53, 18 December 2006 (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 Firefly (TV series) and Browncoat. 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. - Brian Kendig 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. 2005 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "who owns the sites." Please stop misrepresenting my position and taking potshots at me. - Brian Kendig 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it matters who owns the sites. Haven't you even read fansites? "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. 2005 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? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the level head. Let me go through the current set of External Links on Firefly (TV series) one at a time. (I picked that article arbitrarily.)

• Browncoats.com and FireflyFans.net - 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."
• Firefly and Serenity at Wikia, Firefly wiki, and Firefly at the TV IV - 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.
• Firefly and Serenity on Whedonesque.com has news about Firefly fan events and what the actors are doing now. The Signal and Firefly Talk are podcasts about the same sort of thing. None of these are particularly relevant to the article.
• Worlds of Serenity is an article about whether the Firefly universe is plausible. Done the Impossible 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.
• Firefly at Prospero forums - 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. Firefly timeline provides "meaningful, relevant content" that "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to ... amount of detail", and Big Damn Board is a web directory.

So, of the thirteen External Links on Firefly (TV series), 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." - Brian Kendig 22:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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. 2005 01:43, 20 December 2006 (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? - Brian Kendig 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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? - Brian Kendig 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:19, 20 December 2006 (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 WP:NOT 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.-- Visviva 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. --Milo H Minderbinder 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 this version from September 22: "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 ever be justified, 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. -- Visviva 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's way older than that-- see March 20, 2005, 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) -- Mwanner | Talk 16:42, 21 December 2006 (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. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

consultant newsletter articles

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 Eye tracking 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) --LQ 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Should there even be "external links" sections?

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 Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, 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. Luigizanasi 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). --Milo H Minderbinder 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. Luigizanasi 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).--Milo H Minderbinder 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. :-). AnonEMouse

Well, that's Larry Sanger's solution. :-) Luigizanasi 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). Crum375 19:01, 12 December 2006 (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.

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. — Frecklefoot | Talk 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. Luigizanasi 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. Crum375 19:53, 12 December 2006 (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. --LQ 20:08, 12 December 2006 (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. --LQ 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that LQ and Crum375 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?). Luigizanasi 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. 2005 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. DGG 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 three articles so far. 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. Zunaid© 14:48, 13 December 2006 (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 Maine 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. GRBerry 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

external links as further references/research

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):

User:Luigizanasi 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))

User:Lquilter (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))

User:Zunaid 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))

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 Animal rights 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". -- ReyBrujo 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See {{ELasRef}}. Feel free to improve. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Zunaid© 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to Dmoz?

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.

Currently the project page says:

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 would suggest replacing this with something like:

Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to:

• 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.

Rugops 09:52, 14 December 2006 (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". --LQ 23:13, 16 December 2006 (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

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.) 2005 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --Siobhan Hansa 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. 2005 23:55, 17 December 2006 (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 WP:RS 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. 67.117.130.181 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ELs and WP:RS

Going back to "What to you is an EL?", how far do you think EL's should satisfy WP:RS? 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 WP:RS in the same way as references do, and the guideline should be appended to reflect this. Thoughts? Zunaid© 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

emphasis that non-commercial sites aren't exempt

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. 67.117.130.181 01:51, 20 December 2006 (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? 67.117.130.181 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a good concept, although it IS stated, and a case can be made that almost anything could be bolded. 2005 02:44, 20 December 2006 (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.

After all, WP:COI reads, in part:

"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. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. ∴ here…♠ 05:25, 20 December 2006 (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. Zunaid© 08:14, 20 December 2006 (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 WP:COI 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 WP:EL. Mike Dillon 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm all for avoiding COI, but not all affected articles have "other editors" that will look at the talk page. Mike Dillon 08:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is WP:COI 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 WP:COI should read "When you have a conflict of interest..." -- Mwanner | Talk 13:22, 20 December 2006 (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.

An example is the case of a Prince 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. Mike Dillon 15:44, 20 December 2006 (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. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. This debate has been rehashed at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest too many times. I think I've made my position clear. Mike Dillon 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:56, 20 December 2006 (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. Wjhonson 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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 WP:EL, 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 WP:IAR anyways. Mike Dillon 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So are we at concensus? In WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, 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) -- Mwanner | Talk 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Besides being stronger, I like that it is more concise. --Milo H Minderbinder 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. Mike Dillon 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. --JJay 19:51, 20 December 2006 (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 WP:EL more in line with WP:COI, while slightly shortening WP:EL in the process? -- Mwanner | Talk 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". --Milo H Minderbinder 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. --JJay 21:36, 20 December 2006 (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. -- Mwanner | Talk 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 WP:COI and WP:SPAM and was sufficiently covered here. --JJay 00:54, 21 December 2006 (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, -- Mwanner | Talk 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 WP:COI. --JJay 01:34, 21 December 2006 (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..."? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:42, 21 December 2006 (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? --JJay 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? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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). Cindery 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed specific mention of YouTube to address the concern that YouTube might specifically be targeted for removal even when properly copyrighted. --Barberio 00:13, 23 November 2006 (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. Wjhonson 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Wjhonson 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Wjhonson 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube 2

As per discussions in WP:ANI:

1. 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).
2. Many videos on YouTube are of questionable copyright legitimacy, which should not be linked from Misplaced Pages
3. 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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2006 (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, Lonelygirl15 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. --JJay 00:01, 24 November 2006 (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. 2005 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. --JJay 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. 2005 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2006 (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.--JJay 02:48, 24 November 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2006 (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? 2005 02:59, 24 November 2006 (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. --JJay 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. --JJay 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. --JJay 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:

1. Imelda Marcos--a short fair use clip of a political documentary
2. Barrington Hall--a 1988 8mm film digitized and uploaded to YT for accessibility/storage--only known film of no-longer existing murals
3. Joshua Clover--YT video of the poet reading at the Bowery Poetry Club
4. International Fair Trade Association--short fair use clips of a nonprofit org
5. Brent Corrigan--original art/trailer of film featuring the subject

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... Cindery 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(ed conf)Another example that relates to WP:NOR: 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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).

Cindery 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

...some problems with your problems, below: 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. 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.) Cindery 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some problems with the some of the examples:

1. 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 WP:COPY.
2. Barrington Hall 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 WP:V

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 --JJay 03:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any violence. Stubborn agreement maybe. --JJay 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. ---J.S (t|c) 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. -JJay 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. Tvccs 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? Spartaz 19:27, 26 November 2006 (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.

"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. ---J.S (t|c) 19:59, 26 November 2006 (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. --JJay 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"and deleteing those that are clearly copy-vio links" - The discussion I'm having with spartaz implies otherwise. The Katana 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.) jesup 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. Tvccs 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And here's a direct example of exactly what I am talking about - Derek Sherinian. 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. Tvccs 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? --Spartaz 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the last comments by Tvccs (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 {{fact}} 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. Tvoz 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. Spartaz 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. Tvccs 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. Tvccs 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After having read much of the ongoing discussions here and on the userpages of the mass-deleters Dmcdevit, J.smith, Spartaz, and Rory096, I would like to hear their answers to the following questions:

1. There is a list of youtube links on the user subpage User:Dmcdevit/YouTube_links that is automatically created as explained on User:Dmcdevit/YouTube. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. J.smith 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.
4. 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.

Cacycle 13:47, 27 November 2006 (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

J.smith's response...

• 1. We are checking the links as we go along. We are making a good faith effort to clean up a mess on wikipedia.
• 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.
• 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)." ---J.S (t|c) 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Youtube 3 - questions/issues

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.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 WP:AN (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 Katana (link) - User:Spartaz'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.

jesup 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Wrong. Misplaced Pages should not link to copyvios
2. If there is no licensing info, copyvio can and should be assumed. WP is licensed as GFDL and should not be tainted by copvios
3. 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Notification is not required to enforce the current policies. The increase in the links to youtube have made this issue more visible.

Thoughts? --Trödel 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.

jesup 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 Guy Goma--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. Cindery 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, after checking a few links, I find the list User:Dmcdevit/YouTube_links definitely has a bunch of clear non-copyvio cases in it, starting with YouTube and another random example geriatric1927. 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 Genocide Intervention Network (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. jesup 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"And his actions at Guy Goma--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 {{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 policy. ---J.S (t|c) 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. Cindery 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. Tvccs 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Tvccs 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate YouTube deletion example

Spartaz 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 Katana, which I cannot agree is an obvious copyvio, and Spartaz feels since it's not obviously not a copyvio, the link must go).

J.Smith removed these links from Genocide Intervention Network:

• MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube)

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?
jesup 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). -- ReyBrujo 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. jesup 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask how many deletions you reviewed to find this example? --Spartaz 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. Spartaz 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. Spartaz 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. jesup 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). jesup 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.) ---J.S (t|c) 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. jesup 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. Cindery 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. ---J.S (t|c) 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 this page 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 WP:NOT. --Trödel 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I put 'em back. Feel free to revert me on that Trodel. ---J.S (t|c) 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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. 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. --Trödel 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. ---J.S (t|c)

"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. :) ---J.S (t|c) 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. :-) Cindery 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. Use common sense. 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 Barrington Hall 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 disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point.

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. A lot of the talk page participants feel that it does qualify as such a unique resource, based on fairly persuasive reasoning. 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.) 67.117.130.181 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. -- Mwanner | Talk 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. 67.117.130.181 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. Argyriou (talk) 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. --Trödel 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.

Cindery 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). --Trödel 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. Cindery 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. --Trödel 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I expected the Terms of use provides a proper license:

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.YouTube.com Terms of use

|} 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. --Trödel 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. --Spartaz 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 Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. Finally, a reference that has no link, but provides verifiable information for the source is much better than one that violates copyright. --Trödel 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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). 67.117.130.181 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. DGG 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. -- Mwanner | Talk 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. 67.117.130.181 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). --NE2 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New template for external images

External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)
description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)

External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)
description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)

A while back some editors started to develop a new way to implement external images. 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.

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. Wandalstouring 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. 67.117.130.181 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was explicitly requested to create something that does have prominence. Wandalstouring 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. Deizio talk 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube and content-aggregator sites RfC

Per the suggestion of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, 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 reliable source.
• 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 User:Dmcdevit 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 Barrington Hall 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 deletion, it was not clear that this was part of an organized campaign, and it was clear that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington had not reviewed the extensive discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall regarding the legitimacy of the link, so I put a {{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: User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Lennon.

User:Dmcdevit claims that YouTube "fails to provide licensing information", which is patently incorrect. YouTube's Terms of Use 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 Assume Good Faith 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.

Argyriou (talk) 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. SchmuckyTheCat 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be useful to link the relevent WP policy 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. --Spartaz 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 free content. 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). --NE2 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why is this not filed at WP:RFC? ---J.S 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Where I think the relevant category (at bottom) would be "Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and proposals". – SAJordan _contribs 18:24, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I'll gladly praticipte in an official WP:RFC. Please let me know when it's filed Argyriou. ---J.S 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this, the RFC has been correctly filed here, and can properly be discussed on this talk page. So, no problem continuing this discussion. – SAJordan _contribs 18:50, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Addressing one argument made at WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion: 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 WP:EL 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. – SAJordan _contribs 19:02, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This was already discussed at length. See comments in this page and in the archives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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. Argyriou (talk) 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? Spartaz 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The particular case which caused me to notice this was the video link at Barrington Hall. 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. Argyriou (talk) 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. Spartaz 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. Spartaz 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.
  
  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. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 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. Tom Harrison 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. Argyriou (talk) 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." Tom Harrison 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Until the link is first removed, User:J.Random 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. Argyriou (talk) 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. Cindery 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 external link guidelines. 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? Guy (Help!) 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. --NE2 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. Spartaz 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. Argyriou (talk) 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. --Spartaz 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 Image:Anole Lizard Hilo Hawaii edit.jpg was taken by the uploader? --NE2 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. Argyriou (talk) 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. Spartaz 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 User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 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 Barrington Hall 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. Argyriou (talk) 23:27, 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. Spartaz 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. Cindery 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, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 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" Cindery 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. --NE2 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. Cindery 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org(website)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org(website)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org(website)