Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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:

  • Implementations
    • …

However a quick round of past featured articles doesn't seem to confirm that. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 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. [1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." 2005 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with putting it in the "Important points to remember" section is that that's under the fold. I believe the guideline opening section needs to be more clear that external linking isn't to be taken for granted. I will make the edit to the guideline. - Brian Kendig 01:08, 22 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 (squeak) 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©Please rate me at Editor Review! 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are not obliged to go look for references, that is the obligation of the person who wrote the stub. AnonEMouse (squeak) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 (squeak) 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(talk) 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 [here] 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 Wikipedia 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 talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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(talk) 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 talk 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 [1]"), 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 talk 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 Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 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 (squeak) 21:13, 5 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 [2] however they hadn't tested any downloads so it may have spyware anyway). I did a linksearch [3] 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. James086Talk | Contribs 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Try at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. These sites, if harmful, can be blacklisted (preventing these links from being uploaded into Wikipedia). -- ReyBrujo 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the site has been reported to the spam blacklist at meta. James086Talk | Contribs 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)


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:

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

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:


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 Wikipedia 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:
— 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. Wikipedia is not in that category (and WebCite can give this in writing to anybody who asks, that there will be never costs for Wikipedia). 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 (...)" [4] --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 (talk) 14:37, 7 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [the reasons I'm usually given]." 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia with a little extra that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to link to information already contained in Wikipedia (unless it's being cited as a source). I believe the bar should be high for adding links to Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia -- 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)
"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". Actually that makes no sense at all. What a thing to say. This is guideline based on value to user and the encyclopedia, not random, brainless action. Every site to be linked to is treated the same way. If it doesn't merit a link, it shouldn't be linked to. If there are a huge number of sites that merit links, an alternate solution like a Directory link can be used. We link to "real content" wherever it is. Once again do we really need to go over this non-argument, strawmen territory? You seem to think that the guideline allows linking to non-"real content". It doesn't, so please don't assert it does. 2005 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I never liked the "one fansite" rule in the old guidelines. The result were that people were linking a site because they felt they were allowed to, even if it contained nothing not already in Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 01:28, 22 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 Wikipedia 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 [Thomas Clayburn] (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 Wikipedia if we simply forbade editing it. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak)
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. Wikipedia 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©Please rate me at Editor Review! 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 "..."[E]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©Please rate me at Editor Review! 05:17, 14 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©Please rate me at Editor Review! 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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)

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:

I think this suggestion should be added and IMHO strongly encouraged as a preferred choice in the How to link section. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 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 [www.sportsstats.com/JohnDoe/Stats]". 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 (squeak) 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)


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)

  • Wikipedia is not a web directory. Even if it's useful, if it's not encyclopedic, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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[5], 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)
Who123 well stated some reasons for including selected links to external discussion forums. These same reasons are likely why other respected encyclopedias such as Encarta include links to external discussion forums. There's no good reason why Wikipedia can't do likewise, and in fact the current wording DOES NOT prohibit links to discussion forums -- it merely says you normally wouldn't do that. However the guideline is often misinterpreted, as well illustrated by some of the above responses. The issue about quality of external links is not isolated to discussion forums, but includes all other web sites. The points about reliable source and WP:V are misapplications. It's true links to discussion forums should not be used for these purposes (e.g, footnote to support an article main point), but they are rarely so used. Rather they are merely jump off points to additional information for the interested reader. Joema 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking through your edit history, it looks like http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/ is an example of the kind of forum you feel is a quality link that improves an article. I'm sorry, but I really don't agree. As I said above, it's just really lightweight, low-quality, low-density consumer-blather info, where consumer A says "I bought one and it was the greatest", while consumer B says "it's a piece of junk", blah, blah, blah. They web is just crawling with opinion spewing sites like these. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If you carefully examine the site you referenced, you'll see by discussion forum standards, it's a high quality site, and includes detailed educational explanations about the physics, electronics and optics of flashlights. It's not dramatically different than the link to a model railroading discussion forum in the Model Railroading article -- which BTW, the above responses would also prohibit. Selected links to discussion forums assist the interested reader. True they may appear lightweight or irrelevant to a casual reader not conversant with the subject. That is why whether a site is suitable should be up to the editors of that article, not determined by a blanket prohibition. Fortunately the current guidelines allow selected links, although this is widely misunderstood. Joema 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact there are three forums on that page, along with 28 other external links-- far too many by almost any standard. Don't get me wrong-- I have gotten useful information from forums from time to time, but I wouldn't voluntarily repeat the experience for any search where there was a remote chance of finding reasonable info on a regular site. And it's not as if good forums are hard for our readers to find via on their own via regular search processes-- Google "flashlight physics", and candlepowerforums.com comes up as the fourth link. I just don't see the value in pointing our readers at them. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your points, and agree we should discourage (but not prohibit) external links. The current guideline wording does that. I'm concerned about the frequent misunderstanding (see above) that all forum links are totally banned, but that's another topic. Re replacing forum links with "see Google", the same argument could be made for most external links. Other credible encyclopedias besides Wikipedia use links to external forums, so their editors obviously see value in that. E.g, the Encarta article on Mathematics contains a link to this math discussion forum: [6]. Similarly the Wikipedia Mathematics article also has a link to a math discussion forum: [7]. Joema 00:45, 27 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 [[ISBN] 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)

To my knowledge, the answer is no. To fill this gap was why WebCite was developed in the first place. I don't even know whether "the two mentioned alternatives" are viable alternatives at all (haven't tested them, someone should).--Eysen 16:04, 22 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)

Link to Dmoz?

Isn't it time that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia: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©Please rate me at Editor Review! 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

New template for external images

External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)[1]
description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)[2]
External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)[8]
description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)[9]

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.

External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)[3]
description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)[10]

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)


Search engine result pages

SERPs are listed under "Links normally to be avoided". What was the reasoning behind this? I can see listing how a broad Google search is not useful, but I have in the past added a link to an SERP on a news organisation's website which linked to many news stories covering the subject in question. This IMHO forms a perfectly good basis for "further reading" for the interested reader. I'm sure there are other cases where database-type searches (newspapers, scientific databases etc.) provide useful further reading and potential source material from which the article could be expanded. This clause should be amended to either restrict it only to general web searches or to allow database searches as an exception to the rule. Zunaid©Review me! 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the original rationale, but I can see at least a couple of reasons: first of all it seems a silly thing to do in most cases (what is its usefulness? avoid some typing to the user?); secondly, the result is a moving target and there's little control on what the search could actually yield, say, three years from now. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur. SERPs are not an article or document that you're referring the user to, it's a search ... with, as Gennaro pointed out, results that may differ from day to day. Really, the ideal link for me would be a citation or other template that links to the specific article, with its author, title, publication date, blah blah blah (see: Citation templates), so the user knows what s/he is clicking to. For me, ELs have value if they are further reading the user will get some understanding from, not just "more info." E.g., a WP article on digital video editing linking to an article at reputable source about digital video restoration of classic films. As opposed to a search on AFI or BFI for "digital video." This puts the burden on you to find a link that meets WP standards for citations/references, and then link to it with the proper form. Many, many editors just use the [http://somesite.com/some/article/piece Some article I found] link method, which IMHO is lazy, and requires other editors to Wikify. This is an encyclopedia, not a Web, so good links are pertinent, direct, clearly identified, and specifically of interest. A SERP just doesn't meet that standard.

That said, if your SERp finds a good article to link to, open it (ensure any user can access, as links requiring login or payment are discouraged), and see if there's a "permanent link to this article" there ... then you've struck gold. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
SERPs should not be linked to from a spamming perspective. One of the methods Google Adsense spammers (or Yahoo!, for that matter) employ is to create SERP pages and put up Adsense ads on them. Google frowns on this, but there's lots of them on the web. No unique content, simply relying on SE's to provide page content to create relevance for advertisements. Calltech 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the idea of noting exceptions to the no-search-results "rule," specifically for site-search and database-search pages (of course the latter aren't search engine results at all). The rule should be: no general searches, and searches only when the provide the best point of entry to a range of useful further reading on a particular website. I've noted that people have a habit of enforcing this "rule" rather blindly, sometimes with ridiculous results (for example, removing any link if the URL contains the word "search," as someone recently did on a swath of articles). It should be made clear that the first concern is utility to the user. If a site-search result is the best point of entry -- and if there are numerous useful articles from a single source that would otherwise have to be linked individually -- then the search-results page should be linked. More or less the same thing, methinks, applies to "further reading" sections; if an anthology contains 5 useful articles, we would list the anthology once. On the other hand, if we were citing those articles as references, we would of course list them individually. This is one of several differences between further reading (and EL) and references/notes/sources. -- Visviva 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we talk about searches in general they can indeed be useful and I've used them in at least a couple of situations I can off-hand remember of: the Linguistic Universals Database (see last footnote in the endianness article) and Acronym Finder (in an upcoming version of KISS principle); in the latter case, "linking to a search" not only provided verifiability for the assertion (made in the article) that many expansions of the acronym KISS exist but avoided an inline list and the corresponding "I want to add my entry too" phenomenon which affects (to use a neutral term) so many Wikipedia articles (see for instance signature song). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Searches certainly are useful, and the results of searches (including a link, for convenience) are certainly appropriate for posting to talk pages of articles. I think that's a different matter than putting a URL that resolves into a (say) google search as an external link or footnote in an article. I didn't see the latter in the two articles you mentioned. John Broughton | Talk 16:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

External links at Ex-gay

Would somebody who feels confident in their knowledge of the guideline look at the rather large list of External Links at the Ex-gay article? I have no doubt that many should be removed but would rather another set of eyes look at them. CovenantD 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Dang, thats a lot of links. You could legitimately remove all of them except for perhaps one or two of the biggest resources, write a note on the talkpage about the need for external links to be symmetrically, as opposed to tangentially, related to the subject of an article and caution that any individual subgroups should only be linked to from a page about them. Just because the article references a movement, it does not grant anyone connected with that movement the opportunity to be linked. Deizio talk 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Overly strict on forum sites?

Can we allow some types of online forums as external links?

For instance, many neighborhoods have a community blog, which would be a useful addition to an article about the neighborhood. The same goes for articles about hobbies, where there often exists an authoritative forum or newsgroup, ex. USENET's rec.* hierarchy.

When the "forums" policy first appeared in the policy in April '06, it looked like this:

Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=49918030 )

It now looks like:

  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
  • Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
  • Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

which is causing people to delete blog links on sight, even when the blog is useful to the article.

I'm proposing changing to:

  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace)
  • Links to discussion forums, community blogs, or USENET groups, except when the forum is about the subject of the article, the subject of the article is not a person or organization, _and_ when the forum is of a reasonably high standard.
  • Links to personal blogs and web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
  • Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Because of these points:

  • Community blogs are more like forums than personal blogs.
  • Forums are not the same as social networking sites.
  • Forums that are about the topic of the article are good.
  • We should probably not link to forums about people though.
  • The forum should be a good, active one and we should not list any forum just because it exists.
  • Clarify that we're referring to live feeds of newsgroups here, there are some situations where USENET is cited, for example, a bona fide FAQ.

Squidfryerchef 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


First, Links normally to avoid starts by saying "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...". Also, did you see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Discussion_forums? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read that exception narrowly, it's only for links to _offical_ sites or when the article is about the website itself. This is too narrow, because it doesnt allow forums that are merely _about_ the subject. P.S. I tried and there's nothing at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Discussion_forums. Did there used to be a section for that? Squidfryerchef 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind about #Discussion_forums, found it here on the talk page. Squidfryerchef 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I misformed the link, and then it was "archived" this morning (though it doesn't seem to be in the archive(no longer true), so I have restored it and corrected the links). -- Mwanner | Talk 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PDFs

In notice that the section Wikipedia:External links#Rich media pretty strongly discourages PDFs; in practice, I don't see much reluctance to link to them, and was wondering if we should bring the standard in line with the practice? Also:

  1. Given that we now mark PDFs differently from other links, is it still recommended to explicitly write "(PDF)" after each such link?
  2. Hmm. I notice that the automatically generated symbol has now changed from one specific to PDFs to one that is rather more generic for a document. I think this was a poor choice. Where was it decided? I don't think there was discussion here, but with so much activity here it is hard to keep track. - Jmabel | Talk 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather link to plain text than a PDF, but a PDF is better than no link. Lots of academic and government articles are only available as PDF. I've always read the "rich media" rule as a preference for simple media, not a ban on rich media. Perhaps it should be rephrased. Squidfryerchef 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I miss the "PDF" symbol too and wonder where it went. Squidfryerchef 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be no reluctance about linking to PDFs and other documents in the external links guideline. People seem to naturally link to web sites/pages when they can, and link to other documents when they can't. Also, certain file types are frequently used for certain types of documents, such as Excel for some types of financial information and PDFs for government online archives of printed documents, so if we want to link to this content, we have to link to these file types. Besides this, the content put into different file types tends to be different, so getting an equivalent web version can be impractical or impossible from a technological standpoint. Finally, content is often available from a single source and few sources provide the same content in multiple file types.
I would prefer a PDF symbol rather than a generic one, if it is to be used solely for identifying PDFs. If it is to be used as a general file identifier, then something generic would make sense. Also, I think that specific symbols should be made for other files, like videos and text documents. -- Kjkolb 10:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the PDF symbol. The discussion is at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#PDF_icons. — Omegatron 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

[moved from archived discussion]
I would like to ask, is anyone else concerned that there are 3,343 outbound links from Wikipedia space to Wikia.com wikis? Many of these are linking to wikis that have had less than 4 edits in the past 30 days. So, that violates the current policy on External Links, but I'm not seeing much outcry or action to delete these links. --JossBuckle Swami 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[end moved]

Speaking only for myself, no, I'm not particularly worried about this. There are probably tens of thousands of exteral links to blogs, forums, and other websites that violation WP:EL, for example. I think some things just need to be handled on a case-by-case (that is, article by article) basis; this seems like one. If you really think this is a huge problem, you might consider starting a wikiproject. John Broughton | Talk 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I archived a bunch of stuff and moved the YouTube discussions to bring this talk page down to a reasonable size. I removed a little at a time and kept checking the size of the page. It is currently 39 KB, which is larger than ideal, but far smaller than the previous 367 KB. If you feel that a discussion was archived prematurely, please feel free to move it back. At the moment, I am still working on the archiving. The links to the pages will come soon. -- Kjkolb 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the archiving. The new archives, 11 and 12, are linked to at the top of the page. There is also a link to this page, where I moved the YouTube discussions. -- Kjkolb 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

DMOZ again

We have a user adding DMOZ links to scores of location articles, mostly in New York state. WP:EL as presently formulated certainly doesn't discourage this, and no one is reverting these links. I know that some have argued that DMOZ should be used only as a last resort. I would almost go further: most DMOZ location directories have a number of commercial links in them, links that we wouldn't allow direct links to, so why allow indirect ones? Anyway, with WP:EL as it now stands, I am reluctant to start reverting these links. Comments? -- Mwanner | Talk 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Not sure that a DMOZ link provides a guaranteed great resource but the flipside is you can link DMOZ and justify the removal of all kinds of other inappropriate links. But if you did want to get rid, you can invoke #1 of Links to normally be avoided, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Deizio talk 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ... Someone care to define what a DMOZ is? TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made that DMOZ. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (EC) I'm not really sure I see the problem? Commercial websites are not de-facto bad and DMOZ is the unofficial link directory for wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C) 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"Commercial websites" are "links to avoid" if they "primarily exist to sell products or services." Plenty of the sites linked to by DMOZ fit that definition of "commercial website". -- Mwanner | Talk 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see is if any of the Dmoz links are to the half of Dmoz regional categories that are useless. If these specific links go to useful categories, then that seems fine. Dmoz is a solution with External links sometimes, but it is also a totally useless link sometimes. It should not just be added to an article because it can. So I see it as a case by case thing. 2005 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it would be a Real Good Thing if we could wrap some language around the distinction between useful and useless DMOZ links, and give reasonable guidance about when to even consider them. The present language is, to me, far too encouraging. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Current line says: "A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article..." I think just a word or two would do it, like "A comprehensive web directory category..." 2005 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, but what I'm unhappy about is categories that are, to my mind, too comprehensive. For example, Alabama at the Open Directory Project contains links to a tatoo parlor, bars and restaurants, etc. A lot of location directories contain links to real estate agents, whose links I have a particular problem with, as they tend to be especially persistent spammers.
And what about providing guidance as to when to consider a dmoz link? Is what we really mean "If you can't seem to keep an article's External links section to a reasonable length, then you might consider replacing the whole mess with a dmoz link? That's a far cry from what we currently say. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There was an attempt to remove the Template:dmoz several weeks back that got a lot of feedback from WP editors. 100% of the comments were to keep it, citing all the anti-spam benefits that result. The fact that DMOZ categories do include many commercial websites in reality can divert links to commercial sites away from WP. It's democratic, even though dmoz editors are human and arbitrary at times. Entries do have to pass some level of notability which frees up editors here from having to check individual sites. DMOZ is certainly not perfect, but its better that Yahoo! directory where there's an annual fee (commercial sites), and most of the technical categories on dmoz have the major websites listed. I agree that putting up DMOZ (or links to any external sites) should not be a campaign by itself, but as a spam guard and replacement for long external links, its very valuable. I have used it on a number of articles for this very purpose. Calltech 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, OK, but does that mean the guideline should say "don't add a dmoz link without yanking all (most?) of the existing external links"? I wouldn't mind that quite so much, but right now we're seeing dmoz links added to long lists of links, with no guideline language to say that that's not a perfectly OK thing. dmoz is "a spam guard and replacement for long external links" if the guidelines say that that's how it must be used. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I see your point if editors are simply adding DMOZ arbitrarily, and I definitely agree that using DMOZ where the category websites do not relate to the article violates WP:EL guidelines (relevance). To me, the prelude to WP:EL says it all and that a good article doesn't need to have external links to be a good article. I happen to like the fact that DMOZ is specifically mentioned as an alternative to long lists of ELs. Not sure you can or should say the DMOZ must only be used to replace other ELs, but certainly it can be stated that this is the recommended use. Calltech 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "it can be stated that this is the recommended use"... I like that. 2005 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That's how I basically see the thrust of the whole guideline. Adding a dmoz link to a dozen others is silly. I don't agree with the too comprehensive point as what we care about is that the links we think are encyclopedic are included. What is there beyond that dosn't concern me much, since obviously if you look at it too deeply, a link to an Alabama Dmoz category can lead to navigating to the Ted Bundy or Jello categories. But with that in mind, the link to Dmoz itself is not the point. It's a way to list dozens or even hundreds of external links that could conceivably be linked on an article. So, I wouldn't write the guideline to say "either a dmoz link or other external links", that is the way I'd hope most articles would deal with it. Ideally we should choose valuable links for articles. If there are too many valuable (or contentious) choices, a Dmoz link could be a "replacement". If we can word something that way, perhaps we can say in general Dmoz links should not be added as one of many links. 2005 00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested here that the guideline should be "don't add a dmoz link without yanking all (most?) of the existing external links". I'd like to interject that I, as a dmoz editor, am very reluctant to delete other external links (except for egregious spam and obvious garbage) when adding a dmoz category link, because I am aware of the potential for a conflict of interest. I believe Alucard (Dr.) was being similarly principled when he added those dmoz links in articles for New York counties. If other Wikipedians feel that the addition of dmoz links justifies removal of other links in those articles, please feel free to do so, but please don't insist that dmoz editors make those determinations. IMO, there are few U.S. county articles that would not benefit from a link to the dmoz category for that county, as a single dmoz link (which embeds links to categories for every locality in the county) can obviate a lot of arguing about the value of inserting links to chambers of commerce, tourism organizations, historical societies, museums, educational institutions, genealogy websites, commercial web directories, job listing boards, local newspapers, libraries, recreation organizations, performing arts calendars, and similar sites that may seem worthwhile when viewed individually, but that collectively can choke an article with spam. FWIW, many of those New York counties currently have links to individual pages on a few other specific sites, including http://history.rays-place.com/ny/ , http://town-court.com/getStateCounties.php?stateCode=NY , and http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/state/his/ . If those links were instead listed in the dmoz categories, it would be easier to justify removing the links from wikipedia. --orlady 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hrm. I'm new to this DMOZ thing ... hey, it looks like the old Yahoo!, back in the day! Ah, nostalgia.... Anyway, I don't think that DMOZ links would pass muster with me as the ones I saw used as examples (above, and over at Template:Dmoz) are just links ... to links. What in 'ell is "notable" or "verifiable" to a reader about a link page which is ever-changing? Today it could have 5 good links, next week 20 lousy, commercial links and those 5 getting lost in the mess.

    My other criteria would be that WP discourages pages which are just indiscriminate collections of lists, or no more than links to other articles. Well, the DMOZ looks like pages which are just links elsewhere. I don't see the relevancy under a "See also" or "External links" banner. Call me a curmudgeon, but my litmus test for an EL is that on first click, it's relevant information for the article I'm leaping off of. If the link isn't relevant info, I wanna blitz it. (Yep, I feel that way about "search results" pages as well. Don't make me dig under a "See also" link. I know how to dig already.) So say I. >:( Handing the mike over to.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, isn't a user spending 20 hours adding DMOZ links to 20+ articles pretty much link-spamming? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)
Holy flurking snot, Batman, do you folks realize that Alucard (Dr.) (talk · contribs) spent 8 hours on 2006-12-27 just adding ODP links? If that isn't link-spamming I don't know what is. (shakes head) The 7 or 8 ODP links he posted that I looked at had no content that I could see ... just categories. (yawn) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)
Please, WP:AGF. --Xixtas 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Commercial and other non-essential links can still usually be weeded out using other criteria. If a DMOZ is appropriate then let it be added. Note this thread grew from a fairly mild incident, this is probably best left until we have a serious DMOZ incident to focus our minds. Are there any pages out there really suffering from the addition of a DMOZ link? If you add something else to the guideline about DMOZ you risk the implication that DMOZ has a divine right to be linked. I think it's pretty cool the way it is. WP is not responsible for the rest of the web, DMOZ is useful if not perfect. Deizio talk 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to offer profound apologies if what I was doing was link-spamming. I am a relatively new Wikipedia Editor and didn't realise that this was so controversial. I will offer that, should the concensus go the other way, I will spend whatever time it takes to remove those links. It was not my intention to cause any harm to Wikipedia. Let me try to explain my reasoning - I am an editor at the ODP (disclosing my affiliations) and I feel that the ODP and Wikipedia complement each other very well - both are volunteer efforts doing different things - there is no competition. Once of the issues I saw Wikipedia facing was that of long lists of external links was detracting from the article - and the amount of time taken to revert the drive-by link spammers. I thought that this was a great way of pointing people towards a list of External Links on a subject without it having to spoil the purity of the Wikipedia article. Yes, the links within an ODP category are commercial and non-commercial - that was a decision taken a long while ago, but they are chosen by humans to be of value to that category. The ODP uses a very different model for volunteerism, such that only "trusted" editors can add content, and while both have their drawbacks, I feel that both can be used in an effective way. As DeiZio said, the ODP is useful, but not perfect. I considered removing the other external links (after checking that they had been added to the ODP, but felt that at this stage, that would be arrogant on my part, and a wrong move. If that step is to be done, then I would be more than willing to do it. I look forward to reading more of this discussion. Alucard (Dr.) 12:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't consider what you were doing link-spamming, and I don't think most editors would either. Of course, I am a semi-retired DMOZer myself, so might be somewhat biased. Good to see you on this side, by the way. ;-) Hope you stick around, even it if it is only to add {{dmoz}} to pertinent articles. As the comments above said, not all DMOZ categories are worth adding (any more than all Wikipedia articles are worth listing on the ODP), but there are plenty that are. -- Visviva 15:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it should be obvious this was external link spamming since that is how it is defined: "Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product." WP:SPAM It seems in some of the places the links were added they don't meet the criteria of this guideline. It would be nice if they were removed. A link should only be added where it is needed, not because it can be plausibly added because it is relevant, and an absence of a Dmoz link is in no way a reason in itself to add one. 2005 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't hold to the spirit of the rule, each DMOZ link is to a specific collection of links that have generally been reviewed, not a "site" with content. DMOZ links are OK unless inappropriate in a given case, and you'd be hard pushed to argue that adding a DMOZ link for Butthole, Montana to Butthole, Montana is irrelevant or overly spammy. I'm pretty zero tolerance on ELs but it's obvious to me how using DMOZ as cruft prevention outweighs the feeling of spammery. Deizio talk 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
"That doesn't hold to the spirit of the rule..." What doesn't? I quoted the guideline. 2005 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You quoted a portion of the guideline found under "Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar." and said that phrase defined EL spam. A better definition can be found at the top of the article. See External Link Spamming. --Xixtas 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Deiz's reasoning and I particularly dislike that we favor one website in our guidelines (especially without any regard to the quality of the content). We need to hold the line on poor links, not institutionalize the idea that we are a jumping off point to anything and everything about a subject. A DMOZ link won't help us build a good external links section - it's a lazy way of dealing with an article that attracts a lot of people's favorite but unencyclopedic links. If we just have a DMOZ link we deny our readers the service of a well vetted and focused external links section. If we have the DMOZ link and others we have the same problems with which links get to go on the article itself as we had without the DMOZ link. Some DMOZ links are great and are well focused enough that they provide a valuable resource for people wanting to go into the subject in greater depth. But most of the ones I have seen on Wikipedia articles are no better as resources than a link to a Google search.
A DMOZ editor who adds DMOZ links to dozen of Wikipedia articles is linkspamming - though I can see it was in good faith. It's a conflict of interest and it's pushing a particular website on Wikipedia rather than building an article up by finding the appropriate content (or external links) for that article. When one source is systematically favored over others we introduce bias that limits the value of our project. Wikipedia will be better off if DMOZ links are added when they meet our link guidelines and not otherwise. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Some good points there Siobhan. Absolutely it would be great if editors adding DMOZ links check them and impartially consider their worth. And as you'll note a few paragraphs above, I do not believe that DMOZ should be further institutionalized as WP's preferred link partner. Appropriate links should never be displaced with DMOZ, only complemented if useful. And yes, indiscriminate mass DMOZ linking is undesirable. I do still contend that DMOZ is compatible with many of the goals of WP and should not be considered completely akin to linking to a commercial or other classic spammo site, placed with the aim of actual financial or other gain by the linker. I also revisit my point that this was set off by a pretty mild incident - did anyone else check out the Ex-gay posting above? Now there's a WP page DROWNING in links with a tangential connection to the topic. That's the kind of EL removal we should look at, and be ready to back each other up if editors to the page get sniffy about it being cleaned up. I can think of a few other pages where Taskforce:EL could succeed if we want to drive out spam and loose or unworthy links. Deizio talk 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You understand that DMOZ editors are volunteers and that the content of the directory is available for all and sundry? That ODP editors' raison d'etre is to find quality links on whatever subject and that useless and spammy listings are dumped in the bit-bucket? I don't think links to DMOZ categories should be added to en masse to Wikipedia articles any more than I think links to Wikipedia articles should be added en masse to DMOZ categories. However, I think there are a lot of articles here which would benefit from links to DMOZ categories. As well, people active in WP:EL and WP:SPAM maintenance have found that links to DMOZ categories tend to reduce the spam added to articles when there is a link to DMOZ. By the way, DMOZ loves Wikipedia[11]. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the clarification and substantive discussion. I reiterate that several of the DMOZ links that I quite randomly sampled had NO ARTICLES, just categories ... requiring the reader to search/click/explore or otherwise try to figure out what the heck the EL was posted for. Other links, which have clearly pertinent articles, ought to be okay. Certainly, as mentioned, we ought not discourage editors judiciously adding a link which has appropriate content on the first level, with no bias either way about the hosting site (beyond the kinds of sites discouraged already). Clearly good faith can be assumed, but when someone who has a vested interest in DMOZ adds a few dozen DMOZ links across Wikipedia ought to raise eyebrows. Not trying make a personal attack, but I stand by my assessment. I hope that all concerned appreciate this and will act with restraint and respect for WP:COI in the future. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I am puzzled by your comment about dmoz links that had "NO ARTICLES, just categories." Can you name some examples? Perhaps you misunderstand the function and structure of dmoz. It is a web directory, meaning that it is a large hierarchically organized collection of links. It is not an encyclopedia, so it does not have articles. Furthermore, many dmoz categories, such as http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/New_York/Counties/Fulton/ , are subdivided by topic and geography. As a result, no actual content links appear on that particular page. Instead, the links in that category are listed in topical subcategories and in subcategories for cities and towns.
As for your comment about people with "vested interest in DMOZ," I am curious about what you would consider to be a "vested interest." Dmoz is edited and maintained by volunteers and it has no ads (much like Wikipedia). When a dmoz editor adds dmoz links to Wikipedia (or adds Wikipedia links to dmoz), what "vested interest" do you perceive? --orlady 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Answers to above.
  1. Yep, the example you provide is what I saw. IOW, one click away from the WP article, the reader does not find "related information," not a "collection of links" (e.g. old Yahoo, a page of links to pages), but a list of categories. So the reader has to click even more to search for related information. I frown on that. I think ELs from an article ought be to discrete pages with further information. My reading of the EL guideline is based on that (worthiness of the link). That's just my POV. Read some of Jakob Nielsen's early Web usability articles for more on what I subscribe to, i.e., making users click excessively or hunt for info is bad usability.
  2. Vested interest doesn't have to mean money or gain, though it often does. I would define it as more than just casual or arbitrary interest. My OED defines it as "a personal stake in an undertaking or situation,...." So my idea of a vested interest (not stake, btw) could be a regular user of [OFF-SITE RESOURCE] placing lots of links to that same resource here. Say, an Admin of Memory-Alpha. A Guide/editor with About.com. If I'm a regular writer for Goopity-goop.com and place 20+ links to articles there, from articles here, you could say I might have a personal interest in seeing Goopity-goop articles linked from WP. Contrast with, e.g., my evaluation of a How It Works link to the Bluetooth article; I have no interest in that external site, so my opinion of the EL was relatively "un-vested."
So in your view the 75,000 people who have at one time been editors for dmoz should be disallowed from adding links to dmoz from Wikipedia? Would you also be supportive of the idea (conceptually) that the many editors at dmoz who are also editors at Wikipedia should be disallowed from adding links to Wikipedia in dmoz? Both points of view seem equally bizarre to me. --Xixtas 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I realize I'm probably taking a conservative (restrictive?), minority perspective here. As early as last June, the page encouraged consideration of links to "web directories," preferrably open directories, judged relevant by the article's regular editors. So perhaps this whole discussion is moot? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The DMOZ pages for popular subjects are broken up into categories because they can be so rich in content to be unusable otherwise. For instance, look at the larger English speaking cities, which have thousands of external links (e.g. 12000+ for London, 6000+ for New York). If they were not categorised the user would have to search these thousands of links, which presumably would be listed in alphabetic order, to find something of use. Conversely the Wikipedia pages for such popular subjects may also themselves be broken up for readability and usability. Going down the London page, there are 'Main articles' for the Geography of London, Climate of London, and many more. Imc 11:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links mentioned in the course of User Talk pages

I would like the External Link community's opinion here about the notion that I was "spamming" another User by leaving them a message on their Talk page (which was, in turn, deleted by another user who determined it to be spam). Seems to me that they're going a bit too far censoring Wikipedia users from even TALKING to each other on a Talk page, if there's an external link involved. FWIW, I am neither the owner nor being paid in any way by the external blog or the external wiki that is in question. --JossBuckle Swami 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history you appear to have been using Wikipedia to campaign for contributions to another site. That seems like spamming to me. User talk pages, along with all Wikipedia space, is to be used for the purpose of building the encyclopedia, there is no right to use this community for other purposes. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Same could be said for the Category deletionist who was responsible for at least half of those Users' deletion noms. Maybe if I add Wikia.com to my suggested external wiki recommendation, everyone will bow down in homage. --JossBuckle Swami 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with SiobhanHansa, your edit history reflects a clear pattern of spamming people's Talk pages. Our goal here is to build an encylopedia, not to spam each other. Please read WP:5P. Thanks, Crum375 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably not. Happy New Year anyway. --Spartaz 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm unclear if JossBuckle Swami is really looking for honest feedback or just looking to chew some butt. Here are some data:
--A. B. (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this, everyone? Before there's a complete witch hunt to discover where JossBuckle lives and who he dated in high school, answer this question: If there's a Wikipedia user whose Category is headed for deletion, would it be okay to leave a message on his/her Talk page, which says the following:

I noticed that the Category you created, "Foo that are Bar", is likely headed for deletion. I understand that categories like this take quite some time to develop and flesh out, yet this particular one appears to be unwelcome at Wikipedia. I hope that you will continue your work here at Wikipedia. However, just so you know, there are also other wikis out there that might very well welcome such a Category project as yours. You might start by looking at Wikia.com, Centiare.com, or PBwiki.com. Note: no actual hyperlinks, to minimize spamminess.

Would that be considered spam? The reason I'm interested in doing this, is because Category deletionism has been rampant recently, and a lot of talented Wikipedians are having their feelings hurt. Letting them know that their industry and talent might be welcome in another place is showing some more kindness than just deleting their Category. I would like to include Centiare.com, because I was very impressed with the write-up about it that Scott Baradell offered in his blog last week. I am not like other Wikipedians who think that Wikia.com is the only external alternative wiki that should ever be mentioned in Wikipedia, because that's endorsing a severe conflict of interest that Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley have. --JossBuckle Swami 13:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a reminder or clarification is needed. This site is Wikipedia. We are here to build an Encyclopedia. The messages that are shown in your contrib history reflect a clear pattern of spamming, and are totally inconsistent with our encyclopedia building goal. Political attacks on Wikipedians, such as the ones you make just above, violate WP:NPA. Please refer to WP:5 to read about this project. Crum375 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm familiar with "political attacks". I've been on the receiving end of them since about my first week on Wikipedia. I'm thinking along the lines of many other Wikipedians now -- it will be better for my sanity and my health to just abandon this project. The kids are running the asylum. --JossBuckle Swami 14:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to stay if you really want to participate productively and help us build the encyclopedia. I am not sure who the 'kids' are - I doubt I'd qualify. And getting politically attacked after one week here - if you believe you were attacked you should complain and pursue the matter - attacking others is not the proper recourse. Crum375 14:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you'd like to have a chuckle, the first case where my work was attacked in a political fashion, the admin who erased my work then erased my comments on his Talk page, where I asked why he was erasing my work! A few weeks later, when this admin was "brought before" a mediation hearing, the admin DELETED THE HEARING! When this action was reviewed, it was determined that the admin "probably" acted inappropriately, but since he was taking a self-enforced few-day "wikibreak", everything was allowed to just "blow over". It's preposterous how you folks who think you are "building an encyclopedia" actually reserve so much time for policing things that don't need to be policed, and ignoring things that ought to be on the front page of the New York Times. --JossBuckle Swami 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be first to admit that being a collection of humans (most of us anyway), we are far from perfect, although we all try our best. Incidents do occur, and if you were wronged by another editor, admin or not, you should pursue it until you feel it has been properly addressed. But I can assure you that attacking others or spamming people's talk pages is counter-productive and disruptive to our effort here, and 'policing' it (along with the other types of disruptions) is necessary to allow us to move forward. If you know of something that should be on the front page of the NYT and is not there, please report it to NYT, and once it is there we may end up writing an article about it, if it otherwise meets our notability and attribution criteria. Crum375 14:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Crum, just an honest question here, and I've already told you personally that I will stop my messages to other users that identify Centiare.com as a valid alternative enterprise for certain deleted Category creators. QUESTION: Is it "spam" if 100% of its recipients (so far) found value in the message, did not consider it spam, and complained neither to the sender nor to any Wikipedia authorities that they were being spammed? I think you have to agree that the answer is "no"; therefore, we are talking more about censorship here than about "building an encyclopedia". --JossBuckle Swami 15:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's my honest answer. To me 'spam' is an unsolicited mass mailing of messages with nearly identical contents, promoting some issue. Whether the recipients object or not does not, IMO, change the spam designation. The only exception I would make is for official WP business, e.g. notice of Arbitration, thanks for RfA vote, etc. Your solicitation, as reflected in your contribs, does not IMO fall under official WP business, nor otherwise help the project, hence it fits my definition of spam. In fact, I would consider even a single message that is not designed to help WP move forward undesirable; posting a whole bunch of nearly-identical ones is clearly improper. The WP Foundation pays for this site to build an encyclopedia - any activity that does not contribute to that effort is wasting their resources and disruptive for the rest of us. Crum375 15:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So, mentions of Wikia.com as an alternative to users is...? --MuscleJaw SobSki 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/MuscleJaw SobSki. --A. B. (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should in general police every single message between users, even if it's unproductive, unless there is a pattern of abuse, incivility, disruption, BLP violation, etc. In this case, if user A said to user B: "hey, why don't you consider service X?", we wouldn't be having this conversation now. But if user A sends the same unproductive message to n other users, B1, B2 thru Bn, where n is some number greater than 2 or 3 or so, it becomes a spam issue, and that is the case in point. Crum375 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that there isn't really a problem with Wikipedia users promoting an external wiki site, as long as the number of links doesn't get to be too terribly many. A former Wikimedia Foundation board member and Wikia, Inc. principal says that 2,700 outbound links "is actually very small". I pushed the number of external links for Centiare.com up to about 13, I think. Only 2,687 to go! --JossBuckle Swami 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. The issue is not exceeding some external link count - it is WP:SPAM. Posting a mass mailing of unsolicited non-productive[citation needed] messages to other WP users is spam and hence inappropriate. Crum375 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Blog sites

Are already listed as "Normally to be avoided". This is good advice, and is clear and unambiguous. In general Blog sites are dynamic, and can change quickly, or dissapear. Which is why they should normally be avoided. Often the words are off the cuff and don't have serious research behind them, often opinions. Hence why they are normally to be avoided.

Putting "except by recognized experts" makes it ambiguous. Even blogs from recognized experts should "normally be avoided". for the reasons stated above. An of the cuff comment from an expert, who hasn't given it alot of thought, is not backing the comments by anything more than a momentary opinion, and as it is a blog, may change their opinion, or the page may dissaperar entirely is also, "normally to be avoided".

If a topic is so new in discussion that there is no verifiable and confirmed citation or reference, then it is a neologism, and should not be included in an article, nor should some link to some self-recognized "expert" be referenced on the article. Such information may be marginally informational, but hardly encyclopedic. Atom 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think blog sites should be avoided except as references if the blog writer is a subject in the article. Even then, I think the blog site should be included as an inline reference. At this point I don't see a case for ever having a blog site as an external link. Crum375 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with both above. Blogs from recognized experts also contain entries from not so experts whose statements may not qualify for WP:RS or WP:V. One of the best blogs is Matt Cutts' who is a Google employee, is considered an expert in his field, and whose blog has been cited with many awards. Yet Google and Cutts both insist that content there is not necessarily reliable and that only content from Google's official website should be considered accurate and policy. Comments on a blog page may be refuted later, yet they usually remain on the blog for historical context. Traditional citation sources generally remove any content that is later corrected. Calltech 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be a lower bar for linking to a blog from a "Notes"; or "External Links" section than from the "References" section. Sometimes it is useful to include a discussion thread along with a fact that is already established by a reputable source. Also remember the quality of blogs, newsgroups, and mailing list archives vary widely and not every forum welcomes off-the-cuff responses. Squidfryerchef 19:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that WP:RS allows blanket use of blogs, only in very limited cases. Also, nowhere does WP:RS say that WP:EL has a lower burden of reliability than the reference section for blogs. I don't see why any EL blog is needed at all - in the exceptional cases where a blog is admissible, as described in WP:RS, the blog can be cited inline and its link will appear in the References section. Crum375 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Suppose you had an article about model railroading or something like that, and you knew there was one particular forum all the serious hobbyists used, it is appropriate to include a link to that forum for the benefit of the reader. Squidfryerchef
If the site is an established well known site for serious hobbyists, it would probably be fairly stable, and we could say in the text somewhere: "Serious model railroading hobbyists exchange ideas, plans and parts, at the Central Railroad Hobbyist Forum[1]". Using the 'cite web' template, the site will appear as a regular reference in the References section. Crum375 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There are exceptions. There had been an arbitration case, Israel-Lebanon, where it was established that blogs can be used in articles describing developing events. -- ReyBrujo 20:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the WP:EL page. There is nothing in WP:RS or the Arb case you cite that says that a blog should be cited as an External Link. I already mentioned above that per WP:RS blogs are acceptable in some limited situations. The question is are they ever appropriate as EL. Crum375 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
We may be running into a dual meaning of "external link" as either "any link that leads outside Wikipedia, whether it's EL section, references, notes, or right in the text" or "a link in the External Links section" Squidfryerchef 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ever? No. Under restricted circunstances, in example, when the current event is overwhelming, and users add blog links to the external links section, they should not be deleted based on the guideline, but instead allowed to stay there or moved into the references section until they are analyzed. We must prevent wikilawyering in these circumstances. -- ReyBrujo 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that any internal WP link is a 'wikilink'. OTOH, most/many of our sources are external to WP. Some are hardcopy, e.g. books, magazines, etc., and some are online. The online ones are either cited inline (within the running text, or just past a comma or period), and using the cite template embedded in 'ref' delimeters (coupled with an existing References section with the <references/> line) will result in neatly formatted links to the online references, which can be interspersed with footnotes or hardcopy cites. The EL section, OTOH, is for left-over normally uncited online links, and that is the sole topic of this article and Talk page. Crum375 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The first issue is the inappropriate attempt to once again try and force a major change to this guideline without the slightest pretense of a consensus. This change will just be reverted so please stop just sticking it in there. Second, blogs obviously can be perfectly valuable external links. Sometimes they don't have comment sections. Sometimes they have a stable structure. Saying a stable URL on a recognized authority's blog can never be a meritable link is ludicrous. But beyond that, the section in question mentions the personal webpages of experts, which very often are the best external links on a topic. A random prohibition on expert sites is just dumb. Perhaps the section should be broken into two... "11. Links to personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority. 12. Links to blogs, except those with a stable URL structure and written by a recognized authority." 2005 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of context I suppose. An expert web site is good for rapidly changing issues where someone is looking for direction in problem solving, or changes, such as in the computer-IT area. It is a valuable site, -- that is a poor external link for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is enclyclopedic. A blog that has completely dissapeared, or the content completely changes in the year since the external link was put in is not helpful in an enyclopedia. By their nature/design, blog's aren't stable. And another thing, the policy says "Normally to be avoided". And not prohibited. My point is that blogs, even blog's of experts should normally be avoided. It does not prohibit an occasional EL to an expert site. All of the rhetoric seems to be people thinking we are trying to prohibit expert blog's. All blog's should normally be avoided. Atom 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Kindly desist from edit warring over this issue. Perhaps a request at the pump or an WP:RFC would help resolving this matter. >Radiant< 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, the monthly protection. Next time block the users, maybe that way people will learn. -- ReyBrujo 11:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This page should be permanently protected. This revolving door of unprotecting it just so someone can ignore the "consensus" statement at the top and add any old thing they want is ridiculous, and also leads to inappropriate statements about edit warring. 2005 11:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a wikipedia site. Let's just follow the rules we have established for editing. Obviously if editors vilate 3RR then that will be dealt with. Obviously if there were a consensus then there wouldn't be a edit war. New editors can't introduce new ideas to policies, guidelines, or aticles if th4e article is locked because a few editors with admin rights think that they have consensus, or think that a majority vote is the same as consensus. What you could propose is a different mechanism for things like policies and guidelines, of having a windows of discussion and editing on some regular basis, and having them static the rest of the time. An interesting concept, but not the way it works now. Atom 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • There has been a consensus. Consensus doesn't cease because one person now disagrees, that would be meglomania to think so, and certainly one person adding something to an established page is obviously not a consensus. The way it works here is if someone wants to make a significant change, they have to achieve a consensus on the talk page or the changes will be reverted. And that is not "edit warring". It's the way it is supposed to work. Editors trying to force changes without discussion or consensus just need to be made aware of their responsibilities. 2005 12:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, three different editors supporting the more clearly worded version hardly seems "meglomania" by one editor. And, since we have been discussing it here, at length, it hardly seems any editor is trying to "force" their way. Atom 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support leaving in "except by recognized experts", it doesn't make sense to ban all blogs since there are exceptions worth linking to. This has been discussed a ton recently, look at the recent talk. Quit making changes to guidelines without getting consensus first. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, or for the third or fourth time. It says "Normally to be avoided". All blogs should' normally be avoided. Most people agree with that. It does not say "Blogs are banned as external links" NO one has suggested that. The point, again, is that blogs are temporal, unreliable, and off the cuff. Whether it is an "recognized expert" or not, it shoulkld normally be avoided. Not always avoided, prohibited, verboten or forbidden.
Adding "except by recognized experts" to the "normally to be avoided" suggests that somehow those blogs are okay, or are better. This ambiguity leads to more bad information in Wikipedia at a time when its credibility is already considered to be poor. Strong policies on Attribution, Verifiability, and External Links will lead to better quality, and better credibility. Who is a recognized expert? How is their opinion on a blog about things probably not related to their field of expertise something that will improve the quality of an article, or the credibility of Wikipedia? Atom 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"suggests that somehow those blogs are okay" That is because those expert ones are. Your assertions are totally at odds with the guidline and common sense. Expert sites that are meritable, stable and otherwise meet the criteria for linking are good links. Your POV of wanting to avoid anything published via blog software is not something most people will agree with. Nonsense statements like "blogs are temporal, unreliable, and off the cuff" help no one. We DON'T LINK TO blogs that are "temporal, unreliable, and off the cuff" so don't make a silly strawman. Read the guideline. The issue is non-temporal, expert, well-considered content. Even though you may disagree, the consensus in making the guideline is to link to such material for the good of users and the encyclopedia. 2005 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I heard a statemnet on the radio... over 1 billion blogs on the internet. I'm willing to bet that 999,999,000 of them are ones we should never link to. ---J.S (T/C) 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Any source that has no editorial board validation is highly suspect and most likely will fail WP:RS. Blogs are in fact almost always unacceptable on WP except in some rare cases where (per WP:RS):

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

So even in these rare cases caution should be exercised. If you blindly say 'no' to any blog source, you'd be correct most of the time. The onus is on the provider of that source to prove it meets these very strict requirements. Crum375 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS only applies to items used as sources in an article. And even then, your assertion that Blogs can almost never be used as Reliable Sources has a few problems. For instance, there has been a recent rise in media professionals having their own Blogs, that are verifiably theirs. Neil Gaiman for example, has a blog, as do the creators of The Venture Bros.. Such blogs would actualy serve as primary sources for statements, quotes and announcements.
However, that said, the External link guidelines are here for where a link is *not* being used as a source, and different standards apply. There is a strong caution against using blogs, but there are still circumstances where linking to a blog is appropriate. --Barberio 12:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your premise that this entire guideline is for external links that are not used as a source is important. AFAICT, the vast majority of the ELs currently used in WP are used at least indirectly as a source, and most/many are used as a source in lieu of proper inline reference citation. So while I personally would agree that ELs are for non sources, I think current status is that they are, and the current wording of the guideline does not preclude their use as sources AFAICT. I think this issue (and hence the applicability of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP) has to be settled first, before addressing the blog issue. Crum375 13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
External links can be used to link to sources used as references, and often are, but in those cases *both* WP:EL and WP:RS apply. In cases where the external link is not used in a reference or a cite, then only WP:EL is used. I think this is clear enough already, but I would not object to adding text to make that explicitly clear. --Barberio 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never read these guidelines as applying to references and common practice sees many reference links accepted that do not comply with EL. For instance citations of journals that have an online article requiring registration or subscription frequently include a link to the article - under our EL guidelines this isn't acceptable, but it's considered a courtesy link for a reference. Our need for good sourcing is more important than our need to keep other links in check, so I don't think we should try to restrict references more than is necessary to comply with our WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It becomes much messier when a source is not linked to the assertion(s) it is supposed to support, but I don't think we gain as an encyclopedia by having blanket rules for all sources because of this. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In reference to your given example of including a link to a 'registration required' link. The guideline makes a specific exception "It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website", obviously this applies if the website is being used as a reliable source. As a service to our readers, if there is an equivalent reliable source which does *not* require registration, that might be a better source. However there is no requirement for immediate or free access to reliable sources, so using registration requires sites is perfectly acceptable. If you can find instances where WP:EL would conflict with WP:RS when using a link in a source citation, then we can add suitable exceptions. It should of course be noted that WP:EL is a guideline, and should be applied with digression. --Barberio 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Car manual external links

Yesterday I reverted the addition of http://www.analogstereo.com/ to several sites e.g. BMW 7 Series, then reverted my revert since I was not sure. I was about to remove all references in all articles - there are currently 97 articles containing this. From one point of view it contains usefull downloads of manuals, from another it may be a multiple copyright violation. Let me knnow, I've got an AWB script set up to delete them. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To expand on this, since Armadillo and I exchanged messages about it. Its unclear from the site what the copyright status of the downloadable manuals is. The PDF files are marked as copyright of the appropriate manufacturer - in this case BMW. I don't know enough about this market to know if these manuals are generally considered public domain or not. Unfortunately the site itself doesn't give any guidance (that I could find) about this issue. If the manuals are clear copyright violation I believe we should not link to that site. Gwernol 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The manual I clicked on was marked as an on-line edition so I guess it was intended to be downloaded but the thing was clearly copyrighted. I also tried to find some manuals on the BMW website but had no luck on .co.uk and .com so its not clear that BMW actually make them freely available. As such, I don't think we can consider them anything other than BMW's copyright and shouldn't link them via a third party unless more information becomes available. --Spartaz 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Some relevant information is at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. If you want to pursue the matter, you might post something on the talk page there. John Broughton | Talk 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It really depends on publishers point of view: BMW owner manuals are copirighted but freely available on their website and multiple other sources on internet(fan clubs etc), GM protects all of their marketing materials but not their technical info , Honda won't give you owner manuals but shop service manuals are free for download(not a single word of copyright, health & safety), Volvo made their owners manuals available for all models since 1973. and Peugeot warns you of french copyright law (2 years in prison + 250,000 Euros in damages);
All of BMW external links should be removed in my opinion - they are only manufacturer that clearly protected their publicly available materials with the proper copyright notice;A forum 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you a link to the BMW download? We could simply change the redirects to that link and be done with it. Spartaz 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Lack of enforcement does not change copyright status. Freely available downloads do not change copyright status (consider: if a publisher gives away a book, those who get free copies don't get any additional rights). Links should only be to clear original publishers, unless the republisher can demonstrate a specific release that includes them. (In my opinion, of course). Notinasnaid 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, here is a a BMW link BMW 7 series user manuals archive 2000-2005 - one of the manuals that I downloaded is marked 01 40 0 156 097 ue Online Edition for Part No. 01400156097 – © 10/01 BMW AG --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)