Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Proposed policy change 2 Proposed Changes Again 3 A Single Proposed Change 4 Explanation of revert 4.1 Another proposal 4.1.1 Alternative 4.2 Straw poll 4.3 Support 4.4 Oppose 4.5 Neutral 4.6 Comments 5 Splitting the article up and focussing on one aspect of "External links"

Proposed policy change

Hello. I'd like to propose a change to Wikipedia's external links policy. I have had an account here since November of 2005 and have been a regular editor for nine months with over 1,100 edits, so I have plenty of experience with this and know the way that things work around here. Regarding linking to fan sites, I think that Wikipedia is far too strict on this issue. The policy states that only linking to one major fan site is appropriate. However, I think that this is unfair to the people that read the articles. Calvin and Hobbes for example, has an official website that leaves a lot to be desired for as far as information goes. On the other hand, there are many beautifully done and comprehensive fan sites with lots of information to build upon the article. The Calvin and Hobbes article owes a lot to Calvin and Hobbes :: Magic On Paper, a fan site. Would it have been a featured article without access to such an extensive library of information? Probably not, and it still isn't all contained in the article and shouldn't be! That's why we should have external links to fan sites. They build upon what is already written in the article itself, and often have a better offering than the official site of the subject of the article. Thus, I think that Wikipedia should be more open to fan sites as external links.

Also, Wikipedia seems to have a thing for policing copyright in their external links. However, as I think that it's acceptable to remove a grossly copyright infringing link (such as a link to a site, which has been added on many occasion btw, with every Calvin and Hobbes strip every produced), I disagree with removing links to great informational resources on the grounds that they might be overdoing fair use a bit. Is it really Wikipedia's responsability to police copyright on other websites? - Mjg0503 20:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first suggestion above and believe that my proposed edits would allow for more than one fan site. The test is high quality and usefulness to many readers. Of course, the whole page needs a thorough rewrite, but probably not by me. David.Kane 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good test. Sure, get rid of links to fan sites which are merely reprints of magazine articles or big photo collections. But many fan sites have original fan art and add to the original material in ways that you won't find on an official site. These sites I feel should remain linked to - so I agree that the test is 'high quality' ... of course, how does one define that, well i think it's something that has to be a bit arbitary and will vary between article to article. Axim 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If an external link has been used to build the article, it is not an external link anymore, it is a reference (hopefully reliable enough). The main problem with fan sites is that it is extremely hard to get contributors agree about which ones should be included. I work with a lot of fan-based articles (anime, manga, games, etc), and people complain from "My GeoCities site isn't there" to "This site is better, thus should be above". In Calvin and Hobbes, I would tag the article with the {{External links}} tag, because there are too many external links. The miscellaneous articles could be moved as references or further reading inside the references section, and the fan sites should be cut to one or two. If people can't agree which fan sites should be included, include a link to Google's fan listing if there is not an open directory. -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're speaking to the editor of the Open Directory listing. - Mjg0503 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you already know the advantages of pointing to a dmoz entry (or a Google or Yahoo directory if there is none in dmoz) instead of a set of fan sites. The casual user comes here looking for information about something, and we can tell him "this is what we know, and here is the official site from where you can get more". Selecting fan sites (out of probably thousands of them) is saying "from all the fan sites, these are the most useful/most reliable/best ones." Fans defend their links, deleting others, putting their links above the others, etc. Conflict can be easily solved by pointing to a Web category. The casual user then can choose from all the ones available there which one he wants to visit (hardly he would click more than one fan site), and we can let the fans to go fight at dmoz, Google or Yahoo. -- ReyBrujo 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dmoz should be listed but I also think that it is a good idea to link to a few of the best sites as well. There are a lot of mediocre sites listed in Dmoz, given its open nature, believe me, and I think that it's best to seperate the good ones from the crowd. Plus, for many articles on Wikipedia, the related dmoz category does not have an editor. I know that the Calvin & Hobbes one didn't before I voluteered for the job. Thus, by linking to a dmoz listing without an editor, there will be lots of broken links in the listing, and often sites that should be included are not. - Mjg0503 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Definetely, to everything you said, Mike. Many fan sites are a little over the edge, but when you are covering a subject like C&H, you can't really get by with a good site without infringing a little. While DMOZ is a good idea, it is a pin to try to find the good sites in there. adamfc 01:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's mission to organize fan site listings. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory for fan sites. -- Donald Albury 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? Yes Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and a great one at that) but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't link to good sites just on the grounds that they are fan sites. - Mjg0503 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The point should be when there are a huge number of quality fansites, a link to a directory of fansites provides users with valuable information. When a (useful) directory link is available, that's the best solution. We should be here to give users valuable encyclopedic content. Arbritray things like the one fansite rule are aggressively anti-user and need to be changed, but there is no need to point out specific fansites if a directory link can point out several, even if some in the directory are weak. 2005 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that statement in general. However, Wikipedia also aims to be the site with the most comprehensive content about a topic. In this regard, I think any fan site which has original content (and not just a compilation of material) should be considered a valid link. I think people have become to hung-up on copyright and are forgetting the spirit of Wikipedia. The copyright policy is there to stop Wikipedia getting sued, not because they are making any moral judgement on it. Therefore, if a fan site has original derivative content, doesn't have excessive copied images/text etc, and is of a high quality, then I say let it be linked. Axim 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So now instead of linking to a fansite that has information about an anime, its characters, dubs, release dates, director, producer, etc, we are going to link to a site where members create stories about the anime's characters? -- ReyBrujo 01:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he said that we should link to sites that are very good, and he listed some reasons that sites can be very good. I don't think that linking to sites that are just fnafic sites is the best idea, though. I'm more inclined to link to the sites with the most extensive content and best info. - Mjg0503 01:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, if the article is about Mickey Mouse, we wouldn't link to a site with bios and stuff taken from the official site and images plastered all over, but to a site with lots of content in depth about the webmaster's thoughts on the whole topic. Getting more specific to an article, Calvin and Hobbes; we wouldn't link to A Directory of all the strips, but to a site with content you won't find anywhere else that is importanat to your undersatnding of Calvin and Hobbes. adamfc 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is, who is this guy to have his site linked from Wikipedia? If you include a non reliable external link (in example, a university student's fan page) with a probable POV (he thinks the cartoon is the best ever created), you are forced to include another external link to someone who thinks the cartoon is not. Thus, from having an external link to the official site you now have two fan sites where one thinks the cartoon is great and another that is not. The main problem is that they are both unreliable, nor great. You may be linking to a GeoCities and a Lycos or Tripod site for the sake of having links. Back to the original question, why the webmaster's thoughts on the whole topic are notable to be linked from here? And what stops other from adding their own links to other webmaster's thoughts on the whole topic? -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now come on! That's not at all the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be open to change and is free content. You shouldn't have to be Michael Jordan or Bill Gates to get a link from Wikipedia. Plus, just because somebody hosts their site on a free server does not mean that the site is not well done. Sure, they are a lot of amaturish pages on GeoCities and Tripod, but sometimes somebody can be hosting a wonderful website there! Why should we have to tell them "Well, since you don't pay a monthly bill for your site out of your pocket, it must not be that good"? That's totally unfair. - Mjg0503 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume a fansite is "unreliable". In the real world, on many topics, these sites are the best source of information on the topic and thus should be linked to. The url of the content should be irrelevant. There is no reason to be anti-user... choose the best and most appropriate resources to link to. The question actually is why should a certain type of site's ideas be treated differently than another site's? It's a silly distinction that no one can ever justify. There is no probalem here and much benefit to simply link based on the other criteria on WP:EL. Why expert sites that happen to be made by fans are not welcome makes no sense, and needs to be changed. 2005 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliantly put :-) - Mjg0503 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We go back to square zero. Rule 1: fans can agree about a lot of things, except fan sites. They can not agree about the^(FA!) external links, or worse. Sure, we need to give information to the casual user. But what kind of information? The opinion of John Generic Bob, owner of the contents of Generic GeoCities Fan Site with 115 hits since 2002? If so, we are wrong, very wrong. I don't disagree about adding the best fan sites after doing a research in the talk page. But not leasing everyone to insert their own sites, even if they are proposing an interesting twist nobody has ever thought before. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo, are you missing the point of the policy change? I quote mjg0503, "That's why we should have external links to fan sites. They build upon what is already written in the article itself, and often have a better offering than the official site of the subject of the article." This means that John Generic Bob's Geocities website would not be included in the Generic Construction Compny Article unless Jon Generic Bob's site gave inforamtion that could not be included in the wikipedia entry and offers valuable information to the company. Many fan sites would be good to include because they like the company so much. they would give a histry of the site and inportant facts and more. So what if many geocities sites are half-@ssed. DON"T LINK TO THEM. That is the whole point of wikipedia. People checking other people's choices. if we had a limit of 5 external links, even, do you think that John Generic Bob's website would get in if it is crap? NO, and if it did, it is not John Gnereic Bob's fault or the fault of the amended wikipedia rule. It is the fault of the editors.adamfc 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you just clarify what precisely is the problem with the proposed solution of official fansite + dmoz listing? Also, could you please identify which reliable secondary source we should to assess the relative quality and authority of fansites, absent the dmoz solution? Reference to objective secondary sources is the only way I can think of offhand to settle the competing claims of individual editors. Guy 11:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes Again

Two days ago, I posted a set of proposed changes to this page. Most comments on it seemed positive. My plan is to make the changes tomorrow. But, I am new to this, so if I am jumping the gun, please say so! (Note that this separate from but related to the recent proposal to remove the "one major fansite" restriction. I do not propose changing that sentence.) To repeat the changes are:

This solves several problems. First, we don't need to make blanket statements about blogs or forums or whatever. A site, whatever its organization, is either useful and high quality or it isn't (although people will fight about this). We dispute the quality, not the format. Second, we do not need to worry about what is in or not in the article. Obviously, a site which only had information which is already in the article will not be "useful" to many readers.

If that is accepted, we could then remove three items from Links normally to be avoided as so:

These have led to lots of (unproductive?) debate. They add little to a "high quality" or "usefulness to many readers" test. See other objections elsewhere in this discussion. In particular, a site might be "unverified" but still high quality and useful.

In general, I think that the tenor of this page is too specific. We need more common law type guidelines rather than blanket statements which fail to capture the spirit of the External Links section, a section with a purpose that is very different from that of References. At some point, I hope to propose a more major rewrite, but I still think that these changes would be useful now. David.Kane 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has agreed with your proposal, you would be jumping the gun. These changes, like the ones immediately above, will have the effect of inviting a million and one poor quality links into articles. The guidelines are as tight as they are because they have to be to stop people abusing them, and flooding articles with often-useless and self-promoting links. The terms high quality and useful are highly subjective ones - every editor thinks their links are high quality when usually they're not. "people will fight about this" you say. Too right. These guidelines serve to settle differences of opinion over that issue, rather than prohibit that extra fan link, or high quality blog. Your second point seems to stem from a mis-reading of the guideline. That is, information which should be in the article, but cannot be for practical reasons (such as copyright, or excessive tables, length, etc). I am unswayed by your arguments for the need for change. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia filled with free information - we should encourage more of it, not less. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"These changes, like the ones immediately above, will have the effect of inviting a million and one poor quality links into articles." Unjustified statements like this are not helpful to a discussion, but do help highlight why some aspects of the current guidelines are so useless. Some editors feel like the priority is "hassle", rather than creating useful encyclopedic articles for people. "High quality" and "useful" are criteria of people who want to build articles. Arbritary guidelines that prohibit quality should be changed to ones that base decisions on value of content, not mode of transport. 2005 01:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2005, you seem to be making the most sense out of anybody here. Would you mind proposing a specific change to the policy? I think that you're our best chance at getting a consensus :-) - Mjg0503 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I doubt that, and I'm a bit busy avoiding a stalker right now... anyway I'd have to think about wording more. Some people clearly put maintenance as the priority over quality, and that has some merit, but I think it is misguided. I personally think blogs are a plague, and almost never merit a link, but the way to avoid the problem is to raise the "quality" bar, not encourage spammers to make junk html sites instead of junk blog sites. 2005 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, this guidelines will still specify "a small number of relevant external links" even after my edits. So, if someone adds "a million and one poor quality links," you will still have plenty of grounds for removal. Perhaps Zzuuzz (or other opponents) should adress the 4 changes (one edit and three removals) one by one. By the way, it is not true that "no one has agreed with your proposal," even prior to 2005's comment above. Please read the previous discussion. Note especially the feeling that the would-be-in-a Featured article point is suspect. David.Kane 02:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you are allowing John Generic Bob's GeoCities site with 113 hits to appear in Wikipedia if he explains something nobody else thought about? -- ReyBrujo 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but if a site explains something valuable to users in a high quality way that nobody else thought about, why on Earth would you argue against linking to it? And that isn't a rhetorical question. 2005 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you are opening the gate for any site that has something to say. So, suppose a character died in a book in a fight, and everyone thinks the character died just because it was a generic character. I edit the article and add "However, it is probable that the author decided to kill the character because of the low sales amount the second book of the series, which fans believed to be about the character himself, obtained after the first three months.^{[sales data]}" The comment is deleted due original research. I get a GeoCities account, write the same, quote the sales information, and is included as external link because I thought something nobody thought before. After all, that would be the threshold for inclusion. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Basically, you are opening the gate for any site that has something to say". No I'm not, nor do I even understand why you say that. I am only opening the gate to high quality content that meets the various criteria of the external links guidelines. You keep suggesting that somehow a quality bar is being lowered here, when in fact the exact opposite is the case. I am opening the gate to allowing external links from both greatestfilms.org and members.aol.com/MG4273/ to be on the same article, judged by the same criteria that links to the IMdb and All Movie Guide would be judged (and not coincidentally, links to the first two will usually be far more valuable than links to the latter two, even though links to the latter two would normally be just fine too.) 2005 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No gate is opened because "high quality" almost always means "lots of interesting content". One random observation will not be something that "many readers" find useful. Also, this example is a bit strange since it conflates at least two issues: External Links and other stuff (slipping in original research, unverified references). Please focus on cases in which a person adds or deletes just an External Link so that we can drill down to the point under dispute. The claim is that these changes make it no less difficult to delete low quality links while preventing high quality links from being deleted for legalistic reasons. David.Kane 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To explain better: Before, generic blogs, forums, forum posts, new sites and sites with a record of dubious statements (as in not reliable) were excluded on sight, so you had to choose between the important commercial sites (in gaming articles, IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, etc), plus the biggest fan communities (those with over 1,000 members, in example), allowing only very few links. Now, you will be allowing a small number of relevant external links, and now you would have to choose between IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, generic blogs, forums, forum posts, new sites, sites with record of dubious statements and big fan communities? In other words, you add John Generic Bob's GeoCities site with 113 hits instead Matt Important Smith's Huge site with over 25m hits and 13,900 members? Something is wrong here... -- ReyBrujo 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"were excluded on sight"... and they still would be, so let's not go down the strawman road. What is wrong is you aren't arguing a point based on value. For some reason you are arguing against having the best quality sites linked based on the concept of best quality. 2005 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Language that says sites on are seldom high quality or similar text is where we should be going, not creating language that lumps articles from greatestfilms.org or members.aol.com/MG4273/film.htm into some silly ghetto because they are fansites. (I choose fansites because it is easier to find examples than blogs.) 2005 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) If those sites weren't useful for fans, they would not be successful, get investment, are bought by multimedia corporations, stay around for years, would they? I agree that some fan sites are good for inclusion. But not any as stated in the modification, as long as they say something no other more important site has said. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If "John Generic Bob's GeoCities site with 113 hits" is "high quality" and "useful to many readers" than it is reasonble to include it as an External Link. If it isn't --- and most sites with 113 hits are not --- then delete it. Why is that an unreasonable test? (And, strictly speaking, the parts that I am editing have little to do with the GeoCities (fan) sites of this world. Why bring up something largely unrelated to the edits I propose?) Also, "a small number of relevant external links" is what the guidelines say now. We are not changing this. Do you want to change it? The restriction to a small number means that the editors for each page are encouraged to pick and choose, to not link to everything, to decide what are the highest quality and most useful cites. This exactly what we want them to do, without arbitrary guidelines like No Blogs Ever! I also agree that "Language that says sites on are seldom high quality or similar text" would be useful and think that these initial edits are a step in that direction. David.Kane 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am putting examples of what the change would allow, as you just said. The question now is, who determines a site is "high quality" and "useful to many readers" You? An editor? People who comes and edit the article to add their own "high quality" and "useful" site? A site, no matter how good, cannot have 113 hits, as you are hinting. If it were that useful, it would have been visited by a couple thousand more people, don't you agree?

You are not modifying the amount of external links, that is true. But now you are making people choose between 3 big fan site communities, a blog and a GeoCities account. So, you are removing one of the big fan sites just because John Generic Bob thought something interesting.

And I don't have anything against GeoCities. I have my very small one page site at GeoCities. I am using GeoCities as a shortcut for "one-person-maintenance barely-visited barely-updated original-research no-verification site". -- ReyBrujo 03:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on! We are explicitly leaving in the restriction against "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to." Your example makes no sense since the guidelines would prevent it.

Please, read between lines ;-) When I said "I", it includes any of those 113 people who visited my site since 2002 and thought it to be useful, or any of the 7 members my forum has. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How often is it that people add links to obscure, low quality sites that they are not the author of? Not very often, I bet. And, to the extent that they do, is there any evidence that the current policy decreaes that beahvior? I doubt it. And, we retain the tools to deal with that behavior because anyone can delete a site that is not "high quality." The problem is not low quality links being inserted (those are easy to deal with). The problem is high quality links that are deleted for silly reasons. David.Kane 03:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The question now is, who determines a site is "high quality" and "useful to many readers" You? An editor?" The editors who work on that page, just as they decide everything else in that Wikipedia-seeking-consensus fashion. I trust them to make good decisions, to decide (on the topics that they know best) which External Links are high quality and which are not. Why don't you trust them to make that judgment? Why don't you allow them to link to a blog if they, as a community, thing it is a great external link? David.Kane 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I trust editors. I wouldn't be in Wikipedia if I thought everyone had an agenda. But, if with the tight policy we currently have, there are abuses (check my last post at #Proposed policy change), I am guessing we will see abuses ("Consensus in the talk page agreed to include 5 GeoCities sites, 3 MySpace accounts, 3 Blogspots blogs and the official link, as the new policy allows us to add them because they are interesting."). This is my personal opinion. Others may agree or not, I am just explaining my own point of view. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you are taking to explain your views. I am not so sure that I disagree so much as not understand them. Is the problem here that editors will reach this consensus (includes 5 GeoCities sites and so on) or that someone will lie about a consensus having been reached? If the former, then I say, let the editors do it. I trust them. If the latter, then another editor can obviously call the miscreant out. Also, please refer to the policy change that I am proposing. The key phrase is not "interesting" but "high quality" and "useful to many readers." If the editors decide that a Geocites site meets these criteria, what is the problem? David.Kane 03:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are usually maintained by a single person. A blog usually doesn't verify information, can have problems of neutrality, and has a small user base. Blogs are reasonable if the article is talking about the owner or the blog itself. Unofficial blogs related to the article subject are similar to small fansites. Do we agree?

A casual user comes here looking for information that is verifiable. When he reads "Journalists thought the incident was important." he wants to be able to verify that information in a reliable site (CNN, eWeek, CNET, GameSpot, etc). At the end, if he is still interested in the topic, he may want to check some external links about the topic. Those external links should be as reliable as possible: Wikipedia has accepted them, and thus if the editor ends in someone's blog which does throw rumours, no verifications, or a site that has a lot of theories about the every book character, he will be disoriented. Thousands of people go to IGN every hour because it is a reliable and relatively neutral site. Thousands hit CNN because it is a reliable and relatively neutral site. Thousands hit eWeek, Gamasutra, Next Generation, Britannica, Nature, etc, because they are reliable and relatively neutral sites. These sites have been found to be useful to the most amount of users, otherwise they wouldn't be as visited, as highly regarded.

I understand you want to give a place to blogs, forums and small sites in general. But that is not Wikipedia goal. We polish the articles and point to the sites that are most useful for the general public. I don't see a blog or a forum as useful as a long standing and reliable site. You can, however, include a link to dmoz, and then tell people who comes to add their own links (not "their" own sites, but the sites they frequently visit) to add them in dmoz instead. They will be keeping Wikipedia articles cleaner, and helping grow dmoz. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"A casual user comes here looking for information that is verifiable." I doubt such a human exists. People come for information that is accurate. "Those external links should be as reliable as possible:" Bingo, now you have come over to our side. This line contradicts every other comment you wrote. This is what we are proposing. You instead want to say "external links should be as reliable as possible, unless their URL is a free host subdomain (like Michael Grost's film articles), or a site created by an informed fan (like Tim Dirks greatestfilms site), or a blog (like Mark Cuban's basketball blog)." There is no logic to it. Link to what is reliable, best and most useful to users. This will usually not include certain types of sites, but not always. 2005 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no accurate, verifiable; see Verifiability, not truth. As for "joining your side", I have always been on that side ;-) I have already written down here why I don't trust GeoCities-like sites from personal experience. They don't cite sources, have a lot of fandom, are usually outdated, neutrality issues, etc. -- ReyBrujo 12:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you now suggest that most people come to the Wikipedia because they have ever heard of WP:V you really need to take a nap for awhile. :) Why WE do things is completely different than why users come here. They come for accurate information about something they are interested in. They aren't saying "I'm going to Wikipedia because of WP:V! 2005 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We should focus on our goal, not on what the end user is hoping to get. It is not our fault if they come thinking we are reliable. Our 5 pillars state that we must strive for accuracy. Even Jimbo has stated in the media that people should not use Wikipedia for college research, in example. If they still come for reliable information, well, it is not our fault. -- ReyBrujo 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my point og view in a nutshell:

• I think that it is unfair not to link to sites just because they are fan sites. Many fan sites are very useful resources.
• This is not in the policy, but there seems to be an attitude among some editors that if you see a link to a site hosted on a free webhost such as GeoCities or Tripod, "It's just another crappy site". Sure, more mediocre sites are hosted on free webhosts then on paid ones, for the obvious reason that they're free! If somebody wants to create a two page website about how much they like Snoopy and never touch it again, they're going to go to GeoCities or Tripod, not pay a monthly bill to Network Solutions. This, however, does not mean that all sites hosted for free are of low quality! In fact, lots of great sites are hosted on free web hosts. Why should Wikipedia editors judge their link as "unworthy" just because they don't want to/ can't afford to pay to host it on a domain server! If members.tripod.com/~xyz is a better resource than www.xyz.com, then how can you justify linking to xyz.com instead?
• I do agree that we shouldn't be linking to blogs/ forums, unless of course the article is about Joe Bob Smith and you are linking to Joe Bob Smith's blog. - Mjg0503 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

From personal experience when dealing with GeoCities-like external links:

1. They don't cite sources. If they cite, it is a "From the series" (which may be well over 200 episodes)
2. They have a lot of "fandom" and original research, so much a casual user may have problems distinguishing between the "reality" (what the episode/book/etc stated) and what the maintainer added.
3. They aren't updated often. Sometimes people add links to sites whose last update was six months ago.
4. They are maintained by a single person. This brings neutrality problems, as you either create a page because you like or you hate a series. In example, I would not open a site about "Stargate" because I don't care about it, but I would open a site about "Nightwish" because I like them, or maybe even a site about Microsoft because I hate them (in example).

This is from personal experience. I have no problem with good quality GeoCities-like pages. In example, most of the Sailor Moon articles link to fan sites because there is limited amount of links in english (as the series is japanese). The sites thus linked are of good quality, relatively well referenced and so on. However, if we have a school or an American series, I am sure we will have many better links than GeoCities-like pages. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that WE WOULDN'T LINK TO THOSE SITES THAT ARE AS YOU DESCRIBED ABOVE. THERE ARE MANY GEOCITIES AND SUCH SITES THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR INCLUCSION IN LINKS.Adamfc

Please do not shout. You may not, but people who want to advertise their site may, as the guides is being relaxed. -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But the advertisers can still get in now... and we stop them. If we cahnge the policy, they still aren't allowed to have their site up unless it is a good source. Wikispammers aren't going to increase their numbers of links because of this. They are still not allowed. adamfc 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I hven't been contributing here because I am busy with other things, but I have been paying attention, and I want to thank ReyBrujo for his defence of the integrity of this guide. I would add that while it is good to assume good faith, any loosening of these restrictions will attract editors with private agendas who will seek to take advantage of any loopholes they can find. -- Donald Albury 10:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, its beyond naive to think spammers or crap-linkers care one little bit what is written in terms of the guidelines here! They will do what they want regardless. That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here. The question is simply whether we prohibit high quality, user friendly links based on arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with value. 2005 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the ones who argue and cite 'loopholes' in guidelines to keep their favorite links in articles. And if you think "spammers and crap-linkers" don't argue to keep their spam links in, look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. -- Donald Albury 11:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We are creating no "loopholes" by saying sites should be high quality instead of just sites. What exactly are you arguing? What is being proposed is that sites listed in external links meet a stricter quality criteria than now. What in fact you are arguing is that you want to make weaker articles by preventing the best links added to an article. Frankly its a bit mindboggling. We have guidelines here based on quality and usefulness. Let's raise the bar on that, while removing arbritrary rules that have NOTHING to do with quality or bad value. The effect of this change is to allow us to have the best links on articles, which will make it harder to put garbage links on them since the difference in quality will be even higher than before. Why do you think something like this members.aol.com/MG4273/tourneur.htm should not be linked to? Why do some people not want the best quality, most user-friendly links to be what is linked to on each article? 2005 21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A Single Proposed Change

I think that the proceeding discussion has been a valuable one and I appreciate everyone's comments. I have now spent a bunch of time reading disputes in various talk pages which cite the External links page in order to get a flavor of how the current guidelines are used and misused. It is interesting stuff.

Since there does not seem to be a consensus in favor of removing the three lines that I want to remove above, I'd like to withdraw that suggestion for now. (I might come back to it after gathering more information.) I would still like to make the following edit to What should be linked to.

Do people object to just this edit? I want to add the concepts of "high quality" and "useful to many readers" because I think that they belong. I want to delete the specific examples cited because they seem either too specific (online textbooks?) or not necessarily true. (Why wouldn't the "professional athlete statistics" of Babe Ruth or the "screen credits" of John Wayne belong in their articles?) Comments welcome. David.Kane

That's a great change, let's go ahead and make it. Wiki works, we can trust editors to determine what "high quality" and "useful to many readers" is in each case. Haukur 13:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I object. I haven't seen anything to convince me that we need to relax the provisions of this guide. -- Donald Albury 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you see this change as a relaxation of the provisions? It currently just says "Sites" and I am changing that to "High quality sites." That change makes it more strict, not less. The current version is not even an accurate description of what Wikipedia does. For example, the screen credits for John Wayne are in his article, as they should be. Should I remove them? Also, does a reference to "online textbooks" really merit inclusion?David.Kane

Your objection can't be taken seriously if you object to changing "sites" to high quality sites". To call that relaxing provisions is just silly. 2005 21:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't object replacing Sites with High quality sites, but instead all the removed text. We are replacing specific cases with generic comments. It is like going to WP:FUC, and replacing The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. with The material must contribute to the article. We object the generalization of the guide. -- ReyBrujo 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Progress! We all agree that the adjective "high quality" should be inserted. Let's move onto the next bit of text. I argue that "with other meaningful, relevant content" is redundant since the words "other meaningful" add nothing useful. Any context which is not "meaningful" will, of course, not be "relevant" to anyone. So, we can shorten the phrase. Good editing is at least as much about removing text as it is about adding it. Agreed? Next, the phrase "is not suitable for inclusion in an article" makes no sense. Can you show me a single example of a currently linked site which does not have at least some material that a reasonable person might conclude is suitable for inclusion in the article? Please do. This is almost what the definition should be of a good external link. If this guideline were followed, most links would need to be removed. Finally, as I have shown with John Wayne, the specific examples chosen are lousy. I could imagine replacing them with something else, but there is little arguement for keeping them. David.Kane 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't all agree that the adjective "high quality" should be inserted. There is no explanation of what "high quality" means. Fagstein 06:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What does "prominent" mean? What does "overwhelm" mean? What is "useful"? What is tasteful"? What does "objectionable" mean? You need to define this obvious term but not similar terms in the guideline? C'mon... 2005 07:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not proposing changes related to those words. I agree they're not very well defined, and could use some clarification. My issue remains with the undefined phrase "high quality". Fagstein 07:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's a good change. I also think that the line that reads "On aricles about topics with many fan sites, including a link to one major fansite is premissable" should be removed. Instead, we should change it to read "On articles about topics with many fan sites, be cautious when adding links of this sort. Only link to fan sites if they are high quality and useful resources. Remember, Wikipedia is not a web directory. If a dispute arises, it is best to bring it up on the article's talk page and get a consensus on what to do." - Mjg0503 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much that counteracts the criticisms of this change in the previous section. "High quality sites" is very subjective, as is "useful to many readers", and I believe this will encourage edit wars. Fagstein 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all the disussion in the previous section was devoted to the removals that I am not longer proposing. There was almost no discussion of this specific edit. Which specific "criticisms" are you referring to? In particular, why would this edit, which strengthens the restriction, not decrease edit wars or, at least, have no effect? Can you point to specific edit wars that have been resolved by reference to this line as it currently is? I can't. David.Kane 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That the terms are "highly subjective" and that there are no guidelines for what constitutes a "high quality" website. Valid HTML? Good design? No blink tags? Leaving it to a case-by-case basis would negate the whole point of having a policy page such as this one, and lead to vast inconsistencies and redundant debates. Fagstein 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that different than anything about the guidelines now? How can it possibly be bad to say "high quality sites" rather than "sites"? Saying "high quality sites" no more negates the policy page than saying simply "sites". It's beyond illogical to suggest "high quality sites" that fit the guidelines will lead to more edit wars than "sites" that fit the guidelines. The following point that again user experience is far more important than edit issues doesn't even really need to be mentioned. There is no downside to the user in holding external links to a "high standard" rather than just a "standard". 2005 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Attack me and insultingly dismiss my points all you want. They're still valid. There's no explanation of what "high quality" means, so people will distort it to suit their purposes. Fagstein 06:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not exactly presented a point of view, only a demand to define high quality when many similar terms in the guideline like prominent are not. Why? High quality means high quality just like prominent means prominent. 2005 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My point of view is that "high quality" is not properly defined. I realize you don't agree, but it's still my opinion. And again, we're dealing with your proposed changes. Bringing up other problems with the policy won't convince me to add a new one. Fagstein 07:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

I have reverted the change since I think it needs the consensus of many more editors. I personally oppose the proposal because the wording is too generic: quality can't be measured, and "useful to many readers" is totally subjective. This change will just help spammers add their sites to Wikipedia. Mushroom (Talk) 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why "useful to many readers" is more "subjective" or "generic" than "not suitable for inclusion in an article". Please explain how you "measure" suitability for inclusion. Since only one person, I believe, has objected to the replacement of "sites" with "high quality sites", I am asserting consensus on that part of the edit but look forward to discussing the other aspects. David.Kane 03:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Many readers" is subjective. If the 50 readers from a blog state the blog is useful for them (maybe by request of its owner), would you insert the blog as external link? -- ReyBrujo 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is! But you want to keep the phrase "not suitable for inclusion in an article" which I want to delete. Please explain why this phrase is less subjective than "many readers". David.Kane 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we already have a list of things that are "not suitable for inclusion in an article". -- ReyBrujo 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "not suitable for inclusion in an article" is not defined in list of things. (The focus there is much more on what articles belong on Wikipedia, not on what belongs in specific articles.) If your claim is that this phrase is not "subjective," please define it precisely or point to such a definition. David.Kane 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, we can't really say we got "consensus" in a discussion between four or five persons, as these guidelines affect all Wikipedia and not only a single article. -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but is there some procedure that one should follow to broaden the discussion beyond those already engaged? Since the change is so trivial, I see no reason to do so, but I would have no problem with someone else doing so. By the way, WP:Consensus seems to apply mostly to the editors involved in a given page. I did not mean to imply that editors who have not followed this conversation agree or disagree. David.Kane 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll may be necessary. Usually, when you are working in a single article, you try to get consensus with the editors of that article. However, you are going to change a guideline that affects all articles, not only one, thus you need to get as many opinions as possible. -- ReyBrujo 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know, I'm still on Wikibreak got it :-)? I tried to do this earlier, but Dalbury said that it was too early. Now may be a good time though! - Mjg0503 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was too early for trying to get consensus. I would wait a week to see if there are more ideas or new voices. Remember changes to the guidelines affect over 1m articles immediately, so we can take a few days more to think. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will explode if more time is taken for more discussion, however so far the bulk of comments opposing various changes have been along the lines of "this change will just help spammers add their sites to Wikipedia" which is just arm waving. Explain your reasoning please. What we have gotten are a few comments along the lines of "it will be bad" or "no we can't do this because this term is not defined so we must have a different sentence that doesn't define anything either". There isn't anything to discuss there. Frankly it is mindboggling to think anyone would object to any mention of "sites" being turned into "high quality sites". It should go without saying, but it is nice to emphasize. 2005 04:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice that Wikipedia:Straw polls says, Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. So, if you want to start a straw poll, propose the question to be asked and we can discuss it here. Straw polls should also be constructed as yes/'no questions (I prefer asking pollers to state support or oppose). We can put more than one question in a poll, but each question should be on a single subject, and not be tangled up with other questions. Once we have reached consensus here on what question to ask, then we can open the poll and invite outside editors for their input. -- Donald Albury 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that question 1 of the poll would be about my edit of item 5. Question 2 could then be about the three removals I outlined before. But I am not sure what the purpose of a poll would be until opponents of the changes provide better/any answers to the questions asked by 2005 and, to a lesser extent, by me. For now, I'll be trying to improve other aspects of the article. David.Kane 17:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Criticisms cite spam worries for a reason. Articles all over the place are flooded with questionable external links, and we need to provide clear guidelines on what links are allowed and not allowed. I object to using the term "high quality sites" for the same reason I would object to the term "glychantyiunmentic sites", because I have no idea what it means. Fagstein 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't state a reason, your comments are nothing but obstinacy. Why, precisely, does the language "high quality sites" encourage spam more than "sites"? 2005 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Those two points are separate. The language does, however, encourage edit wars when two editors differ over whether a website is of high quality or not. More specific criteria would help diminish that possibility. Fagstein 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, HOW SO? You keep presenting a fully illogical statement without any reasons. Not only can there be no discussion because you don't state any reasons, but how can anyone take the comment seriously? How does "high qaulity sites" encourage spam? How does "high quality sites" lead to any more edit wars than the existing guidelines that state "prominent" and "useful"? The obvious answer is it does not, which is why you can't state any reasons. Finally, even if magically more edit wars were created because we made the guidelines tougher and the encyclopedia better, so what? The more spcific criteria of "high quality sites" is better than "sites". 2005 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We already expressed several times why it would encourage spam, yet you both dismiss our points of view. That neither of you think they are valid does not mean the community will accept them. To reach the current guideline, there must have been consensus before for the changes to be implemented. Thus, we don't need to convince you the changes are bad, but instead you need to convince us the changes are good. -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, stating something that makes no logical sense does not give your reason. WHY does "high quality sites" encourage spam over "sites"? We don't need to convince you that the change is good if you don't state ANY reasons, after an extended time, for not wanting to make a change that is objectively utterly trivial. The guidelines already talk about prominent and useful. Objecting to toughening the guidelines by adding high quality without stating even one logical reason is discourteous and basically just obstructionist. So please no more junk like "it will lead to more spam". 2005 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Have a cup of coffee or something. I don't see how attacking me and insulting me is going to help your cause in any way. Now, on to my actual point (again, as I said above, I'm not arguing that adding "high quality" will increase spam): If you agree the guidelines need to be strengthened and clarified, why do you object so much when I suggest your new words also need to be clarified? And why do you refuse my request that you define what you mean by "high quality"? Fagstein 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You did argue that adding "high quality" would encourage spam ("Criticisms cite spam worries for a reason"), then you said you said you didn't but moved on to say, again with no explaination, that it would encourage edit wars. The term is clarified to certainly be more specific than what is there now. Your "request" continues to make no logical sense, and you have still not yet explained why you believe we will be worse off if it is adopted so you oppose it. Till you do so, why do you expect others to continue to list reasons for wanting to improve the guidelines? Let's assume again that you aren't being obstructionist, so please have the courtesy to respond with reasoning. As it stands now, you seem to think I should say "no, it won't lead to edit wars" like that is some kind of "reason". Instead, I and others have given you specific reasons: make the guideline stronger and encourage better external links by making the phrase "high quality sites" instead of "sites". There is not a person on eart who thinks "high quality sites" is a LOWER bar than "sites", not even spammers. While I can see that someone might say the language is uneccessary because it redundant, it is impossible to understand why two editors suggest that language will encourage spam or lead to more edit wars, for reasons they refuse to state. 2005 09:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this point-form:

• People adding unnecessary links is the biggest problem with the External links section.
• Without a definition of what "high quality" means (design? content? server capacity?), it will have no effect on this problem.
• Vague language leads to interpretation, and my argument is that the edit wars will be about the interpretation of this new, vague criteria.

This is the fifth time I've explained my reasoning. If you still have problems understanding, I would suggest leaving a message on my talk page. Fagstein 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"it will have no effect on this problem" then why are you saying it will? Why are you opposing something that you now state will do no harm (or good)? Why not just let people who think it will help add it if you think it is neutral? "Vague language leads to interpretation..." Once again the idea that "high quality sites" is "vaguer" than prominent or useful is absurd. The idea that adding these two words makes the guideline "more vague" is plainly false as "high quality sites" can not be interpreted as "more vague" than "sites". Now more to the point, if you made acase that the more specific language could lead to edit disputes over what qualifies to reach the higher bar, that would be another thing, but of course anyone can see that this is a necessary consequence of ANY guidelines. Then further, if you have editing minutae as a higher priority than quality information for users, that is your perogative. However, I'd encourage you to instead think about end users and building a better encyclopedia. Emphasizing that it is not just "relevant sites" that can be linked to but "high quality relevant sites" should be a no-brainer concept that is more specific, is more user friendly, and is more friendly to combat "people adding unnecessary links", the "biggest problem with the External links section". These two words clearly won't bake a loaf of bread for anybody, but they are a positive improvement with no downside. 2005 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that 'quality' is a highly subjective term. I have seen edit wars occur over external links where someone insists that their link to a blog site, or a forum, is acceptable because the blog is 'high quality'. When saying what we recomend to be linked, we should really be using more objective standards. --Barberio 20:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No the issue is basically replacing "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content" with "High quality sites with other relevant content". The idea that "high quality" is more subjective than "meaningful" is ludicrous. And subjective is not a negative in itself in that nothing beyond the obvious policy of listing an official site is objective. You have ideas about external links that are certainly not in the guideline. Wikipedia does not recomend external links, though individual editors do. (Added... in fact the most recent revert was preventing a change to "High quality sites with other meaningful, relevant content..." rather than "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content". Any argument about subjectivity or edit wars makes no sense whatever in this context. Could the sentence be even better? Sure. Is adding high qaulity better than what is there now? Of course. How can you or anyone possibly sincerely object to those two words being put in that existing sentence?) 2005 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, "meaningful" is not a hugely restrictive requirement. A blog entry can be "meaningful". "Meaningful" in no way implies any quality or merit. And I don't think either a smile wording of high quality or meaningful are good enough, since they are both highly subjectiive. As to if we are 'recomending' links, I suggest you re-read the guidelines. The section header currently reads "What should be linked to", this is a phrase of recomendation. We are recomending the type of sites to link to. --Barberio 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We are creating guidelines for what is appropriate to link to, not reccomending sites. I suggest you stop making illogical leaps and read what is written. You seem to think because we link to something, we agree with everything about it and stand behind it. We do not. Once you understand that, a lot of your misconceptions will disappear. 2005 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be the intent of the guideline, but it is not what the language says. Please re-read the guideline without reading into it what you want it to say. It currently says What should be linked to not What may be linked to. What should be linked to is language that recomends certain links. (And I did not, nor ever had said we need to agree with what the site linked to says. Please do not put words into my mouth, and atempt to remain civil.) --Barberio 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You "have no idea what it [high quality] means."(?) Come on! If we pick two random sites from the web, you wouldn't be able to say that site A is high quality and site B not? If we gave you and another Wikipedia editor 100 random sites to rank in terms of quality, don't you think that your rankings would be highly correlated? Just because "high quality," like virtually every other phrase used, is not precisely defined does not mean that editors working on a page won't be able to use it as a guideline in making decisions. David.Kane 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what criteria is used. One might base his decision on whether the site is well-designed, regardless of content. Another might base hers on whether it has any spelling mistakes, even if it has a pink background and green type. A third might base it on update frequency. Fagstein 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You say that you want "clear guidelines" and object to the use of undefined terms. Fine. Then surely you must be in favor of my proposal to remove the words "other meaningful" from the sentence. After all, "meaningful" --- much less "other" ! ;-) --- is, if anything, less well "defined" than "high quality." Can we assume that you are in favor of that change? It is not unreasonable to want to remove both "high quality" and "other meaningful" using a criteria of "not well defined." You can't use that criteria to favor one over the other. (For the record, I want to remove "other meaningful" because it is redundant. It adds nothing to "relevant." "High quality," on the other want, restricts "sites" in a useful way.) David.Kane 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would be in favour of that change. Fagstein 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal

Here's my take on this discussion. As it, this line is basicaly overturning the 'Links normally to be avoided' section. Why? Because it clearly states that the 'avoided' section does not apply to links that are passed by the 'links normaly included' section. The problem this raises is that the language currently used is so vauge as to apply almost automaticaly. For instance, a blog site of a college freshman might have a post about Java that is "meaningful". However, "meaningful" and "meritable" are not the same thing. And we really don't want to suggest that linking to very unverifiable and unstable sites is a good thing so long as they are "meaningful" and "relevant".

Here's my suggested wording, changes bolded

This brings back a firm requirment of stability and verifiability, and raises the bar from 'meaningful' to 'meritable' which is a stronger wording. --Barberio 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, it is not our business to verify every external link. Using an example of a type of site mentioned, it's silly to think editors should confirm that some baseball player batted .273 in 1964 and .262 in 1969 before a link to site could be listed. Also, stability is a horrible criteria and would be backwards anyway, as geocities and other free host pages are among the most stable on the Internet, since many put up eight years ago are still around, but abandoned. I'd agree "meaningful" could be improved, although I would suggest the more common term of "valuable"... "High quality sites with other valuable, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits or interviews." 2005 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are the reasons,

• Stability : This is a functionality and readability issue. Stability refers to having a link url titled as 'Site that provides evidence of Salmon pinkness being lower in spring', without that link pointing to a text that has been altered to say 'Salmon pinkness increases in spring'. We know this is a problem, and we have a specific recomendation against blog sites and forums for this very reason.
• Verifiability : The line in question, as shown by its list of examples, is intended for allowing links to factual materials. Thus, a requirement for quality should be addressed on the quality of their information.
• Meritable : This goes hand in hand with Verifiability really. It's how much creedence we can put in the site.

Now, the reason we should have all of these for this specific clause, is because otherwise the clause would be very wide in scope. It's clear by the examples given that it's intended for sites reporting factual information, that for some reason or other we can not include on Wikipedia itself. It is not a general clause. In fact, I even wonder if this clause is needed at all, since I can't see why we would want to recomend linking to anything not already included in the first four recomendations.

This is, I think, an important point. This section of the guideline is not what could be allowable, but what we recomend to be linked to. As previously stated, the 'what should be linked to' section is explicitly overiding the 'what should not be linked to' section. We should not have overly subjective allowences in this section, since it will lead to people ignoring the 'what should not be linked to' section since they can argue that the link was explicitly recomended by the guideline. We should be very careful in what we recomend should be linked to. Maybe this whole clause should be moved to Links to be used occasionally --Barberio 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any issues or problems to raise with this proposed wording? --Barberio 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you actually tried to add this nonsense, but do not do it again. 2005 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else have any objections here? Or just 2005? 2005, would you like to clarify your objection beyond 'its nonsense'. --Barberio 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I already did, and your end runs around policy are not going to work or be appreciated. You added a change where 100% of the comments about it were negative. You can't change policy by fiat. You can't just ignore established policy about no original research and verifiability. External links are never verified by Wikipedia. Specifically in terms of the example, Wikipedia will not verify that some site states a baseball player batter .248 in 1952. That is nonsense. That is not what we do, regardless of whether you want it to be so or not. Perhaps we can now move on to something more serious, or you could buy the Wikipedia so you could endorse and do the original research to verify every statement on every site linked to. 2005 21:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"100% of the comments"? A single comment from you is not consensus of oposition. You seem to be arguing against what you want me to be saying, not what I am actualy suggesting. I'm suggesting stricter standards on what we recomend linking to, as I explained at length above. Not a requirment to verify all external links. Since you seem intent on using arguement ad hominem, and putting words into my mouth, instead of discussion, I'm simply going to refer you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Barberio 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you can't create policy by fiat, or pretend what is true is not. 100% of the comments were against your proposal. That is what I said. That is true. Your statement stating I'm suggesting that is a consensus of opposition is totally uncalled for. Please behave yourself, and stick to policy discussions, not fiction or personal comments. You attempted to add material to a guideline that violates policies, and had no stated support at all, let alone consensus. Please do not try to do so again. 2005 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, 100% of the comments on this proposal were against you, but 2005 was the only one who commented, so you're right, it doesn't represent a consensus of opinion. However, there is clearly no consensus to support your change at the moment now, because as of the moment you are the only person who has commented on it! Personaly, I am opposed to the change, because as 2005 is saying, we need not be verifying external links, and besides that it is really making any substantial change to the current poilicy. So, please refrain from changing the policy before getting a consensus. Although 2005 was a bit harsh in his/her way of putting it, he/she has a very valid point. It's not constructive, let alone allowed, to change a policy before there is a reasonable consensus (about 75-80% agree), and you didn't even have a vote of support yet. True, only one person spoke up and opposed, but just because nobody else had any objections doesn't mean you need to gain some support votes either. --Mike 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, read my stated position. I'm not suggesting we vet *all* links. I am saying we should have higher standards for what we recomend be linked to. This line is currently in the section where we recomend linking, and further it overides the 'what not to link to' section. This line currently negates the line saying not to link to blogs and forums. This is why I think we need to add verifiability and stability as a requirement to this particular line.

By your same arguement on consensus, supported by a much grater stated oposition, there is no consensus support for the line as is. Should we comment out this line, that the consensus appears to agree needs changing, until we can resolve a replacement? (Especialy since it is currently making parts of the 'what not to link to' section inactive.) --Barberio 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Long standing policy is not a "loophole". It is there because it is a good idea put there because it is a good idea. There has been consensus on this line for some time. Many people have ideas on how to improve or tweak it, but the current text is there under a longstanding consensus which you once again can not negate just because you want to. 2005 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Inertia does not equate to concensus. Can I invite you to address some of the issues I've raised over problems with the way it is written now. Specificaly, the one that it automaticaly negates the restriction on 'blogs', since anyone wanting to add a blog link will obviously belive it is meaningful and relevant. And many blog links would be meaningful and relevant, but still not suitable to link to for the same reason we restrict linking to blogs in general. --Barberio 22:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, a previous consensus is consensus. Making changes to existing anything here is thus harder, with the presumption that it is on the "proposer" to gain consensus to change policy, not simply demand everything meet a no-objections threshold every single day. You really need to start thinking about users and value rather than entirely arbitrary considerations. This section is here to prevent the pointless exclusion of good links for rule-nit reasons. It is SUPPOSED to trump the other clauses when a link has merit. You seem to think that a 20,000 word blog interview with Einstein expounding on the Theory of Relativity should not be linked to because it is a blog, rather than thinking of the users of the encyclopedia and seeing that such a link would be extremely good to include, and that this clause correctly trumps the general idea that blogs seldom merit links. You really should stop fixating on what is unimportant (mode of html delivery) and what will never happen (putting the Foundation legally on the line to "verify" links) and begin thinking more about what is valuable to readers of the encyclopedia. The "5" clause is there to be sure users get the valuable "stuff" they should, even if we have a guideline for links to "normally" avoid. You also need to appreciate that "normally" does not equal "always". 2005 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd that you use the word 'merit' there as a reason to include a link, in the same breath as lecturing me for wanting to use the word 'merit' in the guideline. (I'm willing to drop verifiable if you find it so offensive) --Barberio 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What is odd is that you would make something up when I plainly stated the exact opposite. I suggested "valuable" was better than "meritable", although meritable is perfectly fine. I suggest you take more time reading rather than being so intent on your own opinion. Persoanlly I have written many times here about my own interest in having a high quality/value/merit bar. You have been primarily arguing against this point, but we can just move past that. Changing the line to something like "High quality sites with other valuable, relevant content..." or "Sites with other high quality, relevant content" or "Quality sites with other meritable, relevant content..." those could all be an improvement to make the point more obvious: exceptional sites should be linked when they offer the user additional material beyond the wikipedia/encyclopedia scope of the article. 2005 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You repetedly refered to the whole phrase as 'nonsense' and claimed that it 'violates policies' without naming those policies you said it violated. You were never specific in it only being the 'verifiability' requirement you objected to. You never suggested alternative wording. By being so aggeressive and resorting to personal attacks you disrupted what could have been an easy to resolve issue. I suggest you take some time to review your actions. --Barberio 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Right now under the wording of this guideline, we not only say you can link to blog sites or forums if they have 'meaningful relevent content'. But we are recomending that you should do so. I do not think this was the intent, nor should we let it stand. I don't particularly mind about the wording we use to stop this interpretation, but it is a loophole that needs to be closed. --Barberio 10:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

Since two people found use of 'verifiable' a no-go, here's an alternative.

Now, are there any objections to this? --Barberio 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What does stable mean? What does meritable mean? Fagstein 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See above where I explained why I used those terms. To sum up again, 'Stable' would be to avoid people linking to things like Forums under this. 'Merit' is the content quality requirement, we wouldn't put much merit in a highschool book report on someones blog, we might put merit in a particuarly good post-grad paper. --Barberio 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your idea behind the use of stable is fine, but you are stating it in a bad way. Something stable is not necessarily good, even if something unstable is not good. I'd suggest you forget the word stable here, or find a way to say "not unstable", or add the stability concept more clearly in links normally to be avoided. We don't want to link to extremely changeable pages, but we don't want to say a site not updated in eight years is somehow a positive. 2005 21:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the above change. --Barberio 21:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of "stable"? As previously mentioned "stability" is often a negative, not a positive. If you mean "no dynamic urls" that is one thing, but aside from that stability doesn't seem to have anything positive to add, unless you mean something else by "stable" other than "been around awhile and probably will be around awhile more". 2005 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The basis for the restriction on 'comunity edited', forum and blog links is based on stability issues with these kind of sites. Inclusion of a stability requirement in this line is to ensure that the line is not used to overide that. --Barberio 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No further objections were made since the 9th, so I'm going to make the change. --Barberio 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you can't just make a change based on lack of objection. There has to be expressed support before amending Wikipedia policy, and so far no one has expressed support for the change. I have changed it back, and please do not change it again until you can get a consensus. As of now, there it is 3-1 against your change. - Mike 16:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to raise, that were not addressed by changes, or are you making an objection purely on precedural grounds? (Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, procedure does not trump maintenece) So far, the only person who has made a clear objection is 2005, and I made a change that I think addressed it, and 2005 has raised no further objection. If you check the history of the page, and previous talk discussions, raising a proposal, altering that proposal to address objections, then altering the page once those objections appear settled, is the normal procedure.

Should I also remind you of the difference between Guideline and Policy? --Barberio 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll make clear that I DO NOT support your changes. That's 2 against one for. See WP:Consensus. You need support before changing policy. You can't just change policy because people don't feel like objecting tp your change. Believe me, if people were really interested, they would express support. - Mike 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You still persist in calling the page policy, when it is clearly marked as a style guideline. Style guidelines are not policy, please do not confuse the two.

There is an issue over consensus on Wikipedia you seem not to understand. There is no such thing as a procedural objection on wikipedia. Your objections must be substantsive. To quote WP:Consensus, "consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together". You have not provided any reasoning behind your objection, and have continued not to do so after being asked. By not giving a reason for your objection, your objection is not a reasonable and good faith effort.. If you have a reason beyond a procedural objection, you must state it, otherwise your objection has no place in a consensus.

If you have read the above, you should have realised that there is consensus for changing the line, we were just discussing what we needed to change it to. We have been discussing it since mid-august. So since we have a consensus that the line needs changing, and we now have a replacement line that no one has substantivly objected to. (The proposal was changed to directly address 2005's concerns, and he hasn't objected to the changed proposal, despite your claims to the contrary.) Muddying the waters with procedural objections is not a good thing. --Barberio 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I basically don't have an opinion on "generally stable". I would object to "stable" alone since that is no criteria for usefulness, but "generally" helps make it clear that an eight year old abandoned site is not more valuable than a daily updated site. I'd probably prefer to not have the two words, but don't object to them being there, so this statement should not be taken as a "vote" either way. 2005 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply think that the current wording is better for the project, and there's no need to change it. MY main objection to your changes, though, is not that I have a strong opinion against it, but that you are changing it without ANY support. You can't just a change a policy/guideline unless there is anybody who agrees that your change is worth making, and as of right now there isn't anybody who agrees that your change is worth making. Whether or not my objection is "procedural" is besdie the point. If there's no one saying "I support your ideas", then you simply can't change the guideline. - Mike 01:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is support for changing the wording, and we have been discussing what to change it to that no one objects to. Now that we have something that no one objects to, we can procede to satisfy the consensus for change. Again, I ask you to clearly state your reasoned objections to the change. I also direct you to the wording in the Guideline template that sits at the top of the page. "Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes."

This change has been discussed at length. We have consensus for making a change to something. And we have a something to change to that no one is making a substansive objection over. So please give a full reasoned argument for why we should hold up on changing it, or give an alternative that no one will object to either, or the change should be reinstated. --Barberio 10:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making the change. I am starting a straw poll now to see if anybody supports it. All you've gotten here are negative comments, and to say that there is support for the change is absurd because indeed, nobody has posted that they support it! I don't really like the idea, but I don't feel very strongly either way. What I have a problem with is that you are continously changing the page desipte a complete lack of consesnsus. Please see WP:3RR. - Mike 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh*. As pointed out, you are not making a substansive objection, and have even voted 'neutral' on your poll. The only other person who made an objection, has changed their position to neutral following changes. No One Else Has Made An Objection. You appear to be trying to start an edit war over something you object to only on procedural grounds. Again, I must point you to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_Bureaucracy. I also have to remind you that this is not a Policy, and that I do not have to wait for declared consensus support, only to discuss the change, and hold off if objections are made. This is the normal way of editing guidelines on wikipedia. --Barberio 18:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's an objection now. I voted neutral because I frankly don't care. The reason that I reverted your changes is because you made them with complete lack of support, not because I had any strong opposition for it. You are still the only one who supports your changes, while two other have objected. I don't think that's sufficent to change the guide. And yes, I know I've been referring to it as policy. Sorry, used to be a policy and just got used to that. - Mike 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Do you support Barberio's proposed changes?

Support

• Clarifies the quality requirements, and stops the line from overiding the bar on blogs and forums. --Barberio 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose- Doesn't add anything. --JJay 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Uses vague, unexplained terms which do not help in evaluating links for suitability. Fagstein 04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

• --Mike 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't interpret the line as commenting on forums or blogs at all. If that was stated, I would oppose. Lots of blogs are stable. Nothing in this line would prevent me from linking to a blog. 2005 21:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• There's clearly little interest in this poll, or making any further objections. I really think it's time for us to close discussion on this and put in the changes. --Barberio 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The lack of interest probably has to do with the fact that it's halfway up the page (I had to search for it to find it). I would suggest moving it downpage. Fagstein 04:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm concerned that we have this guideline in place at the moment, that we seem to agree doesn't reflect consensus, but we're leaving it there because we can't come up with consensus for a replacement. I'm becoming inclined to removing the line alltogether, since it would be covered by the general policy of ignoring guidelines where appropriate. At the moment tho, having the line as is basicaly saying "ignore everything else we say here if you think the link is meaningful and relevant including copyvio sites and spam sites", and I'm not sure that's what we want to say. --Barberio 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article up and focussing on one aspect of "External links"

The more closely that I read the article, the more convinced I am that it needs bold editing. This is independent of the smaller changes that I have been suggesting above. As it is, the article is too long and conflates at least three different issues. First, is it about "External links" meaning the section of many articles? That is certainly what most of the talk page would suggest. Second, is it about "external links" meaning any instance in which a link goes outside of Wikipedia? Much of the article discusses these cases even though they are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Does this disucssion belong here? Third, is it about how to make external links, of whatever type? This obviously needs to be covered, but all that information could go on a separate page and then be linked to from here. Moreover, why wouldn't I just want to add a bit to Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Links_and_URLs to take care of this? There is no reason for Wikipedia to cover the mechanics of how to link in multiple places.

My initial thought is that this article should be much shorter and should focus on just one of these topics: "External links" as a common section used in articles, what belongs there and what does not. At this point, I do not propose changing any of the lists of what to include, what not to include and so on. I propose removing the how to sections to elsewhere and linking to them. The only section that I propose rewriting as a part of this would be the first paragraph to make clear these different usages and point people to the correct place to go depending on what they are looking for. But, before diving into this, I seek comments from more experienced editors. David.Kane 13:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article should be split into the two topics. I might suggest creating two mockup articles and gaining consensus on them before replacing the existing article. As for the how-to part, would that also be split into two parts (one for the section, the other for inline links?) Fagstein 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my ignorance but how does one create "mockup articles"? Also, since rapid change is not always met with widespread acceptance by editors involved with this page, my initial plan is to just split the article into two parts, with no editing beyond the necessary links. After that, we can see if the split off part could be better incorporated elsewhere and/or if any editing should be done on each part. But, before doing anything, I will await further comment. David.Kane 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Create sub-articles like Wikipedia:External links/Mockup etc. You (or someone else) will need to come up with a proper name for each article to avoid confusion between the two. Fagstein 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have made a first pass at this. First part and second part. Please feel free to edit in place or comment here.

There has been no objection for a week. So, I will make this change. David.Kane 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Change is done. Apologies if I messed this up, but it is the biggest change I have ever made. Again, my goal was to just shorten and focus the main article, not to take a position on the various disputes that have been occurring here over the last few weeks. I continue to believe that the article should be significantly shrunk (editing means removing words, not just piling up adjectives) and less a list of prohibitions. Also, I wasn't sure if "external links creation" was the best name for the second part of the article. Feel free to change it. David.Kane 04:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)