This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:External links. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Was wondering if I could get a little discussion on this item form the Links to be avoided Section:
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
So for this example, by my interpretation of this, it says in pretty concrete terms that a fan site should not appear in WP as an EL. I have seen countless pages doing this, and many have argued for it. We even have "Official Links" and "Unofficial Links" sections in some articles. This example seems to contradict this policy, implying that only official site should be linked. This seems very very restrictive to me. I could understand the idea of saying that a site that reviews many different rock bands should not be ELed on a page for a single band, but do we really want to be this restrictive in general?
Eagle 101, that is how I understood this to be too - so why are we even talking about unofficial sites in this Talk page (and the archived versions)? Do others feel differently? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that clause is confusing and have never really understood the point. It seems to imply that only official sites or sites linked from an official site are OK, and that's obviously not the case (if it were, we could just replace the entire EL page with "Official sites only"). What is the intent of it supposed to be? --Milo H Minderbinder14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You are reading it strangely. It just says links should be about the topic of the article. So an article on Madonna could link to madonnasite.com, but should not link to genericmusicsite.com, though it could link to genericmusicsite.com/madonna/. It says nothing at all about official versus unofficial. 200521:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If that were the case why does it say "For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site." As it reads it makes it sound like not only does it have to be on topic, but the topic has to have a direct connection to the topic (which makes it sound like the topic has to somehow sanction the linked site somehow). If it is supposed to just mean "links should be about the topic of the article", why not just say that? --Milo H Minderbinder21:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, don't read it strangely. It says a site with a "has a direct and symmetric relationship" should be linked, like madonnasite.com, while a generic site like alternative musicsite.com should not be. The point is symetry. The site needs to be about the topic of the article, thus alternativemusicsite.com/madonna/ could be linked if it meets the criteria. In other words, every movie article should not just link to imdb.com, but rather either not linked at all or linked to a specific article like imdb.com/blah/15253/bogart/ or whatever. 200509:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to find that fan sites tend to be 70-80% riddled with copyright violations - blatent republishing of unfree images; bootlegs and suchlike. That pretty much tends to push us in the direction of official sites because at least the offical site will generally have title to the material published on it. --Spartaz21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
But that doesn't really address the particular part of the guideline. If it is supposed to mean "links should be on topic" or "official sites only" it should say that. I'm not really sure what the current version is trying to say (and I suspect it is generally either ignored or interpreted however people want it to mean). --Milo H Minderbinder21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What 70% of fan sites do is totally irrelevant. We have a guideline that lists criteria for linking. We aren't pushed in any direction, other than linking to sites that meet the criteria for linking. 200509:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
While I believe I understand the intent of this point, I feel that the example is misleading, and open to misinterpretation - I think the examples given here in this discussion are far superior to the one in the article. Anyone have any objection if we change it to the example used here? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Ok, so no-one has objected, but the page is protected, so I can't go ahead and do it. Here is the proposal - change the last bullet in that section to:
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example (URLs are fictitious): a site focusing only on the artist Madonna (maddonnasite.com) could be a valid External Link, while a generic site that has information about a lot of artists, including Madonna (popmusic.org), is not. However, if a part of that site were devoted to the artist, and met the other criteria for linking (popmusic.org/madonna/ for example), then it may be linked.
I disagree with the interpretations presented here. The rule as it is written clearly argues against inclusion of non-official "fan sites" which do not have a direct, symmetrical relationship with the subject of the article. I don't think this particular rule was meant to address the scope of a site's focus - it's meant to address the tightness of it's relationship with it's subject - to exclude sites which are merely derivative of their subject rather than involved in a two way interaction with their subject. An official site has an involvement with it's subject that most non-official "fan" sites lack. In the example given within the rule, a non-official site run by the fans of a rock band is not considered to be suitable for an external link. However, I think it needs to be taken one step further. In my opinion, the non-official "fan site" should still be considered as a potential external link IF there is a two-way relationship between them and their subject. In the rock band example, that would mean that a non-official site might be acceptable as an external link if one or more of the band members or their support staff (manager, producer, roadies, groupies, etc.) are regular participants on the non-official site, or allow themselves to be interviewed or photographed by the site in an exclusive fashion. In my opinion, this two way interaction is what is meant by a symmetrical relationship as written in the current rules. I think it's obvious that a non-official site which has a two way relationship with it's "band" would be of far greater interest to the reader of the article than the "fan" sites which have no such relationship.
Are you proposing that we treat fan sites differently then the traditional media. We do not require the media to have a two way interaction with the subject - in fact we value the fact that they are secondary sources. Why should we insist on a two way interaction? Also, refer to my comments below, as symmetrical really isn't the right word for describing a two way interaction. Parasite21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Is symmetrical the right word here
I believe where the guideline uses the word symmetrical the intended meaning is reciprocal or mutual. Symmetry relates to the physical size, form, or arrangement of an object(or objects), and by my reading of the guideline this is not the intended meaning. Parasite04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, any one agree? disagree? Why are we using the word symmetrical on the project page? Can we change it to mutual or reciprocal? -Parasite13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that you have changed it, I'll say that I disagree. Reciprocal has too many meanings to be clear in this case. It could mean "opposite". I don't see why another description besides "directly" is needed. That seems to be the clearest and simplest way to get the point across. Nposs00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but the folks discussing this paragraph above us at Symmetry Confusion seem to want something more than directly. Bet getting back to my change, I do think that reciprocal is closer to what was intended than symmetrical. Thanks for the feedback. Parasite08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Reciprocal isn't the right word, and there was no support for it, so I returned to the previous wording. "Direct" is the idea. Reciprocal is simply wrong. An article about Henry VIII might link to a BBC article, but Henry sure has no reciprocal relationship to the BBC or that article. That is not the concept involved here, nor a sensible one. The point is the link is to a BBC article is about Henry VIII, not just to bbc.co.uk. 200521:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The usage of "symmetrical" is idiosyncratic and creates more confusion that it dispels. I that the present #13 should be split into two separate items: one for the idea of "directness" that User 2005 speaks of w/ the Henry VIII example, and the other for the issue of linking to artist' official official sites but not to their fansites. And to describe the latter, "reciprocal" is much more on target, imo, than "symmetrical". So, two issues: direct not generic, and reciprocal not one-sided. regards, Jim Butler(talk)00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi JoeSmack, I'm not trying to be funny, but can you please describe what the meaning of this word in this context should be. It may help us to find a better replacement for symmetrical, as every definition of symmetry I have seen relates to geometrical arrangement. Thanks Parasite04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In an instance where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given, -
I'm wondering what would be the appropiate player to name for mp4 content, particularly h.264 (Quicktime/VLC) perhaps?Wwwhatsup07:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
An external link I added to the page on Portsmouth, New Hampshire was deleted, apparently because it was deemed a commercial link. After browsing your guidelines, I see that I should have first proposed adding link here because, while I think the link is relevant and in line with Wikipedia guidelines, I have a conflict of interest.
So ... I propose adding an external link for the Portsmouth NH page to www.portsmouthnh.com. The site is a commercial site, but it has much lots of free, useful information, such as: descriptions and links to area attractions, a complete guide to movies in the region, a custom local weather forecast, local tides, the city's most complete guide to restaurants and accommodations, a calendar of events, and many regional photographs.
I would argue that PortsmouthNH.com is more relevant -- and less commercial -- to Portsmouth than the three newspaper sites that already have links on the page. How can a link to an Ottaway Newspapers publication, which is owned by Dow Jones Company, be regarded as less commercial than a sole proprietorship operated by a local resident?
As for relevancy, a reviewer in the above-mentioned Ottaway paper wrote last fall that PortsmouthNH.com "is truly packed with information and is a must for visitors as well as locals."
Just a quick heads up, Viacom have asked YouTube to remove around 100,000 "unauthorized" clips from the site, this would mainly cover videos of MTV, Vh1, Vh2 and other MTV network channels along with Comedy Central and Nickelodeon and possibly Paramount and Dreamworks trailers too. Movie trailers can usually be found on the official movie site so there shouldn't be any need to remove a link to a trailer from any article, just finding an alternative version. It's (according to the BBC) likely Viacom are simply using this as a bargaining position but in the interim, I'd suggest or commenting out links to any Viacom material on YouTube and Google Video as it's now confirmed they don't want their material on YouTube and treat their material on YouTube as being "unauthorized". -- Heligoland23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The message boards and various chat groups, including yahoo, google and msn groups, definitely need to be weeded out. Afv200611:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"and they violate more policy by requiring registration to view the relevant content" - false, at least for google groups usenet archives, which are likely what the majority of EL's to google groups are. --Random832(tc) 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Also they are essentialy social networking sites / forums / fansite on top of whats already been mentioned.--Hu1215:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
According to DNSstuff.com the domain is ok and in working order[1]. Whatever the problem, it's not some technical issue with the domain. The domain resolves to an IP address (70.84.130.5) and gives a reasonably quick ping (47ms +/-). According to network-solutions the domain is registered until 2009. So far it looks like it's a temporary thing... if you want to check into it further you could call the administrative contact at 636-394-7000. (Pulled from the network solutions record... it's public information so don't yell at me) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorting order?
Shouldn't we have some guideline for the order of links in the "external links" section? For example, I always like to put more relevant and official links at the top. For entertainment-related topics, it usually goes like this:
Depends on the nature of the article and the agreement of the people working on it. No need to let the rules creep into an area that's best left to the editors. Then again, it might be spelled out in the manual of style. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition we should keep in mind that we are not a link farm and probably should not be adding in too many "notable" unofficial sites. Who defines notable? That I guess would be up to the editors on the talk page of an article. —— Eagle101Need help?20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
But, what guideline? Can anyone help please? I'm wondering about the status of lyrics links. Thanks. --Dayn 07:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines should apply to lyric links as they do to most other links - Only include if it actually improves the article. Most of the time I would think it would, but there might be exceptions. For instance in an article about an artist with several other good links you might decide to forgo lyrics in order to keep the section focused, or if the only lyrics available are to the artist's less significant work you might decide not to bother). Don't link to lots of different sites, pick the best one for the article in conjunction with other editors. Don't link to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. And so on. I believe the biggest problem with lyric sites is that most of them are copyvios, which we should never knowingly link to. -- Siobhan Hansa12:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's going overboard. Lyrics on official sites or record label sites will be legal, as will songs in the public domain (I believe before 1925 or so?). We never have to "prove" anything with copyright, just not link if they are suspected violations (at least that's what wikipedia policies say). Lyrics of recent songs on a general lyrics collection will usually be violations. --Milo H Minderbinder13:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Not always the case with 'official' sites or record labels (notice the quotes, many claim to be official and aren't). Songs before 1925 are extremely rare compared to whats all over wikipedia today. Also, see Intellectual_Reserve_v._Utah_Lighthouse_Ministry for legality surrounding posting copyrighted stuff (much of WMF is founded/ran in the U.S.). JoeSmackTalk14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that there are official sites or record label sites that have lyrics posted illegally? Obviously by official sites we mean ones that are truly official and not fake official sites. I'm not sure what the point of the linked case is, it has nothing to do with this. Nobody is saying we should link to copyright violations. We need to look at potential violations, not make assumptions about any category of linked content. --Milo H Minderbinder15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay... so basically, only have a lyrics link if it's from an official source, such as the band's official website, or record label? I can do that... there's many pages I believe I can fix. I didn't know lyrics were copyrighted like that... next thing y'know it'll be illegal to sing along, but that's another rant for another day for another website. --Dane~nya14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Links normally to be avoided
For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
I must always ask, because I over analyse the slightest details. Does the above mean that any old fansite for a band should not be linked? What about fansites that are linked to from the band's official website, should they not be added too? In the latter case, I cannot determine if they're sym- or asymmetrical. Thanks. --Dane~nya14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In the 'what should be linked' (should, hence, not must be linked) are the official pages of a band, company, whatever. Then there are links to be avoided, which encompasses blogs, unofficial sites, fansites, etc. Everything that is not official, that cannot be checked whether it is official, or which contains (or may/could contain) non-reliable information, should be avoided. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Read EL again, unofficial sites and fansites aren't disallowed. Based on the guidelines, some are allowed and some not (and wikipedia links to some and not others). They are judged on a case by case basis and there is absolutely not a blanket ban on them. It would be incredibly biased to only allow official links. --Milo H Minderbinder15:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well bugger me, I didn't see that. If fansites are on a case-by-case basis... who decides which fansite should be listed? There'd undoubtedly tonnes of fansites about any given band, and most as "official" as one another... so what's to stop people putting their fansite as a link, when other links are present? Notability? How would you determine notability for inclusion of a fansite? As the top discussion said, a two-way interaction, which the official band website itself recognises the fansite? But what then, if the "official" site has links to many fansites? This is what's confusing me... it's sort of allowing spamlink1 to be on an article, but spamlink2 isn't because of an abstract judgement. --Dane~nya16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It's decided by the editors of a given article, same as any EL is decided, based on whether it meets the things listed at EL. Consensus stops people from just adding their favorite fansite, whether it's appropriate or not. The official site doesn't need to link to a fansite, that's not really a criteria for inclusion. --Milo H Minderbinder16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Your confusion on fansite ELs is why I almost always remove them; I don't see how one could/should be held above others for linking, and they often contain original research and trivial info, not uniquely encyclopedic at all. Kind of like asking for someone's birthday and getting handed their yearly schedule. Anyways, from what I see Milo is extremely cautious about what goes, and me personally, i'm extremely cautious of what stays. Two perspectives - I hope they help. JoeSmackTalk18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I think we should be cautious and judge on a case by case basis as opposed to making a blanket declaration that a kind of EL is categorically bad. The key word is "often" - we need to make a judgement call if a site is one of the ones that meets EL or not (in every case, not just fansites). --Milo H Minderbinder18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Milo, in a situation where there are many potential links to add to the external links section a simple link to a link directory like DMOZ or the like is far better. Remember we are an encyclopedia not a repository of external links. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help?18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never said otherwise. If there are tons of possible links and none stand out, use DMOZ. If there are a small number of sites that do meet EL, it's appropriate to link to them. "Not a repository" means we shouldn't have too many links, not that we should have zero links. --Milo H Minderbinder18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole guideline is written in the style of "can be used" and "try to avoid". It is indeed not forbidden to add them, but in all cases, try to keep them to a minimum (policy: WP:NOT), and even, zero external links might actually be an option on a page. Or maybe just one, the official link. So on a case by case evaluation, what does the fansite add to the wikipedia? Does it somewhere look like it might be in the list of 'links to be avoided' .. if so, maybe just not add it. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Your best bet in cases such is these is to toss in a link to dmoz, when you can and leave it at that. For instance http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/P/Pink_Floyd/ has 167 different websites listed, if we start allowing fansites on Wikipedia in any great number, we could have an external links section 167 links long, which is out of the question. -- Heligoland16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's quite a nice concept for a site; like Wikipedia, but it's polar opposite, a good compliment. Thanks to all for clearing this up for me; perhaps something similar on the page itself? Something like, "if you're unsure about an external link guideline, always ask on the article's talk page for discussion about it's inclusion" or something to that effect. Might seem obvious, but it wasn't to me at first, when an issue appears to be addressed, but unsure about it. --Dane~nya16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that, in terms of listing forums as "links to be avoided," exceptions should be made in cases where one forum in particular has established itself as the "go to" place on the topic. For example, the Fender Forum is the definitive discussion board for users of Fender guitars, and as such it is a valuable resource. Or if there was a community board for say, Exeter NH, I think it is helpful to list it under the article. Sylvain1972 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I will change the policy accordingly. Sylvain1972 13:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Linking to a forum or fansite benifits only the forum or fansite being linked to. Not sure how chat forums are an encyclopedic resource. Popularity doesn't mean reliable or verifyable. We allow one we will have to allow all. Unless its Leo Fender's forum, linked from the article Leo Fender, I dont see how its of any value to wikipedia. If the forum/fansite is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject, the provisions already allow it. --Hu1214:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have concerns about forums, but "fansites" are perfectly valid as long as they meet EL, specificallly they provide significant info not in the article, they are accurate, etc. I see no logic behind "We allow one we will have to allow all". That's not the case at all - fansites are just like any other third party site, they simply need to be judged on a case by case basis. --Minderbinder14:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That the link only benefits the forum is simply not true - the forum often is a benefit to the reader. They are often valuable channels by which one can solicit informed advice about the topic in question. The Fender forum certainly is a terrific resource for users of Fender instruments, in my experience, and I have no stake in promoting it otherwise. Assessment of the reliability of the advice offered on forums should be left to the user, who should be given the option of utilizing it or not. In the case of the hypothetical Exeter NH community forum, for instance, one could solicit information from users about the community and then make arrangements to verify the identify of a willing respondent if one so desired. I don't advocate that all forums on any topic are link-worthy, but this blanket ban seems unreasonable to me.Sylvain1972 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with this. Another example is the website StopMotionAnimation.com, which until a few months ago consisted exclusively of a forum which was the central place for the community of stop motion animators, and which was frequented by many professionals. If the rationale for avoiding links to forums is that it "benefits only the forum", then I suggest we avoid links to all websites which are not "official" (no matter how much information they contain, and no matter if an official website even exists or not), because it "benefits only the website". I've been seeing far too many bots and editors acting like bots going around lately and removing quite respectable forum links indiscriminately. Esn01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't true that the rationale for not linking to forums is that it "benefits the website." That is only one reason among many, including - the requirement of linking to a reliable source with encyclopedic content (which a forum can't pass). Keep in mind, the external links of an article shouldn't replace a Google search for people interested in the subject of an article. In fact, the #1 hit for a Google search: "stop animation forum" is the very website you have mentioned. At the same time, I don't believe there is any ban on linking to forums and in some extreme cases, it could be that the link passed the external link guidelines. To honest, I haven't seen such a case yet, but I don't rule out the possibility. Nposs02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Official book site?
I've seen publisher's book sites included in articles in many different ways, and always consider them linkspam because they are promotional in nature. However, I just ran across Wikinomics (book) where for the first time that I've seen such a site was listed in the External links section as the official site for the book. I removed it, but with reluctance. It seems to be more just a way to get a promotional link into an article, rather than provide readers with useful additional information on the subject of the article. --Ronz17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Why would someone read an encyclopedia article about a commercial product?"
Then consider which links would further the goals of those readers. Articles such as Microsoft include links to blatantly promotional company sites because many independent observers agree that along with the unsightly promotion is some verifiably factual information likely to be interesting to some large fraction of people who were interested enough in the subject to read the encyclopedia article in the first place. For example, Microsoft's site has an extensive online knowledgebase; millions of people use it to solve the numerous problems with their Microsoft products, and they are able to use it precisely to the extent that the information is accurate.
The official site for the book featured in the article: Wikinomics (book) provides the full text of the book's table of contents and first chapter. (This is becoming such normal practice for many trade books in current publication that I suspect I can't be the only person who looks for official book sites to find such excerpts.) What kind of an encyclopedia would write an article about a book without providing a link to such a large chunk of the book's content? An encyclopedia that is trying to make itself useless?
Seriously, I'm asking these questions because I can't imagine what the answers would be:
"Who would read a Wikipedia article about a book and not want to browse through the first chapter?"
"What could be more relevant to an encyclopedia article about a book than a link to a sizable chunk of actual content from the book?"
When someone goes to a bricks-and-mortar bookstore, and they see a book they find interesting, what do they do? They pull the book off the shelf and start browsing through it. When they do, they see all the blatantly promotional text on the dust jacket. In most cases they are not swayed by the promotion, because a typical customer browses many books and buys few or none. Presumably, if people were deeply troubled by the promotional text associated with trade books, they would avoid bookstores, and people who are deeply troubled by commercially hyped books would probably avoid reading encyclopedia articles about them.
Why not just trust our readers to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the promotional and factual parts of a commercial site? We seem to trust them that much when we link to Microsoft's site. --Teratornis16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Petitions
The Road pricing article currently contains a link to an Internet petition hostile to the concept of road pricing. The article is regularly updated (presumably by campaigners) to reflect the (unaudited) number of signatures. This seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We are addressing the specific problem in Talk:Road pricing, but this is clearly a more general problem. Under what circumstances can internet petitions be regarded as suitable sources for Wikipedia? --RichardVeryard13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I accept that it provides evidence of some hostility towards road pricing, and an active campaign against it. I do not accept that an internet petition provides reliable evidence of the scale of hostility. Furthermore, I worry that by linking to a one-sided petition that is still ongoing, WP is in danger of further distorting some already unreliable evidence. Is it not reasonable to consider the (potentially distorting) effect of linking to a given source? --RichardVeryard15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I interpret this to mean WP doesn't link to the petition website, but could link to an independent news site (such as the BBC) reporting the outcome of a (completed) petition. --RichardVeryard16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.
This certainly makes sense when the issue it directly linking to a page whose main purpose is to distribute copyrighted works, like Youtube or the old Napster. However I've seen it used to remove worthwhile links because either there are copyvios elsewhere on the same website, or because of incidental copyvios, such as a picture used to illustrate a page. In most cases we are not in a position to establish whether or not a copyright is being violated. Also, the assertion of a copyright violation can be made which is almost impossible to rebut. I think we need to tighten the prohibition by 1) limiting it to linking to the actual page with the copyvio, and 2) limiting it to flagrant copyvios or ones where a complaint has been filed somewhere by the copyright holder. Thoughts? -Will Beback · † · 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia should not be the copyright police of the internet. There is no reason to adopt overly onerous restrictions, unless media companies are writing our policies for us.Sylvain1972 13:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't an issue of being 'copyright police', it is about responsibility. Lyrics websites for instance have few take downs from record labels even though they are copyright violations. 'No one is complaining so we're in the clear' is not a good attitude about things of this nature. It is not impossible to rebut a copyright violation either, i've seen many websites that clearly state the copyrights to their content. JoeSmackTalk15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should not be the copyright police of the internet" - No, but we are responsible for our content and how our own content makes us look. If we link to illegal websites ran by thieves and assholes we'll look like thieves and assholes.
"or because of incidental copyvios, such as a picture used to illustrate a page" - It may be that the page in question would qualify under an interpretation of fair-use and thus would be acceptable for us to link to. Just depends on the context. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would actually love to know a little bit more about how fair use could be claimed on picture websites, like say, photo galleries sites w/o individual copyrights on the images. This is a quite common spam link I see dropped onto town/city articles en masse ('illustrating' the town's sights); could the contributor claim fair use if the copyright is not explicit? JoeSmackTalk16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If we know something is a copyright vio or have genuine reason to suspect it is, we shouldn't link to it. But I'd agree that applies to specific pages, not banning an entire website just because it has vios on pages that aren't linked. And we certianly don't require anyone to "prove" content is legal. --Milo H Minderbinder16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the 1970s in the USA, it has not been necessary to include a copyright notice in order for a work to be protected by copyright. Most of what you see on the web is protected by copyright, whether there is a notice or not. --Gerry Ashton17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We can link to copyrighted material, just not copyright violations. The question isn't whether the material is copyrighted (most recent stuff would be) but whether the site hosting it is doing so legally. --Milo H Minderbinder17:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How can we know for sure unless it is posted with the content? This is a similar feeling debate to quote unquote "official" myspace profile linking. JoeSmackTalk17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) There is no way to tell, just by looking at a web site, whether the web site has the legal authority to publish the material. That's why we can't be the copyright police; we don't have the tools to do the job. Nevertheless, we can have an unofficial opinion about whether the site is likely to have authority to publish the material, and we should avoid linking to pages where it is very unlikely that the site has authority to publish the material. --Gerry Ashton18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello policy makers. I am a spam fighter and I would like to voice a concern I have about linking to multimedia sites like photobucket.com, flickr.com, youtube.com, and ... These sort of sites make fighting external link spam very difficult since the URL's are basically gibberish. This is also a problem with sites like tinyurl.com and citebite.com. They are a form of obfuscation and you have to manually click on every link to figure out what it is. They make a labor intensive task even more so. The two solutions I envision are either to forbid such links in WP:EL or to have the spam project black list them. An alternative way to look at these sites is if the images are not copyright violations then why weren't they uploaded to Wikipedia in the first place? Promotional spam potential is the only reason I can think of. (Requestion21:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
At the top of this page a discussion was going on regarding symmetry as used here:
Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
The rule as it is written clearly argues against inclusion of non-official "fan sites" which do not have a direct, symmetrical relationship with the subject of the article. I don't think this particular rule was meant to address the scope of a site's focus - it's meant to address the tightness of it's relationship with it's subject - to exclude sites which are merely derivative of their subject rather than involved in a two way interaction with their subject. An official site has an involvement with it's subject that most non-official "fan" sites lack. In the example given within the rule, a non-official site run by the fans of a rock band is not considered to be suitable for an external link. However, I think it needs to be taken one step further. In my opinion, the non-official "fan site" should still be considered as a potential external link IF there is a two-way relationship between them and their subject. In the rock band example, that would mean that a non-official site might be acceptable as an external link if one or more of the band members or their support staff (manager, producer, roadies, groupies, etc.) are regular participants on the non-official site, or allow themselves to be interviewed or photographed by the site in an exclusive fashion. In my opinion, this two way interaction is what is meant by a symmetrical relationship as written in the current rules. I think it's obvious that a non-official site which has a two way relationship with it's "band" would be of far greater interest to the reader of the article than the "fan" sites which have no such relationship.
I do believe that the scope of a site's focus should be considered in determining it's appropriateness as an external link. If the site has a much broader or narrower focus than the subject of the article than it's value to the article can certainly be questioned. For instance, take an article about the Ford Mustang. Sites dedicated to the Ford Mustang might be considered as potential external links, as might sites dedicated to certain Ford Mustangs (Gen I Mustangs, Cobra Mustangs, SVO Mustangs, etc.). What about a site dedicated to all Ford automobiles? Might not that be considered as well if it has a well developed Mustang section which is a respected resource among Mustang enthusiasts? What about a site dedicated to "pony cars"? I think that might be considered as well with the same caveat. Beyond that, it gets to be a bit too much - what about a site about all American cars? All cars? Those are clearly too broad.
I propose that these related sites with a broader or narrower focus be judged on the normal WP:EL criteria plus an additional criterion based on how many "orders of magnitude" they are from the subject of the original article. So with the Mustangs, a site about a certain kind of Mustang would be one order of magnitude more specialized. A site about all Ford automobiles would be one order of magnitude more generalized. So would a site about "pony cars" of "American muscle cars". A site covering all American cars would be 2 orders of magnitude more generalized, and a site covering all cars would be 3 orders of magnitude more generalized. I think that any site that falls within one order of magnitude from the subject of the article could be appropriate as an external link if the other criteria of the WP:EL are met.
Another editor wrote (in the section on symmetry, near the top of this page):
For example (URLs are fictitious): a site focusing only on the artist Madonna (maddonnasite.com) could be a valid External Link, while a generic site that has information about a lot of artists, including Madonna (popmusic.org), is not. However, if a part of that site were devoted to the artist, and met the other criteria for linking (popmusic.org/madonna/ for example), then it may be linked.
This also argues in favor of not excluding a site simply because it's scope does not match exactly with the subject of a Wikipedia article. The Sandman20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like it'd be needlessly complicated. I don't think a huge amount of ELs fail on criteria 13; the lions share goes to copyvio/promotional/coi/social/blog. I don't know how this order of magnitude scale would be scalable either, how would the classify qualitative data in a quantitative way? JoeSmackTalk21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The current wording is needlessly complicated, and fairly inscrutable. I'd support the proposed wording, it's much more clear and simpler (specifically replacing the current 13 starting after the first sentence). My one suggestion would be to make sure the examples are made up and not real websites or artists, maybe something like FictitiousBandName? --Milo H Minderbinder21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The proposed wording would support modannafansite.com. This as it is now violates criteria 13 of links normally to be avoided as it is indirectly connected. It'd probably have her favorite color, her favorite shopping chain and any other clumps of info that aren't symmetrically related to the article. JoeSmackTalk22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
A link to madonnafansite.com could well be a good link and the current guideline supports that. Please don't confuse the discussion with her favorite color. The guideline has criteria. A valuable fan site directly related to the topic is plainly linkable, while a piece of junk is not. While the current wording seems clear enough to me it seems to be confusing some people, so making it more explicit that the point is links (whatever they may be) have to directly relate to the topic and not be generic is a good idea. Bottom line though, this section has nothing to do with fansites so it would be even better to use another example, like somenewssite.com would not be an appropriate link for the article on Gerald Ford while somenewsite.com/gerald-ford/ could be. 200522:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Heres another example: quotation websties. Modannaquotations.com violates 13 now but wouldn't with the proposed wording. It violates it now because it isn't authoritative and a webpage detailing everything someone has said ever isn't going to be symmetrically related to an encyclopedia, which concentrates on what is notable. JoeSmackTalk22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And based on the discussion here, the current wording supposedly supports both as well but is just horribly worded. Fan sites are allowed, as are any "unofficial" sites that meet the rest of EL. We've already had this discussion, the point of 13 isn't to ban unofficial sites. I'm not sure what you mean by "authoritative", the relevant point is that it is accurate. Also not sure what you mean by "symmetrically related to an encyclopedia", the symmetry statement just means that a linked site is on-topic and specific (a quick look shows that WP does link to quote collections, they don't go in an encylopedia which is why we link to them instead). --Milo H Minderbinder22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
In neither of these cases did I mean all the time, my apologies. And to Milo, by authoritative i meant ' Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority', and your interpretation of what I meant by 'symmetrically related to an encyclopedia' is indeed what I meant. :) JoeSmackTalk22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent)I am not sure if I understand this correctly, so I'd better ask: we want to link to the fansite of Madonna (e.g.), it does obey all of WP:EL, except for #13, so if we now rewrite #13, the fansite is allowed? --Dirk BeetstraTC22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, as long as it meets the rest of EL, #13 already allows it in its current state, it's just really badly written and confusing. It wouldn't be a policy change as much as a clarification. --Milo H Minderbinder23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So, would a site about all Ford vehicles be appropriate as an external link for an article about the Ford Mustang if the site had a distinct Mustang section with high quality information about the Mustang including content not readily available on any "dedicated to Mustang" sites (for example, exclusive interviews with Mustang designers, Ford executives, etc.)? Or would such a site be disqualified automatically because it's focus was broader than the article's subject, the Ford Mustang? The Sandman23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Does it pass links normally to be avoided #11, 'Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority'? JoeSmackTalk23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as it passes the rest of EL, it would be appropriate as long as you link to the mustang section of the site and not the main site page. --Milo H Minderbinder23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
(editconflict)I don't think a link to fordfans.com would pass fordfans.com/mustangs/ might pass #13. it might have to be more like fordfans.com/mustangs/1976mustang.html, depending on what the breathe of /mustangs was. JoeSmackTalk23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this:
"the symmetry statement just means that a linked site is on-topic and specific"
I take this to mean that an unofficial site should have a two way relationship with the subject of the article rather than just being derivative of it. For example, an unofficial site which has the participation of official personnel or recognized experts in the same field would be much more appropriate as an external link than a "fan" site without such a two way interaction. I believe that is the symmetry being referred to in rule 13.
A lot of the discussion here revolves around the use of the term "fansite". I think we need to define a fansite as an unofficial site without a symmetric (i.e. two way) relationship with it's subject. Fansites should normally not be linked, but unofficial sites with a symmetric relationship to their subject might could be.The Sandman23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your logic is consistent. Does it require participation from "official" people (which only allows official sites in most cases)? If "recognized experts" is enough (whatever that means) then that's not really a two way relationship. And it certainly can be argued that the creators of some fansites are "recognized experts" in their partcular topic.
As for fansites, the policy doesn't mention them other than #13, and I don't think it needs to. Nor do we need to define fansites. Fansites are appropriate if they meet EL, they just need to be judged on a case by case basis, not judged categorically. --Milo H Minderbinder23:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No we shouldn't define it like that, and it is irrelevant to the subject here. Fansites are often good links and that again is not relevant to the point here. The point is simply there is a symetry to the linking, and article about Gerald Ford can only have external links to Gerald Ford content. That's it. It's a common sense thing (that is valuable to spell out), and there is no need jumble it up or read it extremely obscurely. The link needs to focus on the topic of the article, not be generally related. For example, the Beatles article should not link to an article on the history of British pop music, but it could link to somewebsite.com/beatles/. It's not more complicated than that. 200523:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
External Link Guidelines Driving Non-Strategic Behaviors
If the five pillars represent the grand strategy of Wikipedia, then in my opinion the current set of WP:EL guidelines are so convoluted as to allow and actually drive a lot of non-strategic behaviors. This is because the guidelines are as loop hole filled as the tax code. Just about any conceivable external link in the context of some article or another can be rationalized as consistent with the guidelines. Other contributors or the wikiPolice won’t feel this way and a lot of deletions, reverting and discussions will follow. One only has to examine the history of a lot of articles to see that External Links are constantly under debate. And most of that debate is really un-reconcilable when you compare external links from one article to another as there is no consistent application of the guidelines. All of which in my opinion is non-strategic as it draws tremendous energy away from achievement of the five pillars.
There are relatively few websites today whose purpose is purely to be the repository of reference information. Most websites exist to promote the products and services of the entity running the website. And I define entity here as any corporation, small business, organization (for profit or non-profit), academic or religious institution and for-profit government agencies. They all generate revenue through a wide variety of sales, grants, contributions, tuition, etc. and have balance sheets and income statements. The only difference about these entities is the way they are treated by the tax codes.
If a website contains a page with information that becomes the bibliographical reference for information in an article, then that page (not the website) needs to be cited in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines on citing sources WP:CITE not by linking the Website as an External Link. The reason this would be acceptable is because any editor could actually change the reference should they find more comprehensive references for the point being made. With External Links that can be not done—the link can only be added or deleted based on extremely vague and contradicting guidelines.
To illustrate the point, the WP:EL contains the following two statements
Under links to be avoided
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
What should linked
Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
Now if I examine the article on MIT Sloan School of Management, most of the article is unreferenced but the link to the official website is there along with lots of other “official” links. Two clicks and I can sign up and send them my money for an Executive Education Course. I don’t think the website exists to provide reference material to support research on MIT Sloan, but to sell their products and services, even though it is their “official” website.
This is the very problem with the guidelines. The above example could be debated ad nausea given the current guidelines. The debate might begin as “Why is one ‘official' site that exists to sell products and services more appropriate that another site that is deemed in-appropriate?” Such debate in my opinion is non-strategic behavior given the five pillars as it requires a lot of energy to be diverted away from real contributions to Wikipedia.
I would make the WP:EL very clear and un-equivocal to the point that the following would be the nutshell statement in some form or another and there would be very few if any loop holes.
This page in a nutshell: External Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services are not permitted as a matter of policy. Such sites include any entity such as a corporation, small business, organization (for profit or non-profit), academic or religious institution and for-profit government agencies that sell products and services, solicit contributions and or accept fees whether the site is considered an “Official” site or not and regardless of their tax code status.
If an editor needs to reference specific information in an article that requires a link to an external website page (not the website home page), do so in accordance with the Wikipedia WP:CITE guidelines.
If the WP:EL remain as they are with so many contradictions, we will all expend an extraordinary amount of non-strategic energy dealing with them.
--Mike Cline14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting idea, although many would consider it absurd for an article to not have a link to an official website. Also, I don't think any change in policy will reduce or eliminate the amount of energy that goes into removing external links since the vast majority of additions aren't "loopholes" but simply ignoring the policy. And even if we were to completely ban external links, spammers would just add them as references in the article (whether valid or not). --Milo H Minderbinder15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Milo, one of the historic lessons of strategy is too always focus on the strategy, not the tactics. In deed, regardless of what the WP:EL guidelines say, those of no-good-faith will attempt to circumvent them. However, I tend to disagree that most additions are simply ignoring the policy. In good faith editors maybe following one aspect of the guideline, but not another--a loophole. Take my MIT Sloan example above. I could argue to delete based on the Links to Avoid guideline and argue to include based on the What Should Be Linked guideline. I am personally confident that I could argue both positions in good faith very succintly given the current guidelines. But that would be focusing on the tactics, not the five pillars strategy and thus a colossal waste of energy.--Mike Cline15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The "links to avoid" specifically exempts official sites, and thus allows MIT Sloan. You may not like the result, but the guideline is unambiguous in that case, no arguing necessary. --Milo H Minderbinder16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Milo, sorry I missed your comments earlier. So you would endorse this interpretation of the guideline: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking... to mean the official site of any revenue generating entity who is the subject of or directly related to an article's subject could be linked. as long as there was consensus that the site was "official"?--Mike Cline02:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely applaud the simplification of this guideline, and I think that Mike is off to a great start. I think that the idea of a fundamental change in how WP does things with regard to WP:EL is a good idea to throw around and debate. While this will not stop the requirement to track down the type of work that Milo talks about, what it will do is stop the amount of effort put into long debates about what should and shouldn't be going into the EL section of an article (See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/VBulletin and Talk:VBulletin for some examples of such a long discussion. Stuff like this takes up efforts of contributors, mediators, and more senior contributors. A more simplified and less inclusive guideline could potentially help the situation significantly. Using websites in specific ways as citations (to the individual parts of the article, quoting individual parts of the site) is something that I think should be applauded. But all these blanket "this is useful further reading" is watering down the intent of WP, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I am strongly in favour of stronger definitions on WP:EL. At this moment, many people try to circumvent the current guidelines by bending the 'what to link' and 'what not to link' guidelines, and many are not susceptible to alternatives (e.g. using sisterprojects of wikipedia to recreate the information in an open source way, or just not adding the link). Although the wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, still, the external links are in many cases superfluous, they do not add to the information (this in contrary to references). Even a link to the official homepage of a company is not really necessary, the article can tell about the company without the link to the official site being there; what does that link actually add? Can the guideline be turned into a policy: 'no external links, except ..'? --Dirk BeetstraTC15:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Your strawman on top of strawman on top of strawman leads to all sorts of convoluted ideas here. There is nothing wrong with linking to offcial sites that sell products and services. The priority, the strategy, here is not some Don Quixote crusade against product selling. That may be yours but it makes no sense for the Wikipedia. The encyclopedia cares about encyclopedic information, of which appropriate external links are a vital part. The guideline is clear, and just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less so. External links can add value. They are a good thing when appropriate. Some editors, for reasons unknown, just HATE that. But fortunately the guideline is more sensible. We are here for users, not crusaders. That's the way it should stay.
Also, instead of pretending there are mysterious "loopholes", please be constructive and show one. There no loopholes. What there is is a clear guideline to include official sites, and then numerous hurdles for other sites to meet to merit a link. 200503:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
2005 - No crusade on my part, merely a desire to see guidelines that are useful and can be applied and interpreted in a consistent manner. As for an example: Further up this page is a comment on "Official book site?" where the external link was removed because it was considered "promotional." One contributor agreed, and there was no further discusssions on that deletion as far as I can tell on the article's talk page. Because there was no discussion about the "officialness" of the site--in my opinion the site was indeed the official site of the book--I am assuming it was deleted because it was promotional, not un-official. So I would ask the question: When does official trump promotional? and when does promotional trump official?, the guidelines are unclear on that.--Mike Cline08:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing inconsistent about it. Official sites "should" be linked. It's clear as can be. The guidelines further down specifically say that lower concepts don't apply to official sites, so how can there be any confusion? All we can do is say it in plain language. 200510:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Important reasons why someone says a link has to be added is often "it is the official site, that is mentioned in 'what should be linked'", or "it is not strictly exempt via 'links normally to be avoided'". There is a whole piece of text preceding these points. That text begins with
Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).
And I think there is already where things begin to be unclear. If the information is suitable for inclusion, there is no reason for external links, even to the official sites (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is the policy, for references WP:CITE and WP:RS take over). We don't even have to look further. When the material is not suitable for inclusion, then we read on, and see that we get to what links are welcome, and indeed, then a choice arises "what should be linked". So at that point we have decided that we need to add the external link to the official site, the material cannot be included otherwise (it is not used as a reference), and then the first link to add would be the official site. Partially overruling the 'what should be linked' is a set which states 'links normally to be avoided'.
As an example, a Wikipedia page on a carbrand. That page tells about the company, it tells about the history (referring to a page on the official site), it tells about what cars they sell (references to the separate sites on the official site, and maybe to important other sites), who is the current CEO, maybe a profit list of the last 5 years (again referring to the official site). Then we get to the external links sections, should www.carbrand.com be included, all information is already in the document? When reading the very first paragraph of WP:EL, I think even the official site does not need to be linked in the external links, all information is already incorporated in the text.
So I do not believe that even the official site has to be linked in the external links sections, and if I misinterpret that first paragraph, then I think that WP:EL is not clear enough. Hope this clarifies. Cheers! --Dirk BeetstraTC11:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the existence of long discussions about what can and can not be linked implies that there is some confusion. I am glad that some people feel that it is very clear as to what should be in the WL section, but for others it is a struggle. While I appreciate that those that are interested in getting their own sites, or types of sites listed are going to try to interpret the guidelines in the most favourable light for them, even people who don't have such an interest struggle. I certainly wouldn't characterize this suggestion as a "crusade". Some of us are struggling with this guideline and are trying to find some suitable way through, whatever that might be. If there are wikipedians out there who understand this guideline and feel that there is no ambiguity in there, then their help would be most appreciated in sorted out the discussions like the one I quoted above. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk13:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is certainly not confusion. Mike Cline is proposing a completely different guideline based on some unstated "loopholes" that allow sites he doesn't want linked to be linked, for example, the official site for Coca Cola from the Coca Cola article, because it is primarily a product seller. Instead of saying you are struggling with the guideline, please state specifically how it is not crystal clear that official sites should be linked. How, precisely, does this confuse you: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Please no philisophical generalities. The guideline, and years of talk comments, make it plain that the official site of the topic of the article should be linked. There is a longstanding consensus on this, on the talk page and certainly in editing practices of thousands of editors. We have here a desire to change that, with no stated rationale, other than an apparent prioritization of being anti-selling over pro-user. So, let's not pretend there is confusion where there is not. If anyone wants to change the crystal clear policy, they can advocate that, but to suggest there is anything confusing or loophole-y about "should link to the official site" is silly. If you want to change the wording to something even more blatantly clear, that's just a language correction, but the existing guideline is plain as day. The fact that some people don't like it doesn't make it any less clear. 200522:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
2005 I think you actually misread my intent and interest here. I would actually be just as satisfied with the clarity of the guideline if it said the exact opposite of my previous nutshell suggestion.
This page in a nutshell: External Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services are permitted as a matter of policy. Such sites include any entity such as a corporation, small business, organization (for profit or non-profit), academic or religious institution and for-profit government agencies that sell products and services, solicit contributions and or accept fees whether the site is considered an “Official” site or not and regardless of their tax code status as long as they contribute NPOV, Verifiable and Notable information related the the article for the benefit of the user.
The reason I started this topic was merely to point out in my opinion, that the EL guidelines are collectively not clear and thus causing alot of non-strategic behavior, which I believe will increase exponentially as new contributors join WP.--Mike Cline23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither is the guideline in a "nutshell". For some reason you want to summarize the guideline by mentioning a couple minor aspects. What exactly is your issue? The guideline says to link to official sites. The guideline says not to link to non-official sites that exist primarily to sell products. These are two small parts of the guideline, but they are very clear. If you want to suggest different wording for the two sentences in question, fine, but we certainly aren't going to summarize the guideline by talking about the tail of the elephant. 200523:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I will further explain why I think their is significant ambiguity in the WP:EL guidelines as it currently exists, especially as it relates to official sites.
There is nothing inconsistent about it. Official sites "should" be linked. It's clear as can be.
Take the case of the article on Balanced Scorecard. This is a non-trademarked business process. Hundreds of consultancies and universities teach and practice this process, the include the federal government. Yet, in the article there is an external link to the Balanced Scorecard Institute presumely based on its "officialness" because of its name, not its ownership of the process. Indeed one can go to that site to get significantly more useful information on the Balanced Scorecard process. It is a useful link for that purpose, but the same could be said for many other sites for consultancies that teach the process but don't use the process name in their name. If the Balance Scorecard Institute is an Official site, then they all are, because no one of them owns the rights to the business process. I think if a contributor began added ELs for all the consultancies that teach, practice and sell Balanced Scorecard services and they all had useful information in them, the wikiPolice would go nuts. And here's where the current guidelines fail--there is no definition of an official site. A site can presumably becomes official through consensus, but given the vagueness, and inconsistent application of the term, consensus one-day may not be there later as new contributors join WP.--Mike Cline14:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This example is not particularly persuasive. For a start, your presumption that the link is there because of this guideline is a big leap - there are several aspects of the article which do not follow the manual of style. Is there any evidence the reason this particular link was added because someone read this guideline and thought they ought to find and add it? It seems more likely the name came up high in a Google search and the reader thought it would be good. They may have thought it looked official and that might have made them feel better about adding it. But given other aspects of the article it seems unlikely that sticking to guidelines was the motivator.
And even if that were what happened, all we have in this particular example is a case where someone has made a mistake - the name sounded official but the site isn't. That isn't a loophole in the guidelines, it's a mistake by an editor. If such mistakes are common and disruptive it might indicate we should be more explicit about how to identify official sites, but it doesn't suggest that saying official sites should be linked to is intrinsically problematic.
In the end these are only guidelines. If you can make a persuasive argument on an article that the five pillars are better served by ignoring the guidelines then most editors will likely support you. And there's nothing wrong with that. -- Siobhan Hansa15:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent)I indeed do not see how this example relates to this case. WP:EL is a guideline, which is under the policies and pillars of the wikipedia. A guideline gets read from the beginning to the end (just like a manual), we do not start somewhere in the middle (just like checking a boolean in the if statement 'if (A and B) then do_this;' gets read, when A is false, we don't have to check B, the result will be false). So the very first guideline we see in this document is, can the material be included, if not, then link to the official site. The unclearness in that is, that it is unclear if all information is and can be included, and what is actually that official site. Why exactly do we have to link to the official site (or whatever site)? So I think the intro does not clear enough state to first consider whether the link is necessary in the first place. And I think that the above mentioned nutshell is a good step forward for that. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
proposed edit to Main EL Article
This is not a policy change proposal, merely a proposed edit for clarity's sake and user friendliness.
The 'External links' section says, "There are two basic formats for external links..." but then goes on to explain just one. Embedded links are shown without further introduction in the preceding 'How to link' section.
Proposed change:
Begin 'How to link' section with the introductory sentence, "There are two basic formats for external links. The most common is to add a list of external links at the end of an article. Alternatively, a link may be embedded in the main text of an article when this is desired. Here are examples of both formats."
Have two sub-sections: the existing 'External links' and an added 'Embedded links'. The latter to have the example currently shown in 'How to link' with the added cross-reference, "see also Embedding external links"
Hold on! I want to take issue with the fact you aren't changing the meaning of the guidelines. (Sorry not to have done this when you posted here - I can't keep up with all the edits on this page). I read your proposed change above to imply it is OK to have non-citation external links embedded in the text of the article. And that is in contradiction to another part of our manual of style Wikipedia:Embedded_citations - which talks about inline, embedded links and states "This style of external link should only be used as a citation for a specific section or fact. Other external links should go in an External links section as described at Wikipedia:External links" (my emphasis). The basis for such a guideline is presumably based in the idea that sending readers off-site in the middle of an article is not generally a good style for a site that attempts to provide information that conforms to standards (as we do).
I had always understood the two ways of formatting external links to be the standard "by hand" way, and the use of templates, specifically citation templates - even though their not used as references. -- Siobhan Hansa13:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like this proposal either. I think we should discourage embedding ELs in article text. If it's a citation, put it in the text, if not put it at the bottom. --Milo H Minderbinder14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry...I need a current YouTube Policy clarification
I thought Jimmy Wales had stated some time back that the DMCA was the proper vehicle for resolving issues including music videos on Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia editorial judgment, and that was Wikipedia Policy until further notice. I have reviewed what I can find on the subject at the Pump, etc., and am looking for Policy on this issue. Thank you. Tvccs22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The current state of policy is that any YouTube links will end up being removed by one of about six or so editors in a periodic AWB trawl, based on the mistaken notion that all YouTube links are inherently unreliable or copyvio. If you complain to the editor who removed it, and can justify retention of the link based on the link's relevance, reliability, and copyright status, one of two things will happen. Most of the editors involved will be ok with you putting it back. Two or three of them will tell you, rather rudely, that no YouTube link is ever appropriate in Wikipedia, will revert you when you replace the link, call you a troll and threaten to block you for 3RR violations if you persist. There's no getting around this, as one of those editors is an ArbCom member, and the other, much ruder one, is an admin. Argyriou(talk)19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that update and clarification. Amazing. If you could post, or e-mail me the list of the editors in question, I'd be most grateful. Thank you. Tvccs15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I think a claim like that is going to require some evidence like diffs and contribution history. Which editors are you speaking of? L0b0t16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Links to be avoided no longer accurately reflects consensus
I question if we have consensus that "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources," and "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." are links to be avoided. I would very much like to hear both sides of this issue, but I have noticed substantial pushback when trying to remove such external links over the past number of days. Hipocrite - «Talk»23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the criteria for external links. While I agree with you 100% that blogs should not be cited as a source, external links are another matter. When they are used to give more depth to a subject than an encyclopedia article should be expected to provide they are of great use. Overlinking to blogs is bad and should be avoided. However, your claim that blogs in the EL section are somehow in violation of the GUIDELINEWP:RS displays a thorough misunderstanding of our existing policies and guidelines. Please stop arbitrarily removing links just because you don't like them. Cheers. L0b0t02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We use external links sections to direct people to further information on the subject. Sites linked to should be accurate and (reasonably) authoratative. A blog is simply someone's POV, which fulfills neither of those conditions. -- Steel02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned, Blogs are almost always WP:POV and never verifyable. For the most part the content is either opinion or contains repeated/copied information from an actual "real" source. There are however the rare exceptions. An example of an allowable blog would be for google's, googleblog, it's "official", verifyable and authoratative and would be appropriate for the article Google. Only Google excecs and engineers post on it about technology news at the company. other than that, there is almost never a time a blog should be linked to. --Hu1203:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, define blog. What are the criteria that make something a blog? What if an article about person X has an external link to a blog by person X? I'm not talking about citeing the blog as a source, just as a link to more information. Cheers. L0b0t03:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a disconnect in what verifiable means and what blogs are allowable. Verifiable does not mean "its the truth", verifiable does not means "its not opinion", verifiable does not mean, verifiable doesn't even mean "its not POV". So what are we left with. Part of WP:V is "reliable" and that's what we need to stand on, in the case of blogs. Is the particular blog that of a reliable source? That is, does the source normally state things that are supported by evidence, or commonly believed ? That is, are they a reporter of things, who is commonly held to be accurate in their reports? Another exception is for professional researchers, such as if Stephen Hawking had a blog, we could cite what he says about certain physic topics, since he is an authority in that field. A third exception would be personal blogs on the Wikipages of that particular person, or perhaps some organzation they run or some other page *closely-tied* to that person or controlled by them. Just a few examples of why a complete prohibition of blogs is not held to be consensus. Wjhonson03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that a lot of editors have their "pet" link that they want added in a lot of places, and object vigorously to removal - but if you bring the issue to the wider community, the outcome is usually consistent with what this page says. But I haven't seen any recent big discussions on the topic, other than on this talk page. I suppose the best place to bring it up is WP:ATT, which is heavily watched these days. >Radiant<13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would also suggest that it is very situational. To say there is a blanket prohibition against blogs appearing anywhere in the encyclopedia is not only factually incorrect but displays an amazing misunderstanding of just what it is we are trying to accomplish here. Blanket prohibitions should be reserved for spamsites. Another issue is just what makes something a "blog", when is it a blog, when is it just someones website? Does it have to have the word blog in the URL? Cheers. L0b0t13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose a blog is a weblog, thus a site where regular content posts are made. But the distinction is unimportant, as just someone's website isn't a good source either, unless it's written by a recognized authority. >Radiant<14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be true if we were talking about sources, but this is about external links. Am I incorrect in my understanding that external links are there to give more depth and background than an encyclopedia should be expected to contain. I agree with you about not using them as sources but that is covered by WP:V. This was sparked by the Barrington Hall article. This article contained several external links to blogs; one is by a former resident and about his time living there, one is by a customer of a former resident and is about buying drugs there, and one is by a director that shot some of his films in and around the building and provides some nice photos. This seems to me to be a great time to ignore all rules, as these links are not being used as sources, and they add some depth and backstory to the article that an encyclopedia should not be expected to provide. Cheers. L0b0t14:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think living somewhere makes one an expert on a topic, plus with self published info there's no verification or proof reading. Blogs are only acceptable links in rare circumstances - the bar is very high and I don't think those meet it. Please don't revert war over them. --Milo H Minderbinder15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm with Milo here. Personally the only time I use EL's is in the case where I find a site that appears to be reliable, and useful, but I don't quite have the time to apply what it says to the article. So I use them sort of as an "I'll-get-around-to-it-later" reminder. If the EL is actually giving more depth to an article, then I don't see why you wouldn't simply add it as a source and cite it. If it doesn't pass muster as a source, would it pass muster as an EL? Wjhonson15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm looking for clarification on. Is there a blanket prohibition against blogs in the EL section? If so, how does wikipedia define a blog? Does the guideline reliable sources apply to sites not being cited as a source? Cheers. L0b0t15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Imho, a blanket prohibition wouldn't really make logical sense. I mean take a case where sometimes I find a link that appears useful and I add it as an EL, because in my mind I feel that I'll come back in a bit and actually use it as a source. So at first I find it may pass as a source, I may be a bit unsure. Later after editing here, there and underwear, I come back, review it more in-depth and decide it *doesn't* pass muster and so I delete it as an EL as well. So in general I'd have to say that EL's are potentially sources, but maybe a bit fuzzy. So the use of EL's can't be *stricter* than what we're saying on reliable sources since that wouldn't make logical sense. It must be that EL's have to be, maybe just a tad, looser in restrictions, but never tighter. Wjhonson15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on what should be used, I'm curious thats all. I've never seen it before and I am wondering why it is used in lieu of Protect. Is it used because it doesn't display a text box? Parasite08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Specific q about "Links normally to be avoided"
Should this rule be used to forbid linking to translated excerpts of the major work of a bio article subject, when it is the only available online source and the book in question is not readily available. The web-site in question is tendentious, but of the same tendency of the author. I've been running the line that there is a good reason why it says "normally to be avoided", ie there is no other link available. (The site itself is NN & cannot be used as a source, this is no longer disputed.) There has also been no dispute as to the accuracy of the translated excerpts. Am I correct in this interpretation? The boring details are here if anyone can be bothered, just after the last outdenting is current, from User MPerel. Thnx in advance. ⇒ bsnowball19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
i'm talking about ext. link to excerpts on the site, not quoting it the book. the problem is it's difficult to find translations, also original not easily avail thru libraries. (everytime someone who has the book tries to quote it they get shouted down on rs) but could you explain copyvio? i had assumed it was their own translation, this wld be a more serious problem... ⇒ bsnowball11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagreement as to Wikipedia's treatment of External Links (in this instance).
I've been encouraged by Editor Nposs to take this matter up here, in the External Links Discussion page.
Here's my original post, which remains accurate:
I've recently been alerted to the existence of a quite lengthy list of alleged "spam" links placed in Wikipedia, either by myself or members of our forums... It appears a lot of discussion ensued, and I even came across a comment that "someone" was given "a second chance" and "blew it" (quotes from the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam).
I've just finished reading through some other user's comments and discussions with you on similar members. Needless to say, I'm impressed with your dedication and motivation.
However, for what it's worth, our motivations are purely innocent. We are aware that Wikipedia incorporates "nofollow" tags to any and all external links, thereby nullifying any link passing, so it's clear we're not after additional "ranking". Further, a post (by me) on DigitalPoint forums is brought up as "evidence" of ill-intentions. My post simply states that contributing content (which we have) is the best way to keep one's links on Wikipedia. As the largest and most active Nissan / Infiniti resource on the internet, we're certainly not chasing the minimal traffic Wikipedia provides (per Google Analytics).
Our members have contributed the vast majority of information present on Wikipedia for the vehicles listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. For example, 240sx.org (in operation since July, 1997) organized the complete and total drafting of the Wikipedia page on the Nissan 240sx (which has since evolved into a book project, due for completion this Spring). My Q45 Moderator drafted the majority of the content on the Wikipedia Q45 page. These are just two examples.
Our intentions were simple and respectful - To provide additional resources to folks seeking more detailed information on the vehicles they've accessed on Wikipedia. It is of particular interest that links to other, lesser automotive forums remain, while ours have been deleted. We are neither selling anything, nor seeking "cheap hits". We are dedicated to reaching Nissan and Infiniti owners and providing them with the best resource on the web, because there's far too much misinformation out there.
Feel free to contact me (I'm not hard to find, I wish someone had done so earlier).
Best wishes -
Greg (AZhitman)
Response from Editor NPoss:
Thanks for you note. I noticed your other note on the Nissan 240SX page, as well. I'm sorry if I have caused you any offense. It appears that you disagree with the removal of links to 240sx.org. I became aware of the links based on this notice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jan#NICO_Club_links. Persons associated with NICO club had been systematically adding the links to several articles. I removed your link not because the site itself is in anyway a form of spam, but because since it is fundamentally a forum, it violates the external link guidelines (WP:EL). Forums are non-encyclopedic and linking to them violates the guidelines. If you feel like this is unfair, I suggest taking it up on the discussion page for the external link guidelines. I am glad that you and your associates have been so generous in your contributions to several articles and I hope you continue to contribute in the future. Nposs 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Fast-forward to today - As it stands, I have reviewed the external link guidelines, and our sites are in compliance with ALL THIRTEEN numbered criteria, so I fail to see the violation.
Further, while there may be a prohibition against links to "forums", if you'll note, NONE of the URL's that were targeted by the Editors were direct forum links. Yes, we have forums - most sites do. But the information available to our readers is available ON STATIC pages. Therefore, I respectfully request that the determination of this Editor be reconsidered in light of our significant and long-term contributions to the Wiki project.
Let me restate: We are NOT interested in "link juice", as our pages are PR5. To expect ALL of the information we have gathered throughout the years to be contributed to the Wiki project would be absurd - there would then be no basis for our existence.
Therefore, it stands to reason that readers seeking ADDITIONAL information from a reliable and long-standing source would have the option of seeing from whence that contribution came, and to be linked to that additional information.
We fully support Wikipedia's decision to implement nofollow tags, and respect the amount of effort that must go into keeping the project free of spammers and link hounds. However, we fall into neither category. We are a respected authority on the topic of Nissan vehicles, and we have been in operation since July 1997 (TEN YEARS YAY!), so I think we've at least earned that measure of respect.
In that case use your link as a citation, providing that the site is a reliable source.(I'm assuming that everything that you have said is indeed true, that the link meets all of the criteria, and there was no intent to spam.) I will note that there does seem to be a conflict of interest here. Remember, nobody owns contributions to wikipedia, they are licensed under the GDFL. If you site is the reliable source parts of the information in the page, please do cite it. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help?21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, nobody should add links to their own site, and you shouldn't encourage your members to add links to your site on wikipedia articles, it's a Conflict of interest. If your pages are worthy links, suggest them on the talk pages of those articles and let other editors add them. --Milo H Minderbinder21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears the staff can't even agree on a determination here... I'll check in later and see if there's a consensus to be arrived at, but at present, I feel like a "bait and switch" has been pulled.
If the criteria for citing a reference boils down to who cites the source, doesn't it stand to reason that the contributor would be an expert on the topic, and likely a contributor to another resource on that topic?
It appears that in the interest of eliminating "spammers", an unnecessarily wide net has been cast. Search "240sx" on Google, we're #1. No need for additional traffic, but a citation for my staff's hard work is a small concession for their contribution. [Unsigned]
Something is amiss here. I have a hard time believing that a person who has contributed so much to wikipedia doesn't understand that no one here is "staff". Seems like another tempest in a teapot. Wjhonson06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Johnson - Real professional of you: Snide comments on my semantics and making an unnecessary jab about signing a response? Sorry I'm not an expert at this "technological breakthrough". Sign my post for me, since you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Volunteers are still "staff". You reflect poorly on your peers, who have all been professional until now.
With the amount of effort put forth, simply removing citations to the contributor while keeping the information as your own is VERY unethical. Milo, if you'd have read more closely, you'd see we're not interested in "links". Relax - You're starting to see spammers under the bed.
--AZhitman
Correct - The links were all removed. See my previous posts, it's explained very clearly. Change them to citations, whatever. I don't care what they're called, but it appears you and Eagle 101 (above) can't agree on how this should be handled.
Bottom line: We contributed the content as a service, at a time when we could be cited as a source for additional information. Now that the information is here, removing citations under the guise of "preventing spammers" is pure red tape and bureaucracy run amok.
AZhitman, it seems like you inquiry has not been answered in a way that you find satisfying. I'll try to be more clear about why I removed the link. Let's take for exmample the Nissan 240SX. Recently I was involved with removing several links (diff). Your website (240sx.org) was among these. It was a direct link to the homepage of the website and did not indicate that any information had come from it - just a link. On that home page, there are more links to a variety of forums, classifieds, and a shopping section. For the community it serves, I am positive it is a great resource and by all means it seems like a fine website. It isn't a good website to link to an article on Wikipedia, however. External links should provide content beyond what the article contains. The link to your website just provided links to a variety of other sources, none of which pass the guidelines about "reliable sources." If Wikipedia were a directory of links (which it is not (WP:NOT), your site should be at the top of the list. The external link section of an article is not a substitute for a Google search for people who are interested to learn more about a topic. It sounds like in such a search, your website would come out on top. I'll also point out that the link does not pass the "symmetrical relationship" guideline of WP:EL. This might sound somewhat strange, since the 240sx.org website is all about that very car. But the link does not lead directly to content about the article - it leads to discussions, shopping, etc. that might potentially be about the car. To me, that means that inclusion of the link is basically to promote the website. Contributing to an article provides no ownership of the content or right to be compensated through a linkback. It sounds like you are a really knowledgeable person and I hope you'll stay around and keep contributing, but it sounds as if this experience has soured you on the experience. I'm sorry for that. This is what I keep in mind (especially when I am tempted to include a link to a pet website of mine): external links tend to benefit the linked website more than Wikipedia. If you really want to help Wikipedia - contribute content to the article. That's the best thing you can do. Good luck. (P.S. The apparent lack of agreement between the editors is not a weakness - but actually a strength of Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to contribute your opinion to the fray.) Nposs22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary Azhitman, you come here making an appearance as if you and your "staff" have contributed massively to the articles. So I pointed out how your position appears to have subtle flaws. As has been pointed out above, perhaps if you actually quoted and cited using your links, they might be better received, and not appear spammy. Wjhonson08:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Johnson - My staff WROTE and CONTRIBUTED nearly all of the Nissan-related information on Wikipedia. If you'd done your homework and actually read what was written, rather than jumping in uninformed, you'd have known that.
Not to worry, though. We've discussed this matter internally and decided it's not worth our time or effort. In fact, one of my staff popped in earlier this week to correct a glaring inaccuracy on the Q45 page in Wikipedia, which was immediately reversed by an Editor. In the interest of not linking to sites containing misinformation, all links to Wikipedia from our network have been removed.
I'm sorry you feel negatively about this AZhitman, and for what its worth we'd still love it if you could continue to contribute later if you change your mind. JoeSmackTalk19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So to sum up, the efforts to enforce the heck out of a tangential policy on external links have discouraged an entire community of knowledgeable contributors from participating in the Wikipedia project. Well done. --Dystopos19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, we can't let editors "earn" the right to spam by creating articles. Editors need to be here because they want to create an encyclopedia, not because they want to want to write articles with strings attached. To be honest I'm a bit skeptical of his claims - while I found examples of spamming, he never showed a diff of those same editors making contributions to the articles. Even the Q45 article doesn't have any fixes of glaring errors in the last couple weeks, and none of the minor fixes were reverted. --Milo H Minderbinder20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any clear indication that links were added to promote a website or product, since they actually linked to informational pages. Though the strictest enforcement of "links normally to be avoided" might disrecommend them in favor of dmoz, treating the contributors as part of a conspiracy to undermine the encyclopedia is a few steps too harsh, and has led to the regrettable loss of knowledgeable editors, whether or not someone has satisfied your demands for proof. Treating people as spammers when their intent to do so is unclear is not in the spirit of assuming good faith. Better to go through the trouble of discussing and clarifying the relevant guidelines (which is why we're here at Talk:EL) than to make the issues personal. WP:COI is probably more relevant in this case than WP:EL anyway. --Dystopos22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Links were added by those affiliated with the website, in some cases AZhitman himself. And looking at his (IP) edit history, it's nothing but a long list of link additions. That's spam, no question about it. No conspiracy here, just some clear evidence. The evidence we've seen is clear spamming, whether they spammed in good faith isn't a reason to leave the spammed links in articles. I don't see anything "personal" about removing spam, nor do I see anything unclear about WP:EL, WP:SPAM, or WP:COI, all of which clearly apply. If there were editors other than AZhitman who added links in a non-spammy way, we haven't seen them and can't even discuss their situation - I asked him for examples of links being added as citations or links being added by editors who extensively edited an article, and he never gave any. We can't be faulted for failing to respond to a problem if nobody will even point us to an example of it happening or even let us know who the other editors from his site are. I'm not exactly sure what you think we should have done differently. --Milo H Minderbinder23:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's imagine that someone was familiar with a web resource that contained a lot of information on a group of related topics and let's imagine they came across Wikipedia and thought highly of the project and wanted Wikipedia's users to have the benefit of the information on the other websource. The easiest thing to do is to create external links. Someone unfamiliar with the reams of instruction creep may only have looked at the Five pillars and been encouraged by the last one about how WIkipedia has no firm rules and that perfection isn't necessary and that contributors should be bold. Not knowing that an entire project is underway to eliminate links to sources of additional information except in very limited, sometimes arcane, circumstances -- and not realizing that "having an interest" is the same thing as "having a conflict of interest" that person might do precisely what AZhitman has done with the intent of improving Wikipedia rather than the intention of promoting his website. What I think we should have done differently is to withhold the judgment about whether the link was "spam" and instead use the talk page to discuss how to improve the article. Even if it is spam, it's better to limit broad-sweep enforcement to the most clear cut attempts -- those which actually remove information or introduce a POV. For other cases, it is better to tread lightly, to build consensus and to respect other contributors. --Dystopos00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Even spamming done in good faith should be removed. We can't leave stuff that doesn't belong in the articles just because fixing it might hurt someone's feelings. Spam is removed all the time, and good-faith contributors usually understand once it's explained (and discuss on the appropriate talk page(s), and in some cases their links end up getting added), and those interested in nothing more than linking to their own site usually bitch about COI, insist that they should be able to do it anyway, and leave in a huff. Sorry, but I just can't accept leaving in spam links or not asking people with a COI not to add links. WP fills up with unnecessary crap fast enough without going even easier on those who add irrelevant links. --Milo H Minderbinder00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the key policies of building consensus and assuming good faith should be given preference over matters of efficiency in removing spam. I am of the opinion that questionable external links should be debated with patience, leaving the deployed bots to handle those beyond question. The more good editors we keep and encourage, the more likely it is that articles will be watched and improved. The more editors we discourage along the way, the more Wikipedia becomes an arena for competing bureaucratic projects... which is what seems to be happening all over the place these days. --Dystopos15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE: "I asked him for examples of links being added as citations or links being added by editors who extensively edited an article, and he never gave any."
This much is true. I'm not in a position to justify my statements to your Editors. My mistake was operating under the assumption that a professional and honest approach to pointing out an issue with the "rules" would be sufficient justification to be taken seriously. However, since you've continually and persistently painted me and my staff with the broad brush of "spamming", I'm inclined to believe the blinders that come with the "New Wiki Editor Kit" are overly functional.
"Spamming", by definition, is NOT done, as you say, "in good faith". The two are mutually exclusive (look it up). You should probably quit while you're ahead.
So, as it stands, in the interest of deleting "crap" (your word), you've virtually guaranteed that no further useful information will be added. Milo, your labeling of anything I added as "irrelevent links" simply proves you've not done your homework (surprising, since that's one of the basic premises of the Wiki). 240sx.org is the official website of the 240sx Car Club of America, has been in operation longer than Wikipedia (10 years this July), and is the most reliable resource for information on that vehicle available.
Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned we have no need to "spam", we recieve an absurd amount of traffic and are the largest Nissan board on the Web.
In reading your rant, I'm inclined to wonder what might have happened if one of my staff had added those links. The fact of the matter is, those links were added AFTER the fact, once I was made aware of the extent of contributions made by members of my staff. You seem awfully hung up on discerning my motivations, a job best left to those who are qualified to make such determinations.
And I'll thank you to keep your curse words to yourself, they don't reflect well on the position of "Editor".
By the way, since you asked so nicely, here's a note from one of my staff regarding the edits on the Q45 Wiki page (apologies for the length):
QUOTE (by MinisterOfDOOM): "Their article used to end with a comment about how the Q45 was discontinued and the M45 would replace it as the flagship. Since the M45 is not the new "flagship" (which could very well be interperetation, but that's like saying axing the Maxima makes the Sentra the new flagship...there are certain criteria that must be met...the Q has a certain prestige that MAKES it the flagship). Anyway, I added that the Q concept was expected to debut at a particular autoshow (which I don't recall) which had a "Concept Q" from Infiniti listed in its "concepts appearing" lineup. I couldn't figure out their tags for external linking and didn't want to spend all day experimenting on a site that has no "preview changes" option, so I just left it unlinked. Later, someone edited in the link.
I was browsing it later and it had been reverted to the comments about the M45 replacing the Q and the Q being discontinued. I don't see why the one line (that the M is the new "flagship") that's LEAST accurate and mostly opinion and poor predition is the only part that's stayed. The rest was all fact, and got erased... Wasn't a huge error, per se, but my change was more correct, so I found it odd that they'd change it back... Now the mention of the Q returning is back.
I also added in some comments about WHY the Q was discontinued (poor sales numbers which were likely due to poor advertising on Infiniti's behalf). Those changes disappeared as well. Why? It was entirely correct. I even added in a "most likely" or something. Those comments are not there any longer. So I guess it wasn't a glaring error. But it was a correction and an addition of *correct* information. Both were removed. I find that odd." (end quote)
Dystopos, I appreciate your efforts. As a result, I spent quite a while perusing your page today, I'm an Alabamian myself (Ozark, 1970). AZhitman02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) AZhitman
I just can't find the edit you're talking about. Since we can't really fix a problem we can't find, I'd recommend reading Help:Diff. Specific links to edits would be more useful. --Milo H Minderbinder13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
NICO Club's additions to Wikipedia: the record
Edit histories for the accounts identified as adding NICO Club links:
created 240sx convertible (article history) which was tagged for speedy deletion, then saved but tagged as reading like an advertisement. After 10 days or so, it was replaced with a redirect to the main Nissan 240SX.
70.183.19.205 has only 4 Nissan-related edits on Wikipedia; tons more for other automakers; in fact I think he/she may be a semi-competitor of NICO Club's judging from the links he/she added in the past
Links normally to be avoided - something I'd contest
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
I honestly feel that in some cases, there is very little wrong with having external links to well written, comprehensive and well respected unofficial fan websites (especially those which have been online for a considerable period of time and have lots of information, and possibly have multiple contributors to an associated forum/community) for a rock band's Wikipedia article. If I truly felt it was beneficial enough to an article, and that the external link's benefits greatly outweighed its negatives, I'd ignore all rules.
As an example, Radiohead, a current good article nominee, has At Ease and Green Plastic in its external links section, well known fan websites. These are, to the best of my knowledge, not directly affiliated with Radiohead, although the members of the band are almost certainly aware of these two major Radiohead information outlets, too. Are we going to have to delete these too? Or should this policy be revised? --HisSpaceResearch05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read a similar note above at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Symmetry_and_Scope. This policy isn't specifically about fan sites, and its mention is almost coincidental. Read the prev. convo. over (by the end there is an 'oooh, thats nice and clear' moment), and let us know if you still feel that same about these Radiohead links. Also keep in mind other criteria usually apply to fansites, like is it authoritative, verifiable, and a recognized authority? (if not see 'Links normally to be avoided' in the policy section #2 and #11). JoeSmackTalk06:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So fansites can be acceptable under some circumstances? The way rule #13 is written, it seems to make them all out to be best avoided unless they have an official association with the subject of the article (i.e. Radiohead, a band, whatever, and/or its members). The two fansites in question in the Radiohead case could each definitely be described as "authoritative, verifiable, and a recognized authority". --h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It says nothing at all about "official". The focus of the link has to be the focus of the article. That's all. 200508:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Countries for Lupus article
A question - the Lupus erythematosus article external links section had links to the Lupus US, Lupus Australia, Lupus New Zealand and Lupus UK sites. I went through and brutally culled them all out, leaving in a single link to Lupus international. Now, given that the US is potentially a big contributor to lupus research and generally a big presence in the world, does it merit a link when none of the other countries do? Is there a policy on this, or is it overly-country specific? WLU21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well lets "clarify" a few things here, the term "brutally culled" is excessive and a bit melodramatic. Removing external links that are poorly worded, poorly sourced with material and information is one thing, removing external links that have a high content of pertinent information, have the professional look as in ease of navigation and accessibility of information is unnecessary. While some external links are of less than helpful to some they "are" in fact helpful to others. As Wikipedia is the "go to" source for the up to date information seeker, and from all over the world I might add, allowing external links from other countries should never be a problem.
However the wholesale deletion of a qualified external source of information that has a high significant of helpful information, and is well sourced is unjust. Simply put, because a person may not like a link does not mean it is not note worthy.
There is no policy against having several external links that provide information that are specifically pertinent to region or country. In fact having such external sources is a positive, not a negative. People who live in various regions and countries need information that speak to their specific region with helpful information they can resource and access for them. 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Mystar22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ya, brutally culled is a bit much, I found it amusing. It's now changed. Though none were poorly worded, they did seem excessive to me, and if we include all well-worded and accessible sites, the external links section could become quite large. The whole reason EL should be kept to a minimum in my mind is to prevent this from happening, which helps contribute towards wikipedia remaining a primary source of information for the general public. And more links aren't necessarily better, if they duplicate information or they allow access to similar information, the extranous links should be removed.
It's not that I don't like the external links, I just think they are unnecessary. I think having links for every possible country that has a site on lupus (or whatever the topic) means external links can become overly long. What do others think? WLU23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Were the links from the same country having no notability to address the subject I would concur, however having a few links that speak to various other countries etc, especially when a subject such as this and its far reaching need for information is so important. Having a few links is nothing even close to a so-called "link-farm" far from it! Being encyclopedic means having the material nessary to be properly sourced. Be it research, those seeking help and information as to where that can be found. Having a few links that speak to differing region, countries and associations does not violate any kind of Wiki policy or guideline. Mystar17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because something does not violate policy is not sufficient reason for it to remain on the page. WLU19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
from the article Osman Nuri Paşa on the grounds that it was "No good". There is no question that the article has a definite point of view, which it expressly states. The article also has images and information that is beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article, and not otherwise available on the Internet. Much of the information in the article is verifiable, including quotations. I am not sure why Artaxiad considered it no good, other than its obvious POV. So the question is, should Wikipedia have an external link to a resource which contains solid information beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article (and not otherwise available on the Internet), but which is, in and of itself, not authoritative, and which has an acknowledged POV? This is not a case of external links being heavily weighted toward one POV or another. --Bejnar19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
ELs don't need to be NPOV. They do need to be authoritative. They cannot be original research. Sometimes particularly slanted POV links make lots of OR claims. JoeSmackTalk20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Question
If an informational link is made (one that satisfies the criteria of "what should be linked"), but it goes to a site that has a commercial as well as an informational purpose (let's say the primary purposefor the site is unclear, but products or services are offered), is it better to have the information at the cost of linking to a commercial site, or is it better to lose the information in order to eliminate the commercial link. --Dystopos02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's best to find a reliable source for the information, then incorporate the information with the source into the body of the article. If that's not possible, I suggest using an alternative site with comparable information. --Ronz02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that an editor has created the link without understanding what might have been a better tack. Is it then an improvement to delete the link as a policy violation? --Dystopos02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
With questionable external links I think it's best to remove them, but discuss why on the talk page and include a note to the discussion in the edit summary, such as "Removed per guideline - See talk". This assumes the editor that added the link did not give any reason for it in the edit summary or talk page. --Ronz02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me, as long as both parties are willing to engage in a discussion of where the link falls short of the policy guidelines (i. e. not mistaking "Links normally to be avoided" for "Links absolutely to be forbidden"), eager to create consensus, and willing to contribute toward finding a better way to incorporate the information. Are these qualifications reasonable or hopelessly idealistic? (or something else) --Dystopos02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Moocat20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Hi Jamie. I've read through the Wikipedia guidelines on not linking to personal web pages. You recently removed a citation that I put in because you claimed that "a personal journal is not a reliable source." However, in this case you are mistaken. Page: Blogs. Citation: re: use of the term "e-log" as a precursor to blogs. The site cited is not a "personal journal," but rather is a web-based literary magazine. Nothing in the content of the site comments upon the use of the term. Rather, it is the earliest example of this use of the term that I can find on the Internet (article dated October 1995, although the site itself did not go up until 2001).
In this case, it appears that you added a link to a site you're affiliated with. This isn't allowed per WP:EL and WP:COI. Whether your site is a personal site or a magazine isn't really an issue since the link you cited didn't seem to support the info in the article. If you really think your site has useful info, explain on the talk page and let other editors decide if it should be included. --Milo H Minderbinder15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Link vs Links
Sorry if this is somewhere obvious and I just didn't see it, but I've got a question. Is there currently a consensus on what the section title should be if it includes only one link? I guess it's been a bit since I've looked at this page. This edit in November '06 got rid of the section that clarified that "External links" is the preferred title no matter the quantity. Was it removed because the consensus no longer exists...or was it just removed as part of the copyedit? --Onorem23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is consensus. I'd change the guideline myself, if I could, by adding, after the sentence "The standard format for these is to have a level 2 header (i.e. == Header ==) named "External links" followed by a bullet list of links.", the following: "The header should be "External links" (plural) even if there is only a single link listed."
Since the guideline is protected, this will either have to be done by an admin or deferred until it is unprotected, assuming that there is general consensus that this merits adding (I think it does). -- John Broughton(♫♫)01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the replies. I had been changing headers to "External links" as I came across them, but needed to check that it was still the consensus heading after being reverted on a couple articles. --Onorem23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
wowio.com
I've just noticed a raft of links to wowio.com appearing in articles on novels. There are currently 16 links, most but not all from one user. Now, there is nothing new in posting links to the text of out of copyright books (generally good) or links to copyright violations of books (generally bad). The difference here is that, from what I can gather, wowio.com offers without-charge and legal contemporary books for PDF download; their revenue comes from placing adverts into the books customised to the downloader's profile. I wanted to raise this to see what general thoughts were on linking to this site for the books it offers; if it is successful at some point someone is likely to propose adding it for every work otherwise unavailable "free". Notinasnaid20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
From what I can gather, you have to register to take advantage of their free "service." That makes it a bad external link my mind. Nposs20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm I'm a bit apprehensive about this kind of link. We do not need an online link to make a book citation valid. In many cases I'd almost prefer to let people find a copy though the automagical ISDN number link. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, most people here are really childish. Check here, the article guideline was protected at least once per month. Although I would agree with you, people here is stubborn. -- ReyBrujo02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know about the Protection Log - thats a cool trick. Yeh, I know the page needs protecting often, but like most people I find it frustrating to see pages protected. -Parasite13:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Are links/refs to books available on Google Books allowed as links? I have this edit in mind. Sorry if this has been answered before, but it might be a good idea to give it a mention on the Project Page. Ekantiktalk05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question. Here's the link, to the on-line version of the book. The link certainly gives the Wikipedia reader/editor the ability to verify that the quotation is in fact accurate, which is valuable, as well as to look at the table of contents of the book and to browse it. So it does seem valuable. There are certainly ads on the page (and links to a limited number of places to buy the book), but Wikipedia doesn't forbid linking to commercial website pages. -- John Broughton(♫♫)00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it, though I'd certainly suggest keeping the full reference available as you do in case the links go bad. --Ronz01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As a "convenience" link, it's fine...(falls under things we should link to). But I'd be leery if it's being relied on as a citation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of debate over convenience links in the past. However, is there any reason to suspect that Google Books is innacurrate? It is basically just scanned documents, no untrustworthy human typists. The Optical Character Recognition, relied on for searching, is a bit buggy, but the images are there for human inspection. From a copyright perspective, the Amazon Online Reader is probably better since AOR has permission and Google Books is only fair use. Also, the main criticism of AOR/GB links I remember seeing in the past is that they are commercial. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just saying that I think they should be allowed as citations (with AOR preferred over GB), but I know some people would object to them even being used as convenience links. : ) — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Actualy, if you want to make a citation, I'd encurage people to use one of the {{cite}} templates. A peoperly filled out citation is 10 times more valuable then a sloppy google-book/aor link. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Most of the books can be found via an ISBN, so providing an ISBN inline takes away the need for an external link, since that automagically converts to a link to special:booksources. That is a non-biased way of linking to sources for books, a question that can be asked with other inline links (especially commercial links). --Dirk BeetstraTC10:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Knowing whether an editor used the paper version of the book or the online version is sort of like knowing what edition of the book the editor used. Also, ISBNs and other links are not mutually exclusive, and other links can save editors and readers some looking. To J.smith: Yes, I agree that citation templates are great to use. : ) — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with this type of link. I have found them very useful when editing articles, because they have prompted me to look further into the book and make edits based on them. So long as you give the full book details then the reference remains just as valid if the link goes dead. And in my experience these links are extremely volatile: I have found that the page link has reverted to a whole-book link or has given a "no image available" result. I've also received a message that I've reached the limit of my entitlement to read pages—so there must be variables built into the system. I can't access Amazon look-inside links because I haven't a live account, so I think they are less useful to the random reader. qp10qp16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Spyware
Web sites that try to install spyware should be amongst web sites to avoid. I know that no legitimate (but some malicious) editors would knowingly link to such sites, but it might be worth reminding well-intentioned editors about such risks, and possible ways to minimize such risks (eg sticking to reputable sites, and checking with resources that evaluate whether a web site has spyware). Andjam01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this an inappropriate external link?
If anyone has time to review this, I had reverted all links to www.asianjunkie.com in the past, but Kensai1824 (talk·contribs) started including them again. I do not really like having external links to galleries, when only a free one should be needed in an article (also considering most of them already have official sites with galleries). It also appears to be inappropriate, not many would link to a site (www.asianjunkie.com) reading "There’s no doubt in my mind as to when my infatuation with her started. It was about 42 seconds into the movie ‘Who Slept With Her’ when my penis made my decision for me.", "Don’t get me wrong, she’s hot, it’s just that she was one of the few who didn’t get butt ass naked. A downer but i’ll get over it. My mind may have forgot but my penis remembered quickly.", "All I need now is for that omnipresent motherfucker to bestow a video of a lesbian tryst between Song Hye Kyo and Jeon Ji Hyun. I don’t think it’s too much to ask, really." etc. Any opinion? -- ReyBrujo01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Bibliographies on Wikipedia usually consist of merely a list of books with only their authors and publishing date. That tells you nothing about whether the books are actually any use. Some also have the ISBN, but that doesn't give you any details about the books either.
I'd like to see links to more details about the books. This often occurs with more famous books because there are Wikipedia articles devoted to them. However, for most books there aren't any such articles. Links to the publisher's web site for that book or online retailers pages for that book provide far more detail, such as with the following Amazon link Puccini : a biography.
However, some people suggest that this is not allowed. It has been explained to me that some links include a personal referral number that will allow the person who posted the link to profit if whoever clicks the link happens to buy that book.
Apart from those, can somebody provide more information on Wikipedia concerning books listed in bibliographies by linking to the publisher's or online retailers page for that book such as in the example I have given ? --XX713:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's already possible to search for a book via the ISBN with many links to many different book sellers and libraries provided. I'm pretty sure this is the current 'ideal' way of linking to books and it works well IMHO. For example, take a look at this FA I chose semi-randomly Olivier Messiaen. Several books are properly cited and therefore linked to via ISBN. Like Peter Hill and Nigel Simeone (2005). Messiaen. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. ISBN0-300-10907-5.. From there I can go to Amazon.co.uk and end up here [24]. It may be a bit confusing to the inexperienced perhaps so maybe we should include some key links at the top to sites which tend to provide good information about books. One of the problems of course is such issues are likely to lead to disagreements over what sites we should link to. Edit: Actually World Cat which is one of the top links links to publisher description and Amazon. So that's probably enough Nil Einne14:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Go to the ISBN >>> then click on World Cat, which of course most people wouldn't know to do, as there are a huge number of links on that page that merely lead to Wikipedia articles on a library or the library web site >>> then, even if some guesses to try World Cat, which most novices, myself included, wouldn't think of doing >>> and then finally go to Amazon, if you get there at all !!!
Why not simply go straight to Amazon, or better still the publisher's web site (when there is one)? Wikipedia should be an information source, not an obstable course. Which ever site supplies the most information would be the best one to link to. --XX715:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Direct links to Amazon.com for books is a bad idea. Wikipedia is an information source, not an online sales site. There is no reason to link out to Amazon.com or a publisher's website where they are selling the book and doing so just encourages more spamming in articles. If you want to look up further information on a book, copy the title and paste it into Amazon or Google... I'm sure most people using Wikipedia can figure that out.--Isotope2316:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Using the ISBN hotlink to Special:Book sources is the preferred way to create a link. It generates a long page with numerous links to libraries and booksellers like this. Of the sources listed, Amazon is among the most comprehensive and informative, so I often scroll down to that one. Another valuable site is LibraryThing, which is listed under "online databases". That site has the benefit of user-generated tags and is smart enough to lump together the various editions of a work that all have different ISBNs. --Dystopos17:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any preference for Amazon. Which ever web site has the best information would be the best one to link to - whether that is an online retailer, publisher's web site, library, book review, even better a Wikipedia article.
"Wikipedia is an information source, not an online sales site." That's true, but the type of web sites I've listed are sources of information. Most sites listed on the ISBN links don't go straight to the book you're looking for, and if you want to end up at a web site that gives the full details of a book, why not just go straight there rather than searching, or cutting and pasting ?
If there is the risk of abuse by what I understand on WikiMedia is called "referral" something (somebody making money when people use the link), isn't there a technical means of spotting this, such as certain numbers in the web site address ? --XX700:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What if you're citing the book as a reference, and Amazon ( or any other seller ) has an excerpt of the book that includes the page you cited? Squidfryerchef02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In reference sections of wikipedia articles I have linked directly to hundreds of newspaper, journal, and magazine articles. It seems beyond obscure to me why it needs to be so difficult to find the text of books. ISBN numbers are not a satisfactory way to link to books as the only link allowed. Wikipedia is, above all, an *online* encyclopedia. We are not paper. To go back to paper defeats the purpose of wikipedia.
Assuming that most readers will wade through the obstacle course of ISBN numbers to find the closest major library or book seller for the book is naive. Gas costs more and more nowadays, and people prefer to find the info online when it exists, rather than spend the money and time to find the paper version of the book. And with global warming it is irresponsible to use the gas when we can use our computers. Also, most people do not live close to a large major library. Small branch libraries do not carry most of the books used as references in wikipedia articles.
There are more and more sources for free online text of books, and wikipedia should use it. Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia should not discriminate against books. Wikipedia already links directly to newspaper, journal, and magazine articles. Those articles have ads usually. So the presence of ads on sites that have the text of books online should not be a disqualification for linking to the text of books online. ISBN numbers can be used (with difficulty) to find online text of books. But only with experience. And it is unnecessarily time consuming. Most people do not yet know the main sources of online text for books. That being Google Books and Amazon. --Timeshifter18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Links to Amazon pages and Google Book pages usually allow access to some of the text, too. And the text can be searched. It is an invaluable resource. Even when they do not allow access to the text the page allows one to get all the reference details about the book. Without having to wade through ISBN searches and intermediate steps. Plus ISBN numbers only reference a single edition of a book.
If you read the section of the talk page I linked to you will see more about what I and others are talking about. I also just added a comment myself to that talk page. In a different section:
I have done a lot of work on the Phoenix Program article. At one point there were almost no links in the reference section and the external links section. The links provide much more info. You are reading the guideline pages incorrectly. Read the citation guidelines also. Commercial links are OK. It is complicated, and I have added hundreds of reference links to wikipedia articles. People appreciate the links. Try to understand the spirit of guidelines, and you see that they are mainly to avoid spam links. My links are not spam links. --Timeshifter18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example link for a book used as a reference for the Phoenix Program article:
If you look down the left side of the Amazon page you will see a link labeled "Search inside another edition of this book". So one learns from a single Amazon page that there is text online, that it can be searched, and that there is a newer edition of the book. That can not be done with a link to a single ISBN number. Few people use links to ISBN numbers. Frankly, it is too geeky, and serves little useful purpose. Some people actually enjoy command-line controlled software, too. Even though most people enjoy GUI interfaces (graphical user interfaces). Anyway, back to the topic at hand. When one links to Amazon or Google, one does not have to worry about updating the link when new editions come out. Because Amazon or Google will usually link to it from the old edition pages. Plus the reviews of the books online often provide invaluable info about the credibility and reliability of the author. Also, there are often reviews from library journals. Very useful stuff for determining if the book and author meet the requirements for wikipedia use. --Timeshifter18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree here. Providing a link to a (commercial or non-commercial) site for the bookdetails is biased, and should be discouraged. Wikipedia:Booksources should have a section to the sites that provide online book information and state whether the site shows content as well, and the link there should be via the ISBN, not direct. The problem here is the uniqueness of information. Amazon is a retailer for the book (while google and Barns and Nobles and Bertelman Online may have the same book, and also online copies), while the site of a magazine that has an online freely accessible copy is the creator of the information. When more reliable sites would host magazine contents, then it would be better to have a generic link to these as well; then wikipedians have the choice where to obtain the info (including buying it online, or driving to a library). --Dirk BeetstraTC19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Magazines and newspapers often print articles from wire services. The article gets printed in several publications. Sometimes the article disappears and an archived version must be linked to. It doesn't really matter which one is linked to as long as it is an exact copy of the article. Same is true for books. Books are printed and distributed by many booksellers. One has to ask whether it is more important to be politically correct and only link to "pure" (and holy, just kidding) ISBN numbers. It only makes it less likely that people will read anything from the book. Too many steps involved. I read a lot. But I will not bother with an ISBN number link. Too many steps. I will move on to other info sources. Most people will.
Online text of books is an immensely valuable tool, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. I have found many great quotes and info I have paraphrased for wikipedia. By using the online text search of books. I have also refuted several claims made by some editors saying a particular book said this or that. By referring talk page readers to the online text search. If I had to go through the ISBN steps each time to hunt for the online text, I wouldn't bother refuting many claims. There is usually so much else to do on an article I am working on. So I go to easier tasks first. But if the Amazon or Google Book link is already referenced, I can go check the claim immediately. Most people don't bother putting up ISBN number links. It is unlikely that it will ever become common, because it is too much work to find the ISBN number. One looks up the title of the book in Google. One usually sees an Amazon link near the top. One looks there for an ISBN number for a particular edition of the book. Then one links to the ISBN page at wikipedia. Such a lot of effort for a link that few will use. --Timeshifter16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such
”
and refers to WP:EL for further guidelines, but point #13 on Links to be avoided understandably prefers official websites over fansites. Is there scope for elasticating this proposal?
I have in mind Shah Rukh Khan of which I am an editor of that page. Khan is rather a big film star in Bollywood but doesn't have his own official website. From time to time some editor comes along and inserts a link to this site and it is always deleted (by me, sometimes) because "it is a fansite, not an official site". But according to WP:NOT#REPOSITORY such fansites may be acceptable? I accept that this is that kind of thing that is open to abuse but perhaps editors should be trusted to be judicious in which types of fansite links are allowable? Comments would be appreciated. Ekantiktalk04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Kneejerk rejection of fansites is bad editing. The guideline says official sites should be linked. There is nothing either/or about it. If a fansite meets the criteria for linking, then link to it. If it doesn't, don't. This isn't rocket science. 200505:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
One comprehensive fansite is usually fine, in same cases I'm OK with two at most if they offer different things. Don't be afraid to get rid of as many others as necessary.. any fansites that don't offer a decent amount of content not found on WP fail EL and should be deleted. Deiztalk05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Most fansites that have been linked are stuffed full of copyright violations. Have a view on how this impacts on the linking of a site? SpartazHumbug!08:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've come across something like this before. Personally, my view is if the official site has more info than the fansite... bugger the fansite and delete it as spam. If it's got actual info that's relevant and useful to the article that isn't on the official site, go for it. As has been said, many fansites are full of copyright violations, so not linking would be a good option. However, as you have said, I would look at this fansite. Since there is no official website, judge whether the website adds anything, and if it's useful. You might wanna bring it up on the talk page to get others' opinions on the site as well. --Dane~nya08:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Advocacy and criticism of gurus and religious movements with small followings
Here is a question about how to balance WP:Undue weight and WP:ATT when dealing with competing minority views in the EL section. There are numerous smallish (ca. a few thousand followers) new religious movements that are notable enough to be in WP, and some are controversial. What should the standards be for the EL section in such cases?
Often, with such groups, views of both critics and advocates are minority ones (because the group itself is small, and most people don't know or care about the movement). Because such views are small, they are frequently self-published.
Under "Links normally to be avoided", WP:EL mentions:
Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.
With respect to a small religious movement, what's a recognized authority? A present or former member of the group with some degree of notability within the group itself (e.g., per the group's own self-published material)? An advocate or critics who is prominent with respect to the group (e.g., someone who sued the group), but otherwise not especially notable? Perhaps on both counts, but this is a slippery slope. See Andrew Cohen and Adi Da for examples of articles where this issue is being debated.
Maybe a solution would be to avoid linking to self-published material except perhaps from people who clearly are notable per WP:BIO, and link to web directory categories covering the pro and anti views? best regards, Jim Butler(talk)21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: I don't think WP should be biased against blogs moreso than any other form of publication, as long as authorship is verifiable. thx, Jim Butler(talk)21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; dmoz and such sites have the potential to (not-)suck in ways that are complementary to WP. Dmoz isn't as truly open-sourceas WP, though, unlike WP. Too bad. Hopefully something better will come along, or Dmoz will reform and go the Wikipedia route. thanks, Jim Butler(talk)00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinions on a linked blog wanted
At Parapsychology, a link has been added a couple times to the blog Public Parapsychology, "a web log devoted to public scholarship in the field of parapsychology." (for the record, the author of the blog User:Annalisa Ventola has been editing the article as well) From the info on the blog and userpage, it doesn't seem like "recognized authority" to me. She claims an association in the field has declared it an "official blog" of theirs but hasn't provided a source on this. Input would be appreciated, particularly on the article talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1. After being referred to the COI page, I understood why the blog link was removed, and let it go (do to the fact that I now agree that posting a link to my own site, no matter its quality or authority, is in fact a no-no), so I don't know why any further discussion is necessary.
2. I addressed Milo's concerns on his talk page, so again, why the extra discussion?
3. I would love to know where Spartaz is finding all of this advertising on my site, because the only money I make from advertisements on the PPB is from Amazon links to books published by people in the field and they are pretty far down the page.
4. Spartaz, thanks for your openness in posting a link here. I wish I could say the same to Mr. Minderbinder.
5. I'm new around here, but I learned that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is to "assume good faith." So far, I haven't been getting much of that. I was a newbie, and I didn't understand the rules. End of story.
The extra discussion is because someone else added the link back, and I wanted an outside opinion on whether it met "recognized expert in the field". --Milo H Minderbinder13:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Annalisa_Ventola - I think you misunderstand. Milo asked for an outside opinion - he disagreed with the link and wanted someone who was familiar with EL policy to have a second look. If you are going to do that the sensible place to ask is the policy page. Had I said, nah, I think its OK, I'm sure he would have accepted that as gracefuly as you are accepting the its deletion. The advertising was the amazon stuff. We are a free encyclopedia and linking to anything that has any advertising really has to be because the site linked is extraordinary. That's why I mentioned it. I'm not suggesting its spam but it is advertising and we usually (well we are supposed to) avoid that. I hope this helps. I don't see this as biting at all - refusing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong and not asking for a second opinion would be. We were all new once and even after 3000 edits I'm still far away from knowing all the rules. Please feel free to ask me if there is anything else that crops up that you are uncertain about and I will do whatever I can to help SpartazHumbug!13:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that I was a little offended by the statement that my site has "too much advertising", I've seen what bloggers do to get cash for their site and I don't engage in those practices. The only point of those Amazon links is to promote introductory books in the field, and those links have made me a whopping 31 cents in the last two months. If this issue is the only reason why the site can't be linked, then I'll take those links down. I don't see why the potential to earn another 31 cents should prevent visitors to the parapsychology article from having access to an informative site. Please advise. --Annalisa Ventola(Talk | Contribs)17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No the advertising isn't the main issue. The problem is that its a blog and while I'm very sure that you are very qualified and have a lot of useful opinions to say on the subject, its still a blog and therefore a vehicle for opinion. Although we set the bar lower for links than we do for content on the site, after a lot of argumentation the standard is that things we try to avoid are:
Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.
In this case what would make you a recognised authority? Generally this phrase is taken to mean personal web pages connected to people who are the subjects of the articles concerned. For a general blog on a subject, well there must be hundreds out there. We can't link them all and there remains the problem of the fact that blogs tend not to be encyclopedic, are inherently NPOV and are exceedingly rarely reliable sources. If you want to read up on some of the interminable arguments on this subject look in the archives of this page. Hope this helps and sorry if I inadvertantly offended you. No offense was intended. SpartazHumbug!18:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Symmetrical
A while back, there was a proposal to revamp that bit. I really think it needs it, it's very confusing and changing one or two words isn't going to fix it. The previous proposal, with a little tweaking (mostly my awful attempt to avoid real musicians and websites):
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example (URLs are fictitious): a site focusing only on the artist FakeBandName (siteaboutfakebandname.com) could be a valid External Link, while a general site that has information about a lot of artists, including FakeBandName (fakesiteaboutallmusic.com), is not. However, if a part of that site were devoted to the artist, and met the other criteria for linking (fakesiteaboutallmusic.com/fakebandname/ for example), then it may be linked.
I was about to propose the same thing (edit conflict)! However, I think the above could be trimmed a little and not be as narrow in scope or prescriptive. How about -
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the article's subject. A general fan site that has generic information about a lot of topics, including the articles topic is not generally useful. However, if a part of the fan site is devoted to the artist, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the fan site may be deep-linked.
I'm fine with shortening it, but I'd prefer to use more general wording instead of "fan site" (since that's not really the intention of the line). It seems like once some editors sees "fan site" they stop reading and assume no fan sites are allowed. What about just changing it to "informational site" (and "artist" to "topic")? --Milo H Minderbinder22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Shorter, more general, using consistent language - Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.Nposs22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty good, a small copy edit 'from added, and I dont agree with the ban on linking to websites that are more specific then the articles topic. They can be helpful - for an example, see Glass.
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
Actually the Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. line has a purpose. Let me demonstrate vie an example 17:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)e. Lets pick an article on a general subjet, say car. It is not right or proper to be linking to more specific examples of a car, such as mustang. The opposite holds true for the mustang article. We don't need links to very general sites on what a car is, one simple wikilink will accomplish that ;). The idea behind this in my opinion is to help figure out which sites are really directly relevant to an article. After all we are not a linkfarm. This restriction is more on the specificity of the topic of the information contained in the external link, not the amount or the specificity of the information. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help?18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, however, sometimes a EL to specific information is useful to the reader. We don't want a guideline which bans this practice. Parasite02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't ban it. It just says - "usually". This would have the benefit of decreasing linkspam and encouraging better interlinking between articles - which is really the goal. We want to improve the usefulness of Wikipedia - not send people offsite. Nposs02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, well I've changed the project pagfe to Nposs's version above. I'll wait until clearer consensus has been achieved, as per Jossi's comment below. Parasite04:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that this new version reflects consensus. Such changes need a little more time, so that editors can have time to respond. Thanks for your understanding. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Does any one have a probelm with the following being substituted for the "symmetrical" clause. I will wait 48 hours for repsonses. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.Parasite02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an editor who wants to add a link to an on-line petition in NYPD Blue. This editor first discussed it at Talk:NYPD Blue/Archives/2015#Petition for DVD Release. I explained that it violates WP:EL. They seemed unconvinced. I then made a couple of quotes from WP:EL, but there is really nothing that explicitly prohibits this that I could find, although I think there is strong implicit arguments against it. I don't think there is a COI issue here because this editor apparently does not profit from it. I have two requests:
Can we add something to this policy that specifically prohibits links that promote a "call to action"?
I would say no... We try not to make rules that specifically target websites or classes of website. Why would a petition or "call to action" be inappropriate in EVERY case? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you envisage a situation where they would be OK? Inherently NPOV and even with a lower bar we would effectively be endorsing a particular petition by having a link to it. I think Not a soapbox covers it nicely. SpartazHumbug!13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can... many subjects get most their press from those who oppose them. Businesses, for example. "Wexample-Mart" is a business selling cheap plastic crap. "Wexamplemartsucks.com" is an org critical of their hiring practices. If Wexamplemartsucks.com gets a bunch of minor mentions in the press in connection to wallmart...err.. wexample-mart then I can see where an external EL would be appropriate, despite the fact that the page is highly bias. At the very least it's a conversation that should be had at the talkpage of the article and should not be ruled out on the guideline level. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding an external link to article about the city of Derby in England
I would like to propose adding an external link to the article on the town/city of Derby in England. This link will take the reader/user to an informative and detailed website ukplus.co.uk. This site offers up to date free information, i.e news, sport, events and jobs information for Derby and Derbyshire. UKPLUS is a valuable source for anyone living in, or wishing to visit Derby and its surrounding areas.
Thanks (MW200711:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
I would be against adding a link to the top level of the website, since it isn't specifically about Derby. Also, this page is about the general EL policy - I would suggest you ask on the Talk page for Derby and you will have more people with local knowledge get involved. Hope this helps. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk
Topix.net?
Another issue with the same user as above: is [25] a good link for Darien, Connecticut? It seems to be a mix between a blog and a search engine results page. Two different people have already removed it. --NE215:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Topix.Net has specific pages for specific subjects. There are many precedents for listing a topix.net page (not the top level page) in articles. This is the difference between this case and the previous one you mentioned, but maybe it's just the way that I am interpreting it. Personally, I question the value of it, but I don't think there is anything in the guidelines that would forbid it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd remove it. If the editor in question wants to link directly to the news articles thats fine (ie the publication and not the website that repeats it), but not this in between stuff. This has been happening lately with pages like citebite.com (ex: [26]). JoeSmackTalk15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
JoeSmack, that's exactly where I come from too - we probably want to look at the 169 other topix.net listings (although some are on Talk pages) the same logic would apply, I would think. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I just promised him that I wouldn't remove it, based on Alucard's comments, the fact that it's pretty widely done, and that we have an article about topix.net (I had thought it was a local blog): [27] I still don't think it necessarily belongs, but I'm not going to remove it. --NE215:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
re pub-6325511968014372. Most (at least in the top 50) seem to be Links to news search results pages. Wouldent this conflict with #9 Links normally to be avoided? Mabey this should be amended to include all search results.--Hu1217:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it should. Basically they are posting search queries or reposting others' news. In doing this they are collecting ad revenue by having ads around others' content or their own search results. Not kosher. JoeSmackTalk17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposed change for broader definition
Number 9 of Links normally to be avoided currently reads "Links to search engine results pages." however there are other search type results worthy of exclusion (such as news feeds, ect). Reason for wording. Both search engines and news feeds, ect. are to collect or gather into a mass or whole[28]. Proposed change would effect a broader scope of search queries by clarifying the statement to include = "Links to search engine and aggregated results pages."--Hu1219:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the guidelines is "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" should be avoided. I ran into this rather recently... apparently a certain User:Mexicanfood was spamming links to mexicanfood.about.com to Wikipedia. I was watching the article aguas frescas where a link to this domain has existed since 2005. So of course the despam team went through and removed every link to that domain in the encyclopedia. When I complained, they said the link was spam. When I pointed out it was helpful to the article and had existed since 2005 they changed track and said it contained too much advertising. Question: what is too much advertising? I've seen sites far worse than that one. I think the guideline needs to be a bit more precise, or failing that, examples of what they mean. I don't like being sandbagged because of the abuses of another editor. Nardman119:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is they? I'm not plural, I'm one and I'm not part of any despam team. I came across this because I picked up on your post to the village pump. I looked at the link independantly and, as you see, there is a note on the relevant article talk page explaining why I thought the link was not acceptable - there was far too much advertising. I'm sure a better link can be found if you care to look for one. Your argument - that there are worse sites is probably right but not relevant - if other links don't meet the guidelines they can be removed or replaced with something better. It would have been nice of you to let me know on my talk page that you had raised this here. --SpartazHumbug!19:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
"They" is Betacommand, RJASE1, and Beetstra, who went through the encyclopedia and removed every single link to that domain because of User:Mexicanfood, including links that had exited long before he did. I brought up relevant discussion on each of their talk pages, although some of it may have been archived by now (and I was incoherent in some of it, I was pretty angry). See [29] for what made me mad, each of the three came through on an article I had watchlisted and made their mass edits. Since they weren't watchlisting the articles they had edited my responses in edit summaries of course went unread. Nardman117:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I will write an answer here which is similar to my explanation on my talkpage (it is still there).
I removed the links per WP:NOT/WP:EL, which I also stated in my initial edit summary when I removed these links.
The explanation: Mexicanfood.about.com got spammed around wikipedia (they appeared in the feed), whereupon these edits got reverted and numerous recipe-sections were encountered. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL clearly state, that external link sections should be kept to a minimum. There are, IMHO, in this case two alternatives available: both {{dmoz}} and {{cookbook}} could (should?) replace this on many pages. The latter, cookbook, is actually 'incoporating the data into wikipedia' (a mediawiki sister-project), which makes the whole of WP:EL apply, and links to recipes, including ones that are already there for years, should not be there at all. Moreover, having these links there does invite more links to be added (as seen with the spammer), many of the links do rely on advertising, and the links would not help the article achieve featured article level (more parts of WP:EL may apply). But these were not my initial reason to remove these sections, that was the existence of these recipe sections with external links, per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY with the guideline of WP:EL backing that up.
I did see your edit summary, but still I think that my initial explanation does hold, recipe sections do not comply with WP:NOT and WP:EL, and hence should be removed. Hope this explains. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
About.com links?
I've looked through the archives of this talk page, and I haven't seen any discussion addressing links to about.com. I've been treating them as "commercial" and removing them from the pages I monitor, since the about.com Wikipedia article points out that the "guides" who write about.com pages "are compensated with a base stipend plus a bonus for increased traffic ..." Linking from Wikipedia to about.com pages would be a good way for guides to increase their traffic and their compensation, which may explain the handful of editors who mass-link from Wikipedia to a certain section of about.com (for instance, manhattan.about.com). However, I may not be assuming good faith.
So what's the consensus on about.com links? Are they to be treated as links to a commercial site and removed?
You raise an interesting question. About.com has long been a partner of wikipedia, so I would be careful how I treed here.
Just evaluate the links based on policy, not on suspected intent. "Commercial" isn't alwase a good reason to remove the link. (Newspapers are commercial...) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That's no reason to remove the links. There is nothing in the guideline that says people can't be paid to write content! It's an information not product selling site, so the commercial part of the guideline doesn't apply. Most pages are low content so that is why to not link to them, but certainly sometimes they could merit a link. 200520:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Also evaluate the linker contributions, such as these two..
There are some parallels to Suite101.com -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Suite101 dot com -- and I've wondered the same thing. Suite101.com's incentives effectively gave writers incentives to spam. I'd say anytime a writer spams his own story links to our articles, they should be removed per WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Going beyond that, what's the value of the unspammed links? With Suite101.com, it was clear that they had so few coordinators overseeing so many writers publishing so much stuff that there was effectively no editorial oversight and quality control, so those Suite101.com pages were essentially self-published and unreliable. So is this true of About.com articles as well? I note that the site is now owned by The New York Times Company. When I look at the Wikipedia article, it states that there's editorial supervision but I also note that part of the article is written in sort of a PR-tone so I take that assertion with a grain of salt. I think this question is worth exploring further. --A. B.(talk)15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The wording, combined with the reference to the Reliable sources section of the Attribution policy, gives the impression that we should be able to verify the information in the external link in the same way as we should be able to verifiy information in a Wikipedia article. This is not the case. If, for example, the external link is to a Washington Post article that cites a confidential informant, readers can't contact the confidental informant to verify the story, but because the Washington Post is a reliable source, the link is appropriate nevertheless. --Gerry Ashton05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that we can't verify the information, because we don't know the informant, does not mean that it is not verifyable. The path to the source is known (newspaper -> reporter), and a second person could follow that same path to verify the information (e.g. asking the reported for his source, and subsequently asking the original source. That the reporter is not going to give that source to most people is not really important, the path can be followed). Moreover, when the information is notable enough to be mentioned here (wikipedia is not a crystal ball springs to mind, but probably other policiies and guidelines do apply as well), then there are more people that know that information (other secondary sources; and of course the primary sources) and it can be verified. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Its true that unverified and unverifiable are not the same thing, but that is beside the point. If I include an external link to a reliable source, the information does not have to be either verified or verifiable; we can just take the word of the person who wrote the external source. This is different from the policy we apply to Wikipedia articles.
For example, if a Wikipedia article quotes an interview with a celebrity by a Wikipedia editor, and the celebrity has since died, that interview is not verifiable, and the quote should be removed from the article. On the other hand, if an article contains a link to a Washington Post interview with a now-dead celebrity, that article does not need to be verifiable, because it is in a reliable source. --Gerry Ashton17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference is precisely the point. We don't verify external links. But we don't link to research that can't be verified. The point is not that the editor can't verify it. 200522:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but your point eludes me. How are we supposed to decide if the material presented at an external site can be verified? --Gerry Ashton22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you are being rhetorical, but how is that not self-evident? We have a guideline on it, and it is common sense. A hurricane in Nigeria can be verified, an assertion that John Smith had lunch on the dark side of the moon can't be. In any case, we don't verify external links, but something that it is impossible to verify by anyone is not to be linked to. 200522:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, "unverifiable research" is material that is obviously bullshit, but it is not convenient to find a reliable source that says it is bullshit. Is that what you mean? --Gerry Ashton22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No I'm just saying there is no way to verify it. It could be true, like a study of the behavior of ten anonymous people that an author did. It may all be true, but it is impossible to verify by anyone. 200523:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)I would say that if the external site author did a study of ten anonymous people (let's say the author didn't write down their names, and can't find them even if he wanted to) then whether we can link to the site depends on how reliable the site is. If it is an online version of a respected scientific journal, we can link to it, but if it is a personal web site of someone we never heard of, we shouldn't link to it. But the existing guideline just says the site must be verifiable, whatever that means. --Gerry Ashton23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding links to organizations to articles about related things
I would like a third opinion on links like the one on Noroton Heights (Metro-North station) to "The Connecticut Metro-North Rail Commuter Council". This guideline doesn't quite seem to cover it; the "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" might apply, but not for the reason I am looking for, and which would also apply to adding a link to Metro-North's main page on all its station articles: the link belongs on Metro-North Railroad, not on all of its stations. (The page specifically about the station makes sense about a link, though.) Can someone provide guidance? Thank you. --NE213:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
He and I seem to have come to an agreement on using links like [30] instead. However, there's a larger issue here: should articles about stations have links to the rail system's main page? --NE214:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, reading the guidelines, no they shouldn't. There is a lack of the symmetry requirement. If the rail system itself is notable then there will be a WP page for it, and THAT should be linked from the article on the station. Presumably there will be an EL from that to the rail system's main page. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You can look at his rebuttal to that argument at User talk:NE2#Metro north commuter council. Should I point him to this discussion? By the way, the "symmetry requirement" seems to not hold here; the station is related to the system and the system is related to the station. The example given would be analogous to an unofficial "fansite" about the station being added to the station's page. --NE214:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
By that logic you could provide ELs for every federal government government website in every city in the US - after all, it's information that people need and maybe they are too lazy to go to the US page? No, I think this falls into WP:NOT#LINK - the fact that it is just one link on a small page does not change this. Either the website is specifically about the WP or it doesn't get linked. but maybe I should allow others to voice their opinion and see if i am on the right track, here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The link is not symmetrically and directly linked to the subject of the article, they have an indirect relationship. Moreover, the way he was adding the link the first time was spam (regardless the validity of the link). I am removing. --Dirk BeetstraTC20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, wikipedia has always had a preference for internal links. If we mention Yahoo in an article, we don't link the word Yahoo to yahoo.com, we link it to the article on yahoo. Same goes for rail-stations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for not informing me that you were discussing my edits. I appreciate the complete lack of consideration and lack of consensus-building. I believe this discussion has not addressed the real-world concerns of actual readers. It is Wikipedia policy that rules should not get in the way of common sense, and to apply common sense here demands that we consider the way that actual readers would actually use the articles. I suppose that's not easy to do with every article when you're not familiar with them, but please take a little time to see how I was thinking about that when I added those links. I think we can all agree that we need to attend to the needs of the reader first and foremost. (If not, we've got nothing to discuss anyway.)
Each individual station has a kind of ombudsman committee to address the concerns of the commuters (who are the vast majority of the users of each station in the Metro-North system). That committee was set up by the state of Connecticut to act as a liason between the commuters and the decisionmakers at both Metro-North (which runs the rail line) and the state of Connecticut Department of Transportation, which has control (together with the towns where the stations are located) over the stations. If you have any problem with the station, you can go to that ombudsman committee. And believe me, there are problems with station upkeep and repair, as well as parking. That ombudsman committee happens to represent ALL of the stations, and it's called the Connecticut Commuter Council. At its monthly meetings, problems with BOTH the rail system as a whole and with INDIVIDUAL STATIONS will be discussed, and those discussions will come up as problems are brought forward. Therefore, at times that we can't predict, matters of importance to those individual stations will be addressed by the commuter council. Believe me, the council gets into gritty detail about individual station problems, not just overall policy. No other board or commission, including individual town governing bodies and state Legislature committees, addresses the concerns of individual rail stations as much as does the council. I personally know this because, as a newspaper reporter, I covered meetings of the council, of local governments where the train stations are located and even committees of the state Legislature. I can't imagine external links being necessary or useful to any of these other bodies.
I believe this rule-applying is extreme and harmful in this case: We have stubs for articles on nearly all the Metro-North stations. We have one or two, or at most three links for nearly all the station articles. It is extremely unlikely that any of these station articles are going to grow very much (having looked into the matter, and created two station articles, I know that the sources are very limited), and it is even more than extremely unlikely that the external links sections of any of these articles (other than the largest stations) will grow to more than a handful of sites (again, because legitimate sources are extremely limited). To apply this "symmetry" rule is to ignore how actual readers would actually use these articles (I'm not making some kind of crazy assumption here, it's obvious that these articles will be of particular interest to the commuters who use the stations, and it's obvious that they will find a link to the Commuter Council web site extremely useful for matters related to the particular station that is the subject of each article.) If you ignore how Wikipedia articles could actually be improved in an obvious, commonsensical way, you would be violating WP:IAR (essentially, that's the only way you can violate that policy). And I remind you, it's a policy, making it more important than a mere guideline such as this External links guideline. Noroton05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If the site had a page (or pages) of information specific to that station - about how commuters can contact the ombudsman committee for that station, then I could see more of a symmetrical relationship, and would possibly support an EL to that information (but not to the top level URL for the site). If the site is for the entire network, then I would possibly support an EL on the WP page for the network to that site. But a link from the individual station to the network-wide site is not something I can support. I don't believe that it is unreasonable to think that users would try the Network WP page as well as that for an individual station. After looking at the current state of the page, I think this is appropriate, linking to the FAQ specific to that station. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(Moving the indent back) Alucard, you don't appear to have read my comment in its entirety before commenting on it. As I wrote, there are no individual ombudsman committees for individual stations, the ombudsman committee is the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council. Take a look at their meeting minutes, which show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, both that the council addresses quite specific problems at individual stations, does so constantly, does so at unpredictable times, and has information that is both (a) not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles about individual stations while simultaneously (b) addressing issues of intense interest to commuters in those specific stations. This makes a link to the website ideal because it will constantly be of use to readers interested in information about the subject of the article:
From minutes of the May 2006 meeting: "Mr. DiSalvo said that the construction conditions are Milford station were still unacceptable. There are two issues, one, crossing from the parking lot to the station and two, arriving on the New Haven bound side, a very narrow walkway to the parking lot. Gene Colonese said that the problem was that there is a lot of construction activity in a small area. There had been much rain. He said that there was very little more that could be done to improve the situation, but the work should be completed in July or August." Comment: Under what conceivable justification can a Wikipedia article NOT link to a paragraph to a state-created ombudsman committee discussiong the problems of THAT STATION? I am not knowledgeable enough about that station to know just what from that paragraph might properly be included in the article about that station, but I'm positive there are plenty of commuters out there who would be able to do so. Until that happens, a link to the website where this and similar paragraphs and items appear is the best course.
Minutes of the June '06 meeting: Information, some of it trivial for purposes of a Wikipedia article but obviously important in other ways to commuters, was discussed concerning the Milford sation, Stamford (station) garage, upcoming "meet the Commuter Day" at the Greenwich station.
(From the August 2006 minutes): "Mr. Steele asked why escalators at Stamford station were going down rather than up at evening rush hour. [. . .] Jeff Maron asked about the waiting list for the Stamford garage. [. . .] He also asked about the consultant’s report on the condition of the old garage. Mr. Colonese said that the consultant was looking at the cost of repairs."
The garage was brought up again at the October meeting (where mention was also made of problems at the Stratford station and the South Norwalk station), as well as the New Haven, Stamford and Westport stations.
At the November meeting, the Stamford garage came up again.
At the December meeting, information was brought up specific to the Fairfield, Southport, Milford, Darien. And again, there was discussion of the Stamford garage.
At the January meeeting, information specific to the Talmage Hill, Fairfield, Westport. Yet again, there was discussion of the Stamford garage.
I've just looked through the meeting minutes going back to last spring. The website has minutes going back to September 1999. Noroton18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I read the entirety of your post, which is why I worded my response using the format that I did ("if... then"). I stand by my previously-stated viewpoint. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
He's attempting to get around it: [31] Like the general link, I don't think that general information belongs in all the articles, only the main Metro-North Railroad article. Does this make sense? --NE221:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
NE2, you're violating the Wikipedia admonition against assuming bad motives and the Wikipedia adminition to look for consensus. My actions were at the suggestion of one of your cronies:
Let me try and provide a solution (though I have not reviewed if it is really possible). I would suggest to write an article about the Connecticut Railway Commuter Council (here is the caveat; I hope the page would pass wikipedias notability rules). The external link would be directly and symmetrically linked to that page, and you would only add it once. The addition of a sentence linking to the Council-page might be considered canvassing when performed on a set of articles, but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see this discussion is reopened, and that I am cited here.
That is indeed what I suggested, and I see that you did follow up on the discussion. Though, I did say, that adding a sentence on many pages could be considered canvassing, and when I now review your new additions, you actually added:
Commuters make up the vast majority of riders using the station. The Connecticut Rail Commuter Council is a board created by the state to represent commuter's interests before Metro North and state officials.<ref>[32]Connecticut Rail Commuter Council Web site, accessed March 17, 2007</ref>
(and a <references/>tag). You did add that to many articles, which is IMHO, canvassing. Moreover, this is not 'really adding more content to the article', this is closer to my description of what is not a solution:
"This station is represented by the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council<ref>http://www.trainweb.org/ct/ Connecticut Rail Commuter Council website</ref>"
The text you added is clearly not specific to the article, the first sentence is a clear and obvious statement, the second does also not tell about the stations. The reference to the last sentence does not attribute the statement in the sentence/paragraph before it (and are unnecessary because of the wikilink already in the sentence). These additions have a clear resemblance of spam (internal and external link spamming) to me, and it is still not clear to me why this external link has to be forced into all these articles (I have reverted them before), and why it is apparently more important than e.g. a picture, when it was built, number of passengers per year, and what facilities there are. I hope this clarifies. --Dirk BeetstraTC22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Response: Beetstra, please explain what Wikipedia rule "canvassing" violates. I haven't found it, but I assume you can provide it to me. Then I can figure out what you mean by it. I've explained ad nauseum why the Connecticut Commuter Council, acting in the role of official state Ombudsman for each of the stations, needs to be referred to in each of the station articles. As I said in the discussion I've linked to below, you can't have a full understanding of the station without knowing who the ombudsman agency is for that station.
Hu12, and NE12, the two of you have shown yourselves to be more interested in conspiring and confronting rather than in coming to consensus. Instead, try to work with editors you have disagreements with.
Its my new hobby! And who ever said I have no life :) Anyways, just to make sure I am doing the right thing, pay/registration sites are no good, right? Would that mean that there should be no links to NY Times articles? Thanks in advance, --Tom18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You may find the NYTimes link generator a good way to "fix" NYTimes links that are locked behind their registration wall. Given a (non-archive) link to a NYTimes article, the link generator page uses RSS access to return registration-free permalinks to NYTimes articles. It's located at http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink. Best, -- Docether15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A pay/registration article link at least has the article name, date, publication, etc.. I suggest not removing the link unless you are willing to find where the article is archived elsewhere. Or use the above tool to get a good link. An archived article can be found by googling the article title in quotes. The quotes make it a phrase search. I have found archived articles many times this way. You can check a couple versions of the archived article to make sure you have the full article. If they each have the same number of paragraphs, then you have the full article. I oftentimes link to both in the same reference. As in "article also found here." With the link on the word "here." Saves trouble down the line.
I have added reference links to hundreds of different articles. So I know that it is not uncommon for a few of them to disappear off the original publication site. I suggest leaving a note on the talk page about a bad link or a pay/registration link, rather than deleting the link. Especially if it was just a URL reference link that did not have the title, author, publication, and date written in the reference. Because if you delete the URL, then you have nothing anymore to back up the info it was a reference for. Or you could fill in the reference info yourself. That would be a huge contribution. Many people just put the URL and nothing else. --Timeshifter16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If a reader is really interested in the topic, the reader may be willing to pay for the article. Also, some readers may have a subscription to one of the better pay sites, so these links will help them take more advantage of their subscription. Ideally, pay links would be used when the material is better than any available free material, and full details about the story would be provided so a reader who wants to look up a back issue of the publication at a library can do so, instead of paying for web access. But it is wrong to delete a link soley because it is a pay link. --Gerry Ashton18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, it would be quite wrong to remove a reference (rather than a regular external link) just because it was a pay site. Notinasnaid18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
All this is good debate, but see in this article under the heading Links normally to be avoided "6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content." I would say this was a pretty clear case, and typical of this sort of thing. There's a reason that is there. If we are going against it, then we should re-examine that point, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant linking to NY Times articles, not to a specific page. (If they require registration, of course!) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
New York Times articles are often used as references, sometimes in the informal format of an inline citation of a URL, so be careful. I feel it's important to repeat this in case someone, dipping into this discussion, launches a more general crusade. Many people do not realise the important difference and end up doing things like removing a reference because it is to a commercial site, or the link has gone dead. Notinasnaid19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone needs to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, and I would hope that no one would seriously consider removing a solid reference simply because the hyperlink goes dead or now requires registration to view it.
First of all, hyperlinks are not required for references. They should obviously be provided whenever possible, but are done so as a convenience only. There are certainly many articles here on Wikipedia that reference books and periodicals where the cited information is not online for free viewing.
Second, we do not delete a hyperlinked good reference simply because the link goes dead. Why would we? The information is still from a reliable published source, it just might not be online anymore. I realize this might come as a shock to some younger editors, but there is still a tremendous amount of valuable information out there that you won't find using Google. ("Back in my day, we had to walk ten miles in the snow to get to this thing they called a 'Library' ".)
The issue isn't references. Let's not confuse things. Any NY Times or other pay link should be deleted from external links. That is what the guideline says. Likewise dead links should be removed. References are entirely different and have their own guideline. 200522:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
User:2005 exaggerates. The guideline says that pay sites are generally to be avoided; it does not say these links should be deleted without exception. Also, there is a better alternative than just deleting the pay site; if the site is so good and so relevant to the topic of the article that it is worth linking to the site, the site most likely qualifies as a reference, and could be moved to the reference section.
Indeed, many articles are not properly structured, and rely upon information in the external links section to support the information presented in the article. So before deleting external links, it would be wise to determine if those links are being relied upon as if they were references; if they are being used as references, they should be moved to the reference section. --Gerry Ashton22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't "exaggerate". Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content should normally avoided to the same degree as everything else normally to be avoided. You may not like the line in the guideline, but it is quite clear. And again, let's not confuse the discussion by talking about references. Articles should be set up right. If something should be a reference, then it should be. That isn't the issue. The topic here is external links. In the normal course of editing, pay links should be removed. It is possible to conceive of rare exceptions to a lot of things in the guideline, but that is why it is a guideline, not a policy. 200522:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To User:2005, that's all well and good, but, as I'm sure you know, sometimes pretty decent references are erroneously included in the "External links" section. If only the Wikiworld was as black and white as you allude it to be.
My point is that I want to make sure people are not immediately deleting a link simply because it's listed under "External links" and now requires registration to view the full content. I'm somewhat of an EL deletionist myself, but such decisions should be made on a case by case basis after thoughtful consideration. We shouldn't be haphazardly purging dead links and then blithely saying "That is what the guideline says."
Finally, even if a link in question is truly an External Link and not a Reference, remember what the guideline actually says. It does not say such links are prohibited and should be deleted. It says such links are "normally to be avoided", which means they should not be there unless there is a good reason, such as "It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website." With the New York Times, that is occasionally the case. Again, the decision to delete or not requires analysis and editorial discretion, not blind policy enforcement. -- Satori Son 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (Sorry for the edit conflicted repeat of argument. Obviously, I agree with Gerry Ashton. Satori Son22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
We have guidelines for a reason. If you don't like them, advocate a change. Pay links should normally not be in external links. They should normally be deleted if found there. If it appears that the link provides a useful citation (hard to see normally after the fact), then all the better to use it as a cite, but that isn't the point. the pay link should not be in external links. It should be either a reference or deleted. There are rare exceptions to everything, but pay links are on the same level as blogs, search results pages and USENET... something normally to be avoided. Again, if you don't like that, advocate a change. 200522:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You have somewhat mischaracterized my comments, but softened your own position, so we probably agree for the most part. I certainly don't want to change the guideline. I agree with it exactly as written, and, in fact, have been aggressively enforcing it for quite some time as a member of WikiProject Spam. But if you stick by your original statement that "Any NY Times or other pay link should be deleted from external links. That is what the guideline says. Likewise dead links should be removed", I cannot agree with that overly strict interpretation of it.
By the way, the New York Times website that we are talking about is not a "pay link". It, like many other newspaper websites, simply requires free registration to view archived news articles. Sometimes, albeit infrequently, those websites are appropriate as EL's (and almost always appropriate as cited references). I'm just simply asking editors to use their best judgment and not act hastily. -- Satori Son01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the guideline says that pay links should normally be avoided. But given that someone ignored that advise (or perhaps the link was converted to a pay link after the link was made), what should we do about it? The guideline does not say. I say, don't just delete it blindly; try to see if the article is relying on the link as a reference, or if the link is so good that it ought to be a a reference. If so, move it to the reference list (or better still, find an equivalent free reference and put that in the reference list); if not, consider whether this should be one of the rare exceptions and should be an external link even though it is a pay site. If it is neither a reference nor a rare exception, delete it. --Gerry Ashton00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, excellent advice. No one here is advocating keeping a pay-subscription or registration-required website link without a really good reason. -- Satori Son01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It is rare that I have not found an archive of the article elsewhere. Just google the title of the article. So usually it is unnecessary to delete the article from wikipedia. Whether it has been placed in the references or external links section. One can just substitute a different URL for the original article URL. --Timeshifter06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: NY Times archived articles are available only to those who have a paid online subscription, though current articles are either free or (in certain cases) require a free registration. -- Docether20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. According to the arguments above, if I footnote a page with a link that goes to an article behind the NYTimes paywall, then it'll be removed. However, if I footnote a page with an unlinked citation that references the article in its printed form (title, author, date of publication) then it's perfectly kosher. In the best of all worlds, my citation will contain both (for instance, the {{cite article}} template has a "url" attribute along with everything else), and that seems perfectly reasonable to me -- a pay-link url and all the information necessary to track down a hardcopy at the free back-issue repository of your choice. Why remove the link? Best, -- Docether20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Docether, if you create a footnote, that is a reference, not an external link. External links are items listed in the External links sections. URLs any place other than the External links section are not external links, and this guideline does not apply to them. For something that appears in a footnote, the Citing sources manual of style applies. --Gerry Ashton21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure of this? I thought all clickable links were external links by definition. In any case this needs to be made clear in the guideline. I agree with Docether that there is no need to remove the link part of the footnote. Even if it is a pay/registration link. Because, as I discussed previously, that link usually goes to a page that at least verifies the existence of the article, even if it does not allow reading more than the first paragraph or two. I suggest adding a second link to an open archived copy of the article. --Timeshifter18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only links I can think of outside the External links section are references. The way I read the References and citation section of the guideline, references and citations are governed by WP:A and WP:CITE, not this guideline.
Thanks for everybodies imput. Iam glad this was an easy issue :) Cheers, --Tom14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ps are youtube links allowed? I am sure this will be just as easy, right?
Everyone needs to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, and I would hope that no one would seriously consider removing a solid reference simply because the hyperlink goes dead or now requires registration to view it.
Oh, they definitely do. It's harmful and they use this page as their inspiration.
Indeed, many articles are not properly structured, and rely upon information in the external links section to support the information presented in the article.
Exactly. This should be mentioned on the page, with an emphasis that external links should generally not be removed if they serve the same purpose as references, regardless of whatever section they were placed in.
I thought all clickable links were external links by definition.
But what is the focus of this page? Any external link, including those in the references section? (No.) Things in the External links section and inline links that are not in [1] format?
We shouldn't be haphazardly purging dead links and then blithely saying "That is what the guideline says."
That's what people are doing. We should phrase the guideline to make it clear that deleting links should be done cautiously, and err on the side of inclusion. — Omegatron15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
rmvd It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website.. POV and vague. hyperlinks are not required for references. This is of limited use to most readers wikipedia is an open encyclopedia so should be the references and links.--Hu1219:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be a vast and major change of policy, if we require references to be open. Can we not reference the definitive information in academic journals or books? Are we not allowed to reference an ISO standard when talking about ISO standards? Notinasnaid19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course we can reference anything that's available to the general public. But why are references being discussed here? This guideline is about external links, and doesn't cover references, they are two separate things. --Minderbinder20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I first added mention of references into this discussion was my suspicion that many editors didn't really understand the difference. The discussion has proved that amply. If the experienced and thoughtful editors here are having trouble keeping the concepts separate what hope does anyone else have? I suspect this guideline needs to do more to make sure that the difference is obvious. Proper discussion of how to separate the two when examining an article is needed, especially the tricky inline [url] format, which I often see removed as spam under the terms of this guideline. It may be that a new subhead is needed for this. Notinasnaid20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I added some info to the introduction of the article. I hope it helps clarify the difference between citation/reference links and external links. Because until now I could not understand clearly what the guideline was referring to. Further clarification is needed. --Timeshifter21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I did not initially realize that the "external links" guidelines weren't intended to apply to citations and references ... so the clarification is timely, and necessary. Thanks, -- Docether14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL & MONGO RfA Principles
There are two principles from the final decision in the MONGO RfA that should be incorporated into WP:EL:
Looks like it should go in "Restrictions on linking" as a third item, and should have a general description of attack sites beyond just outing. --Ronz21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Links to avoid: topics covered by an existing article
I believe it is current practice and common sense that an internal link to an existing article is prefered over an external link. I can't seem to see that it is stated anywhere, so I propose addition of a statement such as:
Links to sites whose topics are substantially covered in an existing Wikipedia article. Instead, use an internal link within the article text or in the "See also" section. (See revised statement below.)
to the list of links normally to be avoided. Because this is a fairly common "error", I suggest placing this in the upper third of the list. Examples, as of this writing, include a link to the Chevrolet website from Hired!, Argos System which links to a handfull of agencies in addition to the agency articles, and several articles that link to www.arrl.org rather than or in addition to ARRL. Examples abound! As far as I can remember, I have never been challenged for converting an external link into an internal link or for removing an external link that duplicated an internal link. Thoughts? ✤JonHardertalk01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the principle that internal links are preferable to linking externally, however, the Hired! article already has an inline internal link to Cheverolet. Similarly, the Argos System page already links to each of the agencies listed in the "External Links" with the exception of CLS which does not seem to have a wikipedia article (that I could find). Not sure which articles you are referring to regarding ARRL, however, some of the ones I found (eg Garland Amateur Radio Club) were using a IL to the ARRL article and a EL to www.arrl.org.
The use of External Links is perfectly valid in some instances, and having an article on the same topic does not stop us from linking to the official sites of that article elsewhere. Parasite07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
An interesting suggestion, and I would support including that text. Could someone show an example of where having an EL to a site that already has a WP page is needed? I'm struggling to find a case for it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
To answer Parasite's concerns, if an article already has the relevant internal link, then the external link is redundant and can be removed. With respect to articles that link to the main arrl.org site, this rule would say that all those links should come out and a link to the article added if it is not already there. The only place for the external link would be in the ARRL article itself. I can't think of a case where we want to link to the official site, other than in the article that is directly related to that official site.
I have reworded my proposed statement slightly:
Links to sites whose topic is the subject of an existing Wikipedia article. Instead, use an internal link within the article text or in the "See also" section.
This closes a "substantially covered" loophole which is somewhat of a subjective measure. What I want to say is that it is better to link to an article that is on the topic, even if it is only a stub, then to use the EL. If the EL is missing in the stub, then by all means add it there. I suggest that this should be placed in the list after #2, or if that is too bold, after #5 (keeping the spam-related 3, 4 & 5 together in a block). As I stated earlier, this is a common enough occurance that I believe it should be appear early in the list. If there is no substantial opposition, I will add it in a few days. ✤JonHardertalk00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't really link to sites. We often link to pages. We should external link to somesite.com/topic/ rather than to and article on somesite.com. It looks like you are trying to make an oversimplified rule that will be misinterpreted easily. 200502:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
We must be talking past each other because I don't really understand your comment. In the current list of thirteen links normally to be avoided, eight talk about linking to either a "site" or a "website" so I am puzzled by your statement that we don't link to sites. What I'm trying to say is "don't link to an external website when there is a Wikipedia article on the topic." How can that be stated more clearly? ✤JonHardertalk04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said in the example, it obviously is not appropriate in many cases because "sites" is not useful in this context. Linking to the article on the BBC is useless instead of linking to bbc.co.uk/news/global_warming/january/ or whatever. 200506:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand now. The example you give doesn't pass the rule given in this statement, because the subject of article on the BBC does not address the topic of global warning in January (or whatever). However, if there would be an article about "global warning in January" then an article link would be more appropriate than the external link. I do think that the principle is fairly simple and straightforward, but there is likely a way to write a rule that reflects its elegence more clearly. ✤JonHardertalk00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There have been no additional comments here for a few days. So far Alucard (Dr.) supports while Parasite and 2005 oppose. Unless others wish to comment, I'll drop this as having no consensus and perhaps bring it up again some months down the road. I guess I am a bit surprised that there isn't clearer support for internal links over external links, when they are available. This type of rule would also be a great help prevent certain types of spamming. Recently an editor with a conflict of interest created Nicodemus Wilderness Project and then proceded to add a link to his website in multiple other articles. Aside from the conflict of interest issues, I continue to believe it is improper to link to an external website when there is an article on the topic. ✤JonHardertalk22:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this restriction. There might be a web page on topic A, for which a Wikipedia article exists. It might have a subtopic S, for which a Wikipedia article also exists. Overall, the web page's coverage of topic A might be mediocre, and not worth linking to, but it's coverage of subtopic S might be excellent, and worth linking to from the Wikipedia article on S. --Gerry Ashton16:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This rule is intended to allow the case above. I think the root of the confusion is my use of "site" and "page" as interchangeable, when more precise language would be helpful. The intent of the rule is basically, "don't link to a page when there is an existing article on the same topic." In a sense, this is a corollary to the last rule about sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject. ✤JonHardertalk00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally in support of the practice of preferring wikilinks to external links. But I think Radiant might be right about it being creepy - Just from this small discussion it seems most people misunderstand and I'm not sure how you'd make it plain without making it very wordy. It might be better to promote this simply as a commonsense thing rather than as something we have a written guideline for. -- Siobhan Hansa19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
See the guideline Wikipedia:Build the web. Unless a specific page on an external site is cited as a reference, then I think internal links are preferred -- if for no other reason than to keep the size of the external links section down. Keeping that section smaller reduces the spam added to it -- see WP:SPAMHOLE. It's a known phenomenon that the bigger such a list gets, the more it attracts still more links -- kind of like link gravity. --A. B.(talk)15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a few months ago this guideline was quite clear that "It is always preferred to use internal links over external links.". [33] No idea when or why it was removed, though I kinda miss it. Femto17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
a message from the redundancy department of redundancy:
the current phrasing of Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for number 13 is: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." - Can I remove everything after the colon? I think somewhere in there when the wording moved from symmetrical to direct this happened. JoeSmackTalk15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
On the Diaphragm (contraceptive) and Cervical cap pages, I had an external link to the only cervical-barrier forum I am aware of, a Yahoo! group. This group has a physician adviser, so it's a little more formal that most message boards. Because cervical barriers are one of the least popular contraceptive options, there is very little interactive content about them on the internet - as I said before, this is the only site I am aware of. I believe it meets criteria 3 and 4 of What should be linked as it provides both physician-sourced information (accurate) that cannot be used in the article because it is not published (not verifiable), and also has personal reviews from a variety of women of the different cervical barriers available.
However, the site requires registration. It was removed here in what seems to be a reflex maneuver by the editor (I can't imagine how the site violated any of the cited policies except this one provision of WP:EL). Is the registration requirement a complete kill on having it as an external link? LyrlTalkC03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Links to be avoided: #10 - Links to forums. So it violates two of the guidelines. But, if you really feel like it is a worthy resource, I'd suggest bringing it up on the talk page of the article. It would be good to have some links to support your arguments about why it should be included in spite of the fact that it doesn't pass WP:EL in a couple of ways. (Forums can be problematic since they often don't pass WP:RS and WP:OR, but there might be an exception in this case.) Nposs03:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
To add about videos vs. transcripts
Based on Wikipedia discussion at External_links/YouTube, I would like to see the following added to this policy.
When a transcript of a video is available, the transcript rather than the video should be linked to. Video is not, in general, a preferred method for illustrating a concept or documenting something, as it is less accessible to internet users with older computers or slower connections. Additionally, the content of a video is more easily searched or quoted via the transcript. However, there are cases where video is the best way to illustrate an article or concept. Examples would include illustration of motions in articles about mechanics or machinery, video of dance choreography, and various sorts of journalistic video for historic events or repeated phenomena. That watching the video would be more compelling than reading a transcript is not a valid reason for linking to the video. A link to a video is appropriate when it is a primary source, assuming no copyright violations are involved.
I don't see how whether it is a primary source or some other kind of source is relevant, so long as it is reliable. --Gerry Ashton17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing more and more external links like this. Often these portals are obviously promotional in nature and have very poor content. Also, I prefer links to articles (where the content isn't changing) or to sites where the contributors are known and they have obvious expertise. Thoughts? --Ronz19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Such links do not seem at all appropriate to me, either. This one in particular contains little quality info and much advertising. The link's primary purpose appears to be to promote the site itself, which obtains revenue via AdSense. Finally, and most importantly, the website "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." (I have removed this one.) -- Satori Son02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Changing the name of this guideline.
There is, I think, a lot of confusion between an external link and the "External links" section. This policy applies only to the latter. I just made a change to the guideline which, hopefully, clarify this, but changing the title would, I think, be even better.
(Hopefully there is no dispute that the policy only applies to the section - if there is, I point to the nutshell explanation: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. Obviously (I hope) an ideal article is one that is studded with citations/sources/footnotes/references (see, for example, featured articles); in no way do we want to keep such citations "to a minimum".
My concern is that if the guideline is specific to links in the "External links" section only, is it clear enough that external links in other sections of articles, other than references/footnotes/sources, are inappropriate? --Ronz01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Not sure if the intention is to clarify that WP:EL applies to an entire article or just the External links section? I'm a member of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and I have started to see more and more spammers embedding external links in the references section. This sort of "reference" spam is difficult to clean due to the extra resistance from the page stewards. I only suspect that this technique will grow in popularity and become a major problem. (Requestion01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
This has been discussed a bit so some clarity is a good idea. However you are not right in your idea. True, this guideline does not involve references/sources/notes. But it DOES cover inline external links that are not references. These inline links should seldom exist, but they do exist. The guideline name should not be changed. It just needs to be clear that we are talking about external links that are not references, and such links are most appropriately located in an external links section. While this guideline doesn't deal with reference spam, we can't more or less encourage people to hyperlink words like "forum" with an external link. This guideline covers that (of course in this case prohibiting it). 200502:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this applied to external links period, regardless of whether or not they're in a section called "external links". What's the point of this restriction? >Radiant<10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I too was under that impression. Seems strange to give carte blanche to spammers and link farmers once they cunningly learn to avoid the "External links" section. Unless it's unworkable to have one guideline covering all external linking then it makes sense to keep it in one place. Deiztalk11:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it absolutely does not apply to references, which may appear in the references section, inline or occasionally misplaced in the external links section. Removing genuine references is absolutely unacceptable unless a better reference is found, another reference covers it, or the actual material is removed. This comes up over and over; many spam watchers do not apply the distinction, indeed I have been vilified for repairing this. Of course, bogus references should be removed, but links absolutely unacceptable in external links may be a genuine reference. Removing spam is much less important in Wikipedia's policies than the need for references. Notinasnaid
If I follow what you're saying Notinasnaid then I agree to an extent, something may be suitable as a reference but not as an external link.. references need to hit what was once :RS rather than :EL. But when references are treated as general resources and simply listed akin to a regular external links section, rather than inlined to a particular point, I tend to treat them as ELs if there's no obvious fact / point in the article that they verify. Deiztalk
What ongoing problem are we solving if we change the scope of WP:EL? How would this make Wikipedia current rule set easier to master? How would this make it easier to prevent inappropriate links? In short, how does this make Wikipedia more reliable encyclopedia for readers and more readily maintainable for editors and admins?
I strongly believe this section should apply to all external links in an article. An external link is an external link.
If you do decide to change WP:EL's scope, you'll need to also change all our spam warnings to reference whatever guidelines and policies apply to reference links. That's tricky because WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ATT are presently in such a state of confusion -- at least one of those may go away.
You'll probably also need to change your guidelines and policies for references to more explicitly rule out spammy or inappropriate stuff, essentially recreating WP:EL's "links to avoid section".
There's WP:SPAM, which I find to be fairly useless for link-spamming -- the real meat is in WP:EL as to what's acceptable. However if WP:EL no longer applies to references, then you'll want to add additional language to WP:SPAM.
As all these different rules and warning templates change over time, someone will need to make sure they stay consistent which means more policy and guideline talk page discussions and angst.
I'll note that I see lots of spam slipped in as bogus references these days; it's easier to tell the offending editor that all his links violate WP:EL, rather than telling him his inline links violate one set of guidelines and the links he added to the External Links section violate another. Change the scope of WP:EL and I'll just be writing more stuff on user talk pages, telling new editors to read that many more pages of Wikipedia rules. And, yes, Wikipedia always needs more references, but not these. If a reference link doesn't meet WP:EL now, then it's not a very good reference and it detracts from the encyclopedia.
In all the many discussions I've had with editors at WT:WPSPAM and on various talk pages, I've not personally experienced any comments as to whether WP:EL applies to anything other than all external links. According to my edit history, that's several thousand edits just on my side of the discussion.
This guideline says next to nothing about references, and does not apply to references. There has always been a completely seperate guideline for that. There is no reason to change that now. External links are primarily in the external links section, but sometimes they are placed within an article, like "John Smith does a radio show for wabc.com" with "wabc.com" hyperlinked. That is not a reference so this guideline covers it. It's always good to avoid confusion, but the suggested clarifying line was wrong because it ignored inline external links like the above one. But please leave references out of this. Those are covered by WP:RS and/or WP:ATT, not here. 200521:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any proposal to change scope. The guidelines doesn't apply to references now, and wouldn't if it were renamed as proposed. There is clearly much misunderstanding of the current scope, though. Notinasnaid21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that the nutshell and lead paragraph have been changed, there presumably should be a lot less confusion over the scope. I'm certainly fine with it as it now reads, in general. -- John Broughton(♫♫)20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a relative newbie, having edited only since Christmas, so would welcome some guidance on this matter. What is WP policy on mentioning local sports clubs by name in articles on towns or regions? One editor working on Mendip Hills unlinked a (named) local gliding club, leaving a link to gliding as a sport in the text & relegating the club to the External Links section. Is this the generally approved method; or is it sometimes acceptable to include an EL to a specific (non-profit members') club in the text of the article?
A question please. When an EL section contains only one link, is there consensus as to whether the title of that section ought to be the singular "External link" or the plural "External links"? I've always been under the impression that it was the latter, but I recently interacted with an editor under the opposite impression. So, which is it? -- Black Falcon18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
See also above (#Link vs Links). - I haven't seen too many "External link" in a long time, and then only in diffs where some cleanup bot changed it. I'd say plural has pretty much become the established standard, formalized consensus or not, so I'll (re)include it in the guideline. Femto11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I really should have looked through the previous discussions, but the 16 archives frightened me. Thanks again, Black Falcon17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
