Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

"A valuable service to our readers"

I am removing this sentence from the page: However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers. My reasoning is as follows:

  • Wikipedia is not, nor is it intended to be, a web directory. "Adding a small number of relevant external links" is an attempt to make it a little web directory.
  • Adding a small number of external links is a disservice to our readers. It presents them only with whatever links Wikipedia editors have thought to provide, leaving out possibly a great many more which have been submitted to web directories and found by search engines.
  • A "small number of relevant external links" inevitably turns into something neither small nor relevant. Wikipedia contains many articles which have become stuffed with external links to discussion forums and online stores and Geocities home pages.

- Brian Kendig 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is an attempt to make better articles for users. If you don't want to add links don't. If you want to make a 180 degree change to a guideline page, please start a discussion first. Perhaps you can get a consensus to remove all external links. And perhaps you won't. 2005 06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can escape the fact that a much larger discussion needs to happen here: What is the purpose of External Links? Is it a list of useful, relevant links to other websites for more information? If so, why are we limiting them? Fagstein 06:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that someone put back in the sentence I took out. Just a note to User:2005 - far from "making a 180 degree change to a guideline page," I was merely removing one sentence that you yourself added less than a month ago without discussion. I don't want to get into a revert war, so I won't remove the sentence again; I just want to point out that you may have been biased in putting it back in - I'd prefer to see some other opinions on that sentence. - Brian Kendig 13:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not true that 2005 added it less than a month ago, it's been in the page since March 2005. The edit you might be referring to looks to me to be a revert. Hiding Talk 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
My bad. I didn't remember that having been in there before, but you're right. - Brian Kendig 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

... however, my complaints about this sentence still stand. Encourage people to add "a small number of relevant external links," and you invite debate over the definitions of "small number" and "relevant". I see no point whatsoever to trying to turn Wikipedia into a web directory, and I agree that a much larger discussion needs to happen on this topic. - Brian Kendig 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Are you suggesting we have no external links? Having a handful of external links is a service to readers, as it gives them an immediate jumping-off point to do additional research on the topic. If numerous articles are suffering from linkcruft (well, that's not really an "if"...), that's an entirely different matter that has very little to do with the above wording. Furthermore, I don't see a problem with inviting debate; we're supposed to gather consensus, correct? Thousands of debates over the validity of various links, while somewhat chaotic, is ultimately better for the article(s) and for the users than a rigid policy. EVula 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not like the sentence, but I think that a small number of links is appropriate for some articles. Some articles do not need external links at all, but there is a limit to the type and amount of information Wikipedia can provide about a topic and external links are frequently able to supplement the article. Problems can arise when people try to put up links to the most popular, exhaustive or useful websites on the topic or websites that they or their friends own or are associated with rather than the websites that have content that supplements the article's content and gives information that helps people better understand the topic. For example, a website that gives information about the design of various types of nuclear reactors might be appropriate for the nuclear reactor article. However, a website that has the biggest list of jobs in the nuclear industry would not be appropriate, and neither would a website that gives the current price of uranium. A link that might be appropriate for one article may not be appropriate for another. For example, link to a website on how great or bad nuclear power is would also be inappropriate for the nuclear reactor because it does not supplement the content of the article (or at least what the content should be, there is a section that does not belong in there currently). A link like that might be appropriate on the nuclear power article or an article that has to do with the controversy over nuclear power, but only if it is a reliable source, admits that nuclear power has advantages and disadvantages and gives referenced information rather than slogans and uncited statements.
There are some articles where the external links are inappropriate in content or number, however they should not be severely limited or discouraged because of this. When this occurs, the inappropriate links should simply be deleted. If there are objections, politely explain why the links are inappropriate. Including a link to the external links guideline would be helpful, too. This comment is not a reply to EVula. I just indented it further for clarity. -- Kjkolb 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Brian's deletion. We are not here to provide readers with "services". We are here to provide them with information. External links should only be used to show places where more information is available. If services are allowed then it will make spotting and combatting spam much more difficult, as every commercial website will be able to claim they are providing a service. -Will Beback 18:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting rediculous. Of course providing a good list of external links is a service to our readers, and it's absurd to say otherwise. Wikipedia is not the only source on the web for information. Why do many of us seem to think that? Mike | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this sentence is not harmful except when read in isolation of WP:NOT (a links directory). Since one is a guideline and one policy, the relative weight of those two things in tension should fall toward the side of "not a directory". The spirit of the sentence is fine though: providing our readers with "further reading" links is a service in line with being an encyclopedia. You are right though, that we are not a Google or DMOZ replacement. What I'm saying, in the end, is that the sentence is fine but out to be read very narrowly. Perhaps it can be edited to make that clearer. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The arrogance here is astonishing. Two people don't like something that has a consensus so they just go and rudely change it, without even the pretense of discussion or caring if there is one. If you don't like something, have the courtesy to discuss it, offer a rationale, and even an alternative wording or emphasis. 2005 23:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Mike - Wikipedia is not a web directory. Of course providing a good list of external links is a service to our readers; however, it is not a service which falls under the purview of Wikipedia. There are other sites (web directories and search engines) which are dedicated to doing the job much better. There is simply no purpose to our trying to duplicate their effort. Wikipedia's purpose is to contain information, not to point people to offsite information. - Brian Kendig 05:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is a web directory. But simply the fact that this is not Wikipedia's primary role does not make it evil for us to provide some links for further research. I think that as many of us become editors here we forget what it was like when we simply read Wikipedia. I know that I really appreciated a good external links section after a good article, and I still do. Wikipedia articles that do a great job of covering the subject still can't do everything. An encyclopedia article is a totally different animal than a multi-paged website. - Mike | Talk 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I still fail to see the point of putting these external links into the Wikipedia article instead of letting a web directory handle it. Why do you want Wikipedia editors to duplicate the effort that Yahoo and Open Directory and others already do so well? - Brian Kendig 20:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We aren't duplicating anything. We are creating articles for users. We also certainly are not going to base how we make articles on how some other outfit builds their website. This is the Wikipedia encyclopedia, not the "effort to have information appear in only one place on the Internet". 2005 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. This is an encyclopedia. Outside of references, an encyclopedia doesn't contain a list of "for further reading..." material. We are creating articles, not lists of links. - Brian Kendig 21:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The current version has one thing I would like to change, but it is acceptable (the page has been changing a lot, so you'll need to check which one I'm referring to, it may have changed since the last time you looked and/or since I wrote this). The current version says that the links must be highly relevant, which is good. However, if possible, I would like to work in something about how they must be relevant to the purposes of the encyclopedia. External links can be relevant and useful to readers without being relevant to Wikipedia's goals. For example, a jobs site might be relevant to someone in the field looking for a job or someone who is thinking about going into the field and wants to see what kind of jobs are available, but it is not relevant for our purposes. I am willing to settle with the current version, though. -- Kjkolb 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I made another amendment [1] that I think might solve that. What do you think? (It needs copyediting for initial capital and punctuation, but I didn't want to correct that right yet and obscure the substance of the edit in the history.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, what Barberio did with my addition is even better! — Saxifrage ✎ 22:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the largest problem with WP:EL is its first paragraph. Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should be dominated by or consist solely of a collection of external links. ... However, a small number of highly relevant external links to further information can enhance an article. What this says to people is: "Adding external links to an article will enhance it, as long as you're not adding so many links that you're overwhelming the article." I feel this isn't the correct sense that the article should convey. Rather, the sense should be: "Only add external links if they meet strict criteria; otherwise, avoid them." And the criteria below are too long and complicated; it would help a lot to simplify them. - Brian Kendig 05:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How is that not the correct sense to convey? I cannot understand how adding a small, relevant list of external links and the conclusion of the article would not enhance it. As 2005 has stated above, Wikipedia's mission is not to contain every bit of information on earth about every topic within this very website. Wikipedia's mission is to provide a good source of information about a topic, and then to direct users to where more useful information can be found. This does not mean that we list every link we can find on the subject, as web directories do. This means that we link to a few sites that are of a high standard and that build on the knowledge conveyed in the article. For example, Wikipedia can only have access to a certain amount of copyrighted material through fair use. Linking to a site with licencing rights to that copyrighted material gives the reader a more thorough understanding of the topic. - Mike | Talk 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Linking to copyrighted material that can't be incorporated into Wikipedia is fine. Linking to web sites that go into far more detail than Wikipedia should bother containing is also fine. (WP:EL already explicitly supports these kinds of links.) My problem with the line "a small number of highly relevant external links to further information can enhance an article" is that it seems to encourage people to go find links to toss into an article, to turn the article into a mini-webdirectory linking to other sites with information which duplicates what's in Wikipedia. There's no reason that we should be providing External Links to web pages which duplicate what the article already contains. The message given by WP:EL shouldn't be "go find links to add," it should be "if you find a link to add then make sure it fits this criteria." - Brian Kendig 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with that. But isn't that what the guide suggests? That's how it seems to me. However, if you can offer a better alternative, I would be open to it. - Mike | Talk 22:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to make sense of your position. "There's no reason that we should be providing External Links to web pages which duplicate what the article already contains." That is why we don't, and have this guideline that states that. "Linking to web sites that go into far more detail than Wikipedia should bother containing is also fine." That is why we do, and have this guideline that says so. This stuff about "encourage" is silly. You're just reading sentences and then ignoring the words, or worse, reading one sentence then ignoring the further explanatory sentences. You just said that sometimes a small amount of a certain type of external links can enhance an article. Its absurd to say this guideline encourages adding crappy links. It doesn't say that, and in fact says the opposite. It says nowhere "go find links to add". It does say that it is acceptable to add links that fit the criteria. 2005 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I apologize for being unclear. Let me describe the most recent example of the situation that I run up against more often than I'd like.

  • I edited Logo (programming language) to delete twenty-two external links to various Logo implementations, "tips and tricks" pages, online books that mention Logo, papers that have been written about Logo, etc. etc.
  • I received a complaint. Removing all the external links is a little drastic, don't you think? "Adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers." Did you check that the links you removed weren't useful?

Note that the person quoted the third sentence of WP:EL, and is only concerned with whether the links are useful. Of course the links are useful, and "useful" is even one of the four criteria on WP:EL under "What to link to". But the problem is that people don't seem to be reading past that point to check their links against the "Links normally to be avoided" section. I'm tired of removing dozens of External Links which duplicate what's already in an article and having my edit reverted because "the links are useful, and the page doesn't consist solely of a collection of external links, so WP:EL says it's okay". People seem to interpret WP:EL as being much more permissive than it ought to be. I feel that wording the beginning of WP:EL differently will help make it more clear, but I'm not sure how to reword it yet. - Brian Kendig 23:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing all external links from an article that has been regularly edited by multiple editors is almost always very rude and inappropriate. And, there is nothing wrong with someone replying that a link is useful. However, if you believe a link duplicates info in the article, then say so, and make it clear on the talk page. "But the problem is that people don't seem to be reading past that point to check their links against the 'Links normally to be avoided' section." Just because people don't read the guideline doesn't mean it isn't a good guideline. Perhaps what you should be thinking about instead of focusing on a good line in the guideline is a suggestion to make other wording more clear. That is, if a link offers nothing beyond what is in the article, it shouldn't be linked to, as in (of the top of my head) an article listings the Presidents of the United States shouldn't link to an external site that just lists the Presidents of the United States. If that external site had 100,000 word bios of each of the Presidents, that would be a plainly different thing to consider. 2005 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold edits

Don't panic - I'm editing the policy page boldly right now, but I am being careful to avoid changing its meaning at all. Have a look and let me know what you think, and feel free to edit further, or to revert if you disagree completely. I'm not going to put up a fight; I just feel that some rearranging can make the existing policy more clear. - Brian Kendig 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall I like what you've done (are still doing?). I'm a bit uncomfortable by "demoting" the WP:NOT reference in the lead, but I can see that saying "this is okay BUT" is often stronger than saying "Don't do this, EXCEPT". People often latch onto the last instruction as being more important, strangely in the opposite way that the language actually conveys meaning. In any case, looks like a decent facelift so far. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I swapped the order because I felt it was weird to start out the policy with a declaration of what the policy is NOT. Also, I agree that people often latch onto the last instruction as being more important, and I think people were seeing "Wikipedia is not a web directory, but ..." and focusing on the "but". If you can think of any ways to emphasize the WP:NOT directive, please have a go at it! - Brian Kendig 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I heavily contest this change about using === instead of ;. I was just going to sleep when I saw it, and decided to drop a note before leaving. Rationale:
  1. By using ===, you are cluttering the table of contents of the article. External links should just be a section in there, not a full tree of possibilities. See the current state of the external links section of the Jew article (it has 9 subsections in the table of contents!).
  2. It makes much easier for people to add their own spam links. They just need to click the Edit subsection in the "Fansites" list to add their own. In example, see this revision of the Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories article, this revision of the Kabbalah, or the previously mentioned Jew article.
  3. Most warnings are put just below the External links heading, either as a template or as a HTML comment. By allowing them to edit a sub section of the heading they are bypassing the warning.
  4. When a responsible user wants to add or modify an external link from the section, if he needs to browse through the full external link section because of ;, he will be encouraged to eliminate as many of those as possible to make navigation easier.
Hopefully, we will remove the === syntax from this section and force the usage of ;, as it is much better (at least, from my point of view) than the === one. -- ReyBrujo 05:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree on that point. I'm also a fan of the essay at WP:SPAMHOLE, which doesn't like external links sections that are so large that subsections (and their convenient "edit" links) are necessary. For all the reasons ReyBrujo gives, I think ; headers are better than == headers. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Good rationale for the use of the semicolon syntax. I added this back into the page. - Brian Kendig 06:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm finished (for now) reorganizing and consolidating the page. I believe I've been able to streamline it without losing or changing any of its original intent. Please have a look over it, and go ahead and edit it if you have any issues with it. - Brian Kendig 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is already a rewrite process occuring at Wikipedia:External links/workshop. It might have been better for you to have become involved there first. --Barberio 14:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that in the talk comments here. It would have helped if you'd put an announcement of this at the top of the Talk page. - Brian Kendig 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove mention of fansites

It seems that most of us feel that linking to fansites is OK so long as it is not excessive and they do not violate the rest of the external links guide. So instead of arguing about what a better would about fansites would be, why don't we simply remove the mention of fansites all together and instead leave it up to the rest of the guide to help editors decide whether the link is appropriate or not? - Mike | Talk 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Having the current wording is confusing and serves no useful purpose. Additionally there isn't the slightest rationale for why links to a domain created by people who are fans of a subject have any less merit than links to a domain created by people who are not fans of the subject. Note that this is the Wikipedia explanation of: fansites. There are all types of fansites, from great to garbage, but the only thing to consider is what is in that wiki article, fan sites are created by fans in contrast to more generalized commercial sites. filmsite.org and hitchcock.tv are fansites, imdb.com and allmovie.com are not. There is no reason whatsoever to mention the ownership of a site (besides an official one) nor the motivation for a site (passion versus commerce). What matters is content, value to users, and compliance with the guideline. 2005 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Fansites should be taken on their merits. If they meet the guidance on what sort of links to add, they should be added, and if they don't they shouldn't, so yes, it's a good idea to remove mention of them. I don't see why we can't link to a few good fan-sites and a directory listing if need be, in articles where such links are warranted and the sites are of a high standard. I'd be concerned if an external links section became overly long compared to other areas of the article, but that's not something that needs to be worried about here, to me that's the basis of, and actionable under the policy at WP:NOT. Hiding Talk 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As someone who looks at this debate and reflexively goes "delete the fansite rule? Crazy!", I have to say that I'm converted. The thing that did it for me is the argument that not all fansites are bad by the fact of being run by fans. The example that springs to mind is a site that is one of the best references for Hayao Miyazaki films, nausicaa.net. It's a fansite that is considered well-produced and authoritative enough that it serves as the source for many of his films' articles.
Not only that, but a small fix is much preferable to a huge rewrite. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely that fan sites should be treated no differently from other websites for determining their suitability as external links. However, just as we have WP:BAND and WP:BIO as quick-reference guidelines for notability, we should at least have fansites as examples in this policy, even if only to say that fansites should be judged on the same standards. Otherwise, each article is going to start having debates on whether or not fansites should be included. Fagstein 00:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am wary of fansites. A while ago I found that every Wikipedia article relating to the anime series Oh My Goddess! contained the same eight links to the top-level pages of the same eight different fansites. When I protested this, I got into a debate with someone who said, The fansites provide more coverage and different characteristics! They can't be narrowed down to just one fansite! In general, I don't want links from WP articles to the top level of fansites; that's a link better left for the web directories. A link from a WP article to a fansite page that's specific to the article in question (like, dealing with a specific character), that's okay, IMHO, and I'd like to see the policy make this clear. - Brian Kendig 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder... I guess we all should get editor accounts at dmoz, and move the links there, keeping the open directory link in the articles at Wikipedia instead... -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can simply suggest a link to a dmoz category if the list of external links is getting too long? - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what I've been doing (and then implementing if there's no objection), for instance at Corporate identity just a few edits ago. This can be combined with telling well-meaning linkers to submit it to DMOZ instead of trying to get Wikipedia to do DMOZ's job.
I also wanted to note that DMOZ's application process is more draconian than I am willing to bother with; it's also impractical for us to get DMOZ accounts as they are limited to specific topics. I think we're going to be limited to redirecting linkers to DMOZ's URL submission page. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That is why people continue adding the links here. -- ReyBrujo 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's true that Wikipedia is a much more attractive target, since they can add directly and easily. I don't think that should prevent us from firmly turning well-meaning but misguided linkers there. Though it's harder to get a link added there due to the procedure, their criteria are less stringent since they are a links directory. Certainly if an opportunistic link-adder's link is rejected by DMOZ, it shouldn't fare any better here. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Both the fansite, and DMOZ issue have been handled in the workshop version. We've consolodated all the fansite/blog/forum stuff into a single section that reminds people that they need to have a clear acceptable reason to link to these. And we've created a talk page template {{Directory request}} to ask for a DMOZ linking, so that Wikipedians who have passed the DMOZ app process can help. --Barberio 11:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question, is there a way to block consistent linkspamers?

The user Darkishblade Contributions keeps link spamming over and over again even after people try to contact him/her. Is there any way to report this somehow? MythSearcher 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Warn him with {{spam1-n}}, {{spam2-n}}, {{spam3-n}} and {{spam4-n}} everytime he spams in a short period of time. After you reached spam4 and he continued, report him to WP:AIV as spammer. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, if he wants to know why his link is removed, mention him that our external links guidelines state that a site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless it is being used as a source, the web site itself is the topic of the article, or it has relevant content of substantially higher quality than any available from other websites. which is never true for forums. Also, the forum has only 447 members, which is a pretty low amount considering that FFVII probably sold more than 500,000 copies in US alone. -- ReyBrujo 17:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes, is it already a consensus?

I saw recent changes of this policy, eps. in the links normally to be avoided. Major structure/contents have gone. Is there already any consensus about this? — Indon (reply) — 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To which changes are you specifically referring? The policy has been reorganized somewhat, but what contents are gone? - Brian Kendig 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is diff of the version at 22 Oct with current one: [2]. The previous version, I believe, is more easy and clear to read as it has good structure to follow. — Indon (reply) — 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, and that's why I edited it. (See Bold edits, above.) In particular, the policy had a lot of redundancy in it and repeated itself in several places; and I think its structure was confusing (like, putting "Links normally to be avoided" under "What to link to".) If you can explain specifics about how you feel the new structure of the policy is more confusing, then let's talk about it and improve it. I'm a bit more concerned about your claim that "major contents have gone"; can you be more specific? - Brian Kendig 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I said that, because bold bulleted items have gone, but actually they were still there without bullets. In the section "Links normally to be avoided", one-sentence paragraphs that start with "Do not link to ...", I think, are better in bulletted items, rather than leaving them as orphaned paragraphs. — Indon (reply) — 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay - thanks. "One-sentence paragraphs are better as bulleted items" is a lot more actionable than "Major structure/contents have gone". :) And I see that someone's already turned the short paragraphs back into bullet items. - Brian Kendig 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this new blob is pretty bad. It's harder to read and harder to follow. It's also harder for people that are accustomed to the guideline to go back and check specific points or to figure out the things that have evolved. I would be in favor of reverting to the good'ol guideline. Pascal.Tesson 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what you find harder with the rewrite? - Brian Kendig 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to fansites is essential

I came here because the list of links on Justin Timberlake is crap, and there is a warning about not linking to fansites, which refers to this page. I see that the claims made were misleading as this page does not prohibit linking to fansites. Really it is essential to do so on pop culture topics as the fansites are nearly always the best sites. It's just that we need to choose the best one. I will remove the unjustified warning from the article and invite people to add some decent links to it. Golfcam 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In the past, it was agreed that one or two major fansites were appropriate. However, either editors can't agree which are the most representative links, or they bunch together to add each their own site, thus ending in an external link list that may be as long as the article itself. Now, it is custom to remove fansites when there are too many, asking them to link to add them to the http://dmoz.org instead. -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree that linking to fansites is essential. I regard it as intensely problem-riddled, actually. Aside from all the obvious issues about judging a site's true notability, there's the aspect that scoring a link in a Wikipedia article to one's site can be worth real money (as in potentially thousands of dollars a year) to people. Already we've seen surprisingly persistent lobbying (i.e., individual editors making several dozen talk page edits a day, over a period of months, just to push for their favorite fansite to be listed as a link, obvious meatpuppetry, single purpose accounts, canvassing/lobbying of user talk pages to encourage votes by sympathizers, etc.). I've been embroiled for months in the ongoing battle Lostpedia fans are waging to include a link to lostpedia.org (a site which features advertising) on the Lost pages on Wikipedia. See Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites; another similarly virulent discussion about a different fansite occurred in an AfD here. At least one proponent of such a link has declared that "this debate won't be over until LostPedia has gotten its link on WP." Why this monomania? Well, another editor pointed out a very interesting blog link to me yesterday: here. It advises people, "Wikipedia.org can bring in an enormous amount of targeted traffic. ... Here is what you do. Figure out what exactly your website is doing and what information it is providing ... , then you add a link to your site under the appropriate category, which is usually “External Links”. ... Some of my sites get more than 1000 unique hits from Wikipedia every day. ... Getting linked to from Wikipedia is a great way to start moving your site up in the search engine rankings.'" In other words, at least when there's advertising on the site in question, there is very much of a monetary incentive for people to lobby intensely for such a link, meaning there is conflict of interest. As such, I think Wikipedia needs to be ultra-cautious about permitting such. Erring on the side of keeping fansite links as few-and-far-between as possible seems the wisest course. -- PKtm 04:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • PKtm writes, "At least one proponent of such a link has declared that, 'this debate won't be over until LostPedia has gotten its link on WP.'" I've seen this particular sentence fragment around town on more than one occasion. The peculiar grammatical error that made that string of words possible, also happens to technically parse as the opposite of the apparent intention if its original author. That was a mouthful, but you can see the original comment for yourself. By scrolling up one line from here. The comparison can give you a bit of a chuckle, actually. --Loqi T. 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering the economic impact on a site having a link in the Wikipedia is completely inappropriate, and this attitude unfortunately gets in the way of making the wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can. If any editors are sitting around giving this issue one second of thought either way, they should consider taking up another endeavor. We aren't the "stop websites from making money" police. That is completely irrelevant to contributing to the encyclopedia. Don't go off on that tangent. We are discussing what is good for the encyclopedia's articles, the encyclopedia's users and the encyclopedia itself. How that effects other websites in the rest of the world is not something to talk about here. (And besides, it has utterly ZERO to do with fansites since commercial sites are by definition more likely to care about the making money issue. )2005 05:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The last comment seems to assume that fan sites aren't commercial. But definitions aside, very many fan sites are commercial. And I don't think use of the word "police" is helpful: I could, if I wished, turn that around and complain at 2005's attempt to "police" the discussion here. -- Hoary 05:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would refer 2005 to the Talk Page Guidelines at the top of this page, all four of them, actually. My point, which I feel was missed, is that pressures can be and are being brought to bear to include links, at times because of their economic value, which is a means of exploiting Wikipedia, not making it a better encyclopedia. WP guidelines on external links should be aware of that danger, and framed accordingly so that they can be cited when such pressures emerge. 2005 is also incorrect, in my view, about commercial (read: larger) sites caring more about the making money issue. In fact, a small site might "need" the traffic/revenue from a Wikipedia link just to be able to keep afloat, where a larger site would often have other means of driving traffic. -- PKtm 06:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal comments and stick to issues please. Your point was not missed. It doesn't matter if economic pressures exist for someone to add a link, or try to keep an inappropriate one on a page. We should never, ever care. We should only care about this guideline, and creating it so editors can recognize both inappropriate and appropriate links. Whether someone will make a buck out of a link being in the Wikipedia is not something this guideline should have anything to do with. The guideline focuses on value to the encyclopedia and the users, not the entirely irrelevant to us benefits to anything else in the world. The comments about how a small site might "need" something, that's just totally irrelevant here. Is a particular link a good thing to have on an article or not; does it meet the guideline or not? Whether having a link in the Wikipedia is a good thing for some site's bottom line is not part of that. 2005 07:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I made no personal comments, 2005--I referred you to WP talk page guidelines and said I believed you had missed my point and were incorrect on an issue. That's polite disagreement, not anything personal. Note that Hoary made similar reference, indirectly, to the need to adhere to talk page guidelines. My other points stand as stated. Larger commercial sites--as opposed to fansites with some advertising revenue--aren't apt to mount a months-long, multi-SPA, multi-AfD-causing effort to get a sole link on Wikipedia, as we've seen in at least one case I referenced above. That's a syndrome that should not be ignored, as a practical matter, as we strive to create the best encyclopedia we can despite these pressures. I think it's overly idealistic to say that each link will be evaluated solely on whether it is a good thing to have on an article; it's not that simple. -- PKtm 05:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I somewhat agree with 2005, although I would respect the freedom of editors to give "this issue one second of thought". External links that gain money through Wikipedia are likely to have insane amounts of advertisment or sell products, cases that are already covered here. One thing is sure: Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. The amount of official sites is usually limited, thus if an external link section is big, it is most likely due a unnecessary amount of [un]related sites to the topic. While some can be upgraded as references, most other are not necessary. In example, linking to a forum with 20 members is unnecessary. Linking to an online petition with 100 signatures is unnecessary. Linking to a just created fan site is unnecessary. I usually explain what I think about every external link being linked (Alexa ranking, forum topics and membership, creation date, Google result, amount of news, etc), and suggest which ones should stay. Since we are not discussing a policy, but rather the contents of a section, instead of being bold I prefer giving the opportunity to editors of the article to clean the section. If they don't, I do it myself. And as I usually say, since I don't know about the topic (otherwise I would have done that at once), I may remove sites that should stay and keep ones that should go. Most times, the editors themselves clean the section, but when not, I do it. Long discussions, hours spent there, but in the end, most articles are cleaned.
Yes, we need to be careful with fansites. But not to the point of forbid them. -- ReyBrujo 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like some editors make accusations of trying to boost hits/advertising revenue when almost any external link is added. Unless there's evidence of this, it seems like a violation of WP:AGF. If a link to a site is added, and it doesn't violate WP:SPAM, it seems questionable to make accusations of intentions. There are a huge number of websites that have ads or other revenue sources (which is necessary in many cases just because it costs money to host a site) and that in itself isn't reason to exclude a link. If a site doesn't merit inclusion, WP:EL and WP:WEB provide enough grounds to remove it - I don't see why "boosting revenue" is even a consideration. On a similar note, I've seen editors who use the comment SPAM when removing any external link, whether it violates WP:SPAM or not (and in some cases removing arguably valid links - I've even seen spam used as an excuse to remove links to on-topic articles in major newspapers). Is any link to an external site or fansite "spam"? Some seem to think so. Again, it seems like wikipedia policies are being used out of context as an excuse to make edits not supported by wikipedia policy. Going back to the Timberlake example, putting a "no fansites" warning on a page seems like a blatant contradiction of WP:EL - as long as a fansite meets it, it should be included. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The overriding, primary rule of this guideline is External Links not used as Citations are to be kept to a Minimum. This is what 'link spam' refers to, it's not a relation to WP:SPAM, but an effort to keep links down to a minimum. No External Link, no matter how worthwhile or high quality it is, overrides the 'keep links to a minimum' rule. "Fan sites" in particular tend to be added in violation of this, and are targeted for removal first. --Barberio 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The majority of fansites added, which I remove, are from repeat offenders. I hardly ever see people who contribute regularly to Wikipedia adding fansites. That's not to say that everyone's spamming their own sites but the vast majority are. Take a look at the persons contributions, you will be surprised how many people just spam links.
Too many fansite links don't help anyone, this is an encyclopedia after all, people can easily use Google if they want to find fansites. I think 1 or 2 fansite links are OK as long as they're actually fansites, not full of ads, and certainly not from persistant spammers (which the majority are). That warning on JT was unfair though, I would have, and indeed have, used something like "<!-- Self promotion and advertising are NOT acceptable (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL). Spam links will be removed. -->" —B33R(talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems odd to use the term "spam" but not intend to be referring to WP:SPAM - unless someone specifies otherwise, that would seem to be the likely assumption. And even "link spam" doesn't seem appropriate in the case of adding one fansite to a page that has none, assuming it's not being added by the owner of the page, and assuming it meets WP:EL. I'm not surprised at all that many links to fansites are added by the owner (although that is already covered by #3 of links to be avoided). But I take issue with labling any addition of a fansite as "spam" even if it's added by a wikipedia editor in good standing, with no affiliation with the site, who simply believes it's a resource worth including. Just because fansites often spam wikipedia is no reason to assume that they all do - a blanket "no fansites" policy (or "all fansite links are spam by definition") seems like it's not AGF. In some cases "spam" just seems to be a lazy excuse to delete a link instead of actually letting editors debate the merits of including it or not. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right that a small minority of editors regularly violate the guidelines by randomly removing valid links, particularly when someone comes to an article edited by dozens of editors and then wipes out several links with an idiot note like "commercial links" (because the site makes money, not because it sells products) or just "spam". This guideline clearly shows that behavior is inappropriate, so those edits can easily be reverted (and "to hell with the guidelines" notes above link sections should likewise be removed. It is unfortunate that link trolls of both kinds (adding crap, and removing valid stuff) exist, but they do. Non-trolling editors though just need to refer to this guideline. Inappropriate removals or additions should be reverted with a note refering to this guideline. 2005 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Problem is the parts of wikipedia where "consensus" is no links to fansites allowed, and any link to a fansite is immediately reverted and labled as spam, (and putting it back is just considered evidence of spamming, or "lobbying" for a link, instead of just a revert dispute). What's the proper way for an external link to even get considered and debated by the editors of a page (which seems like what should happen in the case of a link that seems like it may have potential) if it has no chance of remaining on a page long enough to even be seen? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If the link not being seen long enough to be debated is the only problem, taking it to the Talk page of the article is the proper course of action. Revert-warring will just distract people from talking about it. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this thread is affected by spillover from the epic Lostpedia-on-Lost conflagration. I am active in that discussion. Some of the contributors to this thread are also involved there. Interested readers can find several hundred lines of it here. Please feel free to continue on with this topic here, if this seems the appropriate venue. Otherwise, I sense that other discussion coming to a resolution soon. Carry on. --Loqi T. 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One more note. My earlier insertion near the top of this section, about PKtm's misuse of a sentence fragment, wasn't just a joke about grammar. It's part of a disturbing pattern I've noticed. Just thought I'd make that plain at this point. --Loqi T. 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Official MySpace pages

Should we be linking to official Myspace pages, when it is verifiable?

eg Amon Tobin's official website, amontobin.com, has been "under construction" for at least 2 years, and links directly to his www.myspace.com/tobinamon page, which is regularly updated, but Betacommand reverted my revert [3]. (User:Betacommand has been deleting dozens of myspace links today, and citing this page as cause)

Or another confirmed-official myspace example: "Weird Al" Yankovic. (Betacommand and L0b0t both deleted the myspace link, citing this page)

If we're aiming at an ultra-minimal numbers of links, well ok; I'm just making sure there is actually consensus for this. And if so, perhaps {{MySpace}} and {{MySpace-music}} should be deleted to discourage them in the future?

Personally, I dislike the aesthetic of MySpace pages, so don't tend to visit them much, but they do seem a valuable (when official) external link in many cases. Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal against myspace but, there is no need to link to myspace and Myspace can be harmful to users. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And my bot removes many myspace links too. They are unnecessary and not encyclopedic. Most of them lag or almost crash my 2G computer b/c they are such cluttered up piles of rubbish.Voice-of-All 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say non-obvious myspace pages might rarely be appropriate as an external link. No worse, no better than many commercial newspapers where we link articles. However, I'd say most cases such as amon tobin above, just linking the official site is a much better option. If the myspace resource is easy to find through otherwise official / accepted hubs, let them do it -- not wikipedia. ∴ here…♠ 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are clear good reasons to link already in the guideline, then that's fine. For instance, there have been some recent exclusive video releases on corporate or musician owned myspace sites. These would be alowable, and should not be removed. See the section on 'spurious linking'.

I'm concerend about use of bots to automaticaly remove links. This is probably not apropriate, and we already have an automated mechanisim in place to avoid spam linking. Using bots to identify potentialy suspect links for review would be fine, but the automatic removal is not a good idea. Can I ask both Betacommand, and Voice of All not to do so.--Barberio 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Harmful to users"? What is "harmfulness" here? How is MySpace different from any other website on the Internet in terms of its potential for harming people? Wouldn't this probably already be addressed by the What to link to guideline on properness?
If it's an official MySpace with meaningful and relevant content (tourdates, for example) and does not meet the criteria of what cannot be linked to, I think it certainly can be linked to.
Disagree that ease of finding it should be a criteria for what to link, but I see your point. I raised this issue before, too. For example, the John Vanderslice article includes external links to his official site, as well as interviews that are also linked to from the official site. Does that mean those interviews should be de-linked from the Wikipedia article? Schi 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
One I do NOT run a bot for this I just use AWB with a regex that lets me preview and Identidy said links. I will NOT run bot for this as there is too much of a human factor. Regruarding how myspace is harmful there have been Viruses that permiate through myspace. there has been a history of sexual preditors there. And an one more point there is a lot of copyright violations on myspace. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be ok to link a MySpace provided it is confirmed to be a legit official page. i.e., an official Myspace for a movie or something. But otherwise I think that linking to Myspace pages should be avoided. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is one area where till now it seemed (to me) clear consensus existed. Links to official Myspace pages were permitted, while any others weren't. That seems straightforward enough. Official Myspace links shouldcertainly not be being removed as this guideline basically says official sites should be linked to even if they have false information, let alone trite content like Myspace usually has. Viruses is not relevant. It's just a free host social networking website. That is what we need to talk about. 2005 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I watch the Amon Tobin article, and I have noticed the link to his official MySpace page after planning to add it myself, before realizing it was already there. In one hand I have thought about and understand the arguement that since his MySpace page is linked to from his official site, just linking to the official site is sufficient. However, in the other hand, I've noticed over the past year a large number of music groups which have moved the majority of their "homepage" content to MySpace, and some have in fact taken down their website, and redirected it to their MySpace page from their website URL (e.g. www.theills.com). I am not a fan of MySpace at all, however, I cannot deny the sites popularity and the recent trend of music acts essentially moving their homepages to MySpace pages. So having thought about this prior to adding that link, I still stand by my reasoning to allow the link to remain on the article. I do feel that only under strict reasons such as these that MySpace pages should be allowed to be linked to from Wikipedia. -MattWatt 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreeing with most here I see a clear distinction between the subject's MySpace page and pages by third parties. There is a clash between the guide lines
An article about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to that entity's official site
Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.

when refering to the subject's MySpace page or blog. It might be worth clarifying this (without playing nomic too much). In any case WP:IAR can be applied does the inclusion of the article subject's MySpace page improve the quality of the encyclopedia, I generally say yes. --Salix alba (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no clash; the unfortunately worded "unless mandated by the article itself" is what excepts an official MySpace. There is also a disclaimer above the list of links to be avoided: "Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked. For example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked even if it contains factually inaccurate material." Schi 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me the second thing quoted above makes it pretty clear ("For example, if the subject of an article has an official website..."). Perhaps it could be clearer of course, but the point seems to be made strongly that official sites should be linked to even if they are flash/blogs/on-Myspace/that-are-inaccurate or whatever. If it is official link to it, if not, don't. 2005 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

207.16.198.77 (talk · contribs) has recently been removing MySpace links from a number of articles relating to pornographic actors with a link to WP:EL as justification. The prior discussion on this page indicates to me that MySpace pages should be included if they are "official" or if they offer notable information not already in the article. Most of the examples so far have been for bands/organizations, however. What about individuals? Many of the porn stars have official MySpace pages but not official (i.e. membership) websites; should they be included? There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars#MySpace. Olessi 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user (207.16.198.77) was motivated my my prior interactions with him and any blame for any problems are therefore my fault, not his. I mistakenly believed that WP:EL specified unambiguously that myspace links were inappropriate. In my mind, there are three significant routes we could take regarding MySpace links. The first would be to disallow them unless the article specifically mentions the MySpace page. For example, an article on Mr. Celebrity notes that his MySpace page is somehow unique or different. Then it would be appropriate. The second is to allow any official MySpace page. If Mr. Celebrity has an official MySpace page, we link to it. The third is to allow a link to the official MySpace page only if Mr. Celebrity does not have any other official pages. The reasoning for this is that if the MySpace page is particularly relevant, there will be a link from the other official page to the MySpace page. In my opinion, the second option, link to any official MySpace page, is being too permissive. MySpace pages are too much like fan forums and the like, in general, for me to be happy linking to them. They provide very little meaningful content. The first route, not linking unless the article specifically makes mention, is perhaps too far the other way. I must say that I'm not opposed to this position, however. The third option seems to be a compromise and additionally would be easy to explain on WP:EL. Of course, there may be other options, these are the ones that come to my mind. --Yamla 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like I am with the majority here, when I opine that in general we should link to the official MySpace page for an article subject. I can see exceptions, such as when there are already far too many "official page" links, but linking should be the general rule, and not the reverse. A MySpace page is just like any other "official" page; as useful, useless, or ad-ridden as the person who owns wants to make it, no more and no less. It can be a fan forum if the owner intends it to be one, and that also says something about the owner and subject of our article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever seen a MySpace page that added meaningfully to an article? I've yet to find a single one, though I'll freely admit that they are at least possible. Note that we already do not permit links to image galleries and fan-forums. That said, as I am no longer a teenager, I am out of the target audience for most these MySpace pages so it is entirely possible that I'm just a fuddy duddy. Anyway, if it really is an official page, it should be linked in from their official web site in which case surely the link is superfluous? That said, AnonEMouse's position (and that of many others here) seems to be that if it is an official page, we should be linking to it. While I disagree, that does seem to most closely match the current wording of WP:EL and it would be easy to clarify ("do not link to MySpace unless that page is official"). --Yamla 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you asked I feel Kathryn Holloway's myspace page [4] does add to the article. It has quite a lot on her political beleifs, the sort of information which is of interest to someone into green politics, but not the sort of information we could include in wikipedia. I seem to be repeatidly having to revert bots and editors doing a big Myspace link purge, and get in the same discusion about how even though WP:EL say no myspace links, it also says link to the official site. Clearer guidlines would help avoid these reoccuring problems. --Salix alba (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does it stop?

If we add "official" MySpace pages, do we have to add official Flickr streams? YouTube pages? Fark discussion threads? Does every official web page have to be listed? Fagstein 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen a band with an official flickr account or fark account or youtube account? That might be interesting. Especially if it was not prominently linked off their main 'official website'. -Quiddity 02:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually have seen official YouTube clips from artists accounts (e.g. BT's "This Binary Universe"). The Fark discussion is pretty ridiculous, and I'm not that familiar with Flickr. However, if they are a primary resource for "official" information on the artist, then I would say yes, they should be allowed to be linked as well. I would say in more general terms, any website which is contributed to by the person and is considered a resource for information on the person, falls under the "official website" catagory. -MattWatt 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"Does every official web page have to be listed?" Of course, except we don't need to link to 127 "official" things of a subject. Why would we care where somebody has their official presence? What we care about is that the article subject meets WP:CORP or WP:WEB or whatever to merit an article. If Einstein wants his official site to be a My Space page, then he does. 2005 04:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry if I'm coming late to the party (fashionably late, thankyouverymuch), but I think MySpace pages should be added if and only if they (a) are actual official pages and/or (b) contain content that isn't covered elsewhere on official websites. For example, Scorpion and Sub-Zero, both fictional Mortal Kombat characters, have real MySpace profiles (linked to from the official site). Going by my guideline, the links should stay (plus the articles don't have any other external links clamoring for placement, so its nice to at least have something). Another example would be Cowboy Mouth, a favorite band of mine. They have a MySpace profile (which wasn't linked to until just now) which has samples of some of their songs; that certainly adds to the reader's understanding of the subject, and is information that isn't readily available on any of the presented official sites.

To address the whole "multiple official links" issue, I'd like to point out that George W. Bush has 2 "official" links and 18 whitehouse.gov links. Shying away from multiple official links is not something that should be done, in my opinion; external links are supposed to bolster articles with further reading that can't be included in the encyclopedia for a variety of reasons, and a MySpace profile can meet that criteria. EVula 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would start with disallowing MySpace links where the person has an "official" website link. If they want to link to their MySpace site from their official site, that's their choice. Conversely, MySpace sites should probably be allowed when no "official" site exists.—Chidom talk  19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
While I understand the rationale, I anticipate confusion in the future by editors asking why MySpace pages are acceptable for some biographical articles and not others. My personal opinion is that MySpace pages should be included if it is officially used by the individual (regardless of the existence of an official website). I do not support the inclusion of fan-made MySpace pages. Olessi 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale, undiscussed changes

Several entirely new points of the guideline have been added today with zero discussion here. This is both inappropriate and rude. Changes for grammar or structure are one thing, changes for content/value reasons should be discussed first, including the proposed workshop, which has not been discussed here at all. Present the changes you want to propose, don't just make changes. Nobody is special. This is a cooperative effort. 2005 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

The line in the preamble; "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that... hasn't yet been added to the article" contradicts #1 of Links normally to be avoided, "A page which only provides information already in the article, or which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article." Imo adding external links to short articles as a shortcut to actually improving / extending the article should be discouraged. I think it would fit better with the goals and spirit of WP to see the italicized clause above removed from the preamble. Deizio talk 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really follow what you're saying - if a web page contains information that's not in Wikipedia yet (and there's no reason why its information shouldn't be added at some point), how does this contradict the rule against linking to a page which only provides information that's already in the article? Or are you saying that articles shouldn't link to information that hasn't been brought into them yet? - Brian Kendig 03:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Point 1 of "Links to be avoided" discourages linking to articles which only contain information that will eventually be in the WP article, regardless of whether the article contains it right now or not. So if your article on "Gully foam" is a stub, and there's a page on the web somewhere with a 3 paragraph block-text explanation of what Gully foam is, according to this provision you should not link to it because that's information the Wikipedia page will contain when it is expanded. Indeed, you should put the info in your own words and add it to WP. If this external page contains interactive games, interviews with Gully foam experts etc. then it's a unique resource above what the WP page will ever contain so get it linked. The line in the preamble goes against this and basically says "If you can't be bothered to expand an article, just find the info somewhere else and link to it". That's not the spirit of Wikipedia. Deizio talk 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    He's got a point. Though this is one of the fuzziest and least-enforced parts of the guideline, it is still an important part of the letter and spirit of the guideline. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    I agree and support the deletion of that clause. Schi 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You've got a really good point. Perhaps the policy should say that links to pages with good material to add to the article should be put on the article's Talk page, so that other editors can bring in the material if you can't do so right now? - Brian Kendig 20:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove "or hasn't yet been added" from the first paragraph. I don't see this as a policy change, because (as you point out) it contradicts the guidance later in the policy. - Brian Kendig 13:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hop in in the middle of this discussion, but I had a quick suggestion. As the policy is currently written, we encourage linking to official sites, and I see above there's discussion of including official MySpace sites, too... Would it be fair to include a statement that explictly bans links to sites that are suspecting of impersonating a celebrity? Ie, sites which claim or insinuate ownership by a famous person but for which reasonable doubts exist as to their validity? This may sound silly, but it was an issue on a page I was editing a while back, and I can imagine it happening again, what with the vast number of fake celebrity MySpace accounts that have popped up these days. Would anyone object strenuously if I added an item to "links to be avoided" to address suspected impersonation? I can't think of any problems this would cause, but let me know if there's something I'm overlooking. -- Bailey(talk) 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a line in the /workshop that addresses this. "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Editors should always prefer Reliable sources.", which would clearly address a site that impersonates someone. Can I ask you to check this over as part of our rewrite process. --Barberio 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. I still wish this were explicitly addressed, though. A claim of identity might be "inverifiable original research", but that's awfully subtle, especially considering we usually let offical sites off the hook for being verifiable and accurate. Perhaps something could just be tagged onto the line allowing official sites to indicate that if reasonable doubt exists as to a site's officialness, we can't use it. I'll look over the workshop this afternoon. -- Bailey(talk) 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the policy already covers this, by discouraging a page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If a page incorrectly claims to be an official site or to be written by a celebrity, that falls under "factually inaccurate material". I'm curious - what were the circumstances of the article you were editing? Were people claiming that nothing in WP:EL prohibited them from linking to a fake site? - Brian Kendig 13:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortuately, yes. The problem was that the people making the claim believed the site wasn't fake. My feeling was that we shouldn't have to engage in lengthy debate about whether such a claim is accurate if there's room for doubt, but when I tried to make that point, I wound up with several anons yelling at me for not wanting to closely scrutinize every last word looking for liguistic similarities and similar subjective "evidence". The issue has been resolved for a while now, but at that time I wished the guideline had been more clear. -- Bailey(talk) 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Workshop re-write status

I see the guideline has been reverted back to the contested move from the workshop; I prefer the current workshop version, personally, and it also incorporates 2005's changes. I understand that some users take issue with the editing process that has been undertaken here, but what are folks' thoughts on the content of the current /workshop version? Schi 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have lots of small issues with the workshop version. It opens too weakly, in my opinion; rather than giving a concise summary of the external linking policy, it begins by saying what the policy is not and then it introduces the subjective terms "small number" and "relevant". ("Relevance" is a poor concept to bring up in the policy; one of the biggest problems with external links is that people try to link a whole lot of things that are relevant but still shouldn't be linked.) And it doesn't give a clear picture of what it's saying - the first sentence indicates that it's okay to add links as long as they don't dominate the page, but the second paragraph says that links should be kept to a minimum. It's six paragraphs before the workshop version gives specifics about what kind of pages should be linked. (These are all issues I addressed in my recent edits to the live policy.) But, more seriously, I'd like to see a list of what policy changes the workshop version makes, specifically - how does its stated policy differ from the current version of the policy? I see a few differences, but I want to make sure I don't miss any. - Brian Kendig 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I must say I missed the emphasis on relevant in my first read. Relevance and highly relevant are certainly not the main criteria here. Absolute garbage can be relevant. A page devoted to a subject that goes into extraordinary detail is highly relevant, but if every bit of the text is a rant or inaccurate or just stupid, that's no reason to link. Relevance is a secondary consideration best emphasized in sections about "links devoted to the article subject" not "links broadly about the parent topic of the subject of the article." As for the once again wildly inappropriate addition of workshop which has not been discussed and certainly has no consensus, that speaks for itself. 2005 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the "relevance" criticisms and your changes. I too would like to see a list of the differences in the proposed version and the current version, perhaps I'll try to put that together later. Personally, I think the workshop version is a lot clearer and better organized than the current version, although I agree that the guidance on what to link to could be moved up. Would it be appropriate to move the "Wikipedia is not a web directory" section down? Schi 06:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. To me, the most important line of this guideline is 'Keep links to a minimum', it's been the constant primary part of the guideline since it's creation. It should be the first concept we introduce on the page, not what to include or not include, but that you should always keep links to a minimum. Keeping links to a minimum should really be the most important aspect of the guideline. It's been significantly diminished from that in the current guideline. --Barberio 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the workshop version is a lot clearer and better organized than the current version - could you be more specific about this? Exactly what about the current version do you find unclear or disorganized? The workshop version is based on a version of the official policy that I boldly edited a few days ago to address what I saw as problems with its clarity and organization; if you fee that my edits took the policy in the wrong direction, please explain and let's improve it. - Brian Kendig 13:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I generally prefer the organization and structure of the workshop version; the use of concise lists and logical (to me) heading organization - for me, these things make the workshop version quicker to parse and navigate. I'm not crazy about the long list and sublist in the current version's "Links normally to be avoided" section; similarly, I think the "What to link" section could be made more concise and improved for ease of reading with a bullet point list. I like the workshop version's "What cannot be linked to" section, which is not in the current guideline. And smaller quibbles: I still object to the "unless mandated by the article itself" clause in #7 of "Links normally to be avoided"; #6 prohibition on bookstore sites should be combined with #5 for sites promoting sale of items. That said, it's not the case that I'm strongly against the current guideline or anything like that. Schi 07:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I also feel that the workshop version is better organized and easier to read, so I'm puzzled to find the current guideline page under protection (I haven't checked it in a few weeks). Can't a compromise be ironed out here? People at WikiProject Spam liked the idea of a "what cannot be linked to" which removes some of the ambiguity of earlier versions of WP:EL. Actually, it would be even better if that came in right after the "what to link to" section. Pascal.Tesson 03:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The current version was organized into sections in the same way for a long time, but for some reason Brian felt the need to change that recently. This is what it used to look like. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"appropriately tasteful"

What is the definiiton of this term? I can't find any discussion of it in the archives. Are we referring to Goatse-type websites, prfanity, or simply impolite language? Would a website that refers to an article subject as "kooks" count as "distasteful"? It is perhaps too vague a term to be included undefined in an important guideline. -Will Beback 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember (but can't find now; maybe it was on a different Talk page) a recent comment saying that what's "appropriately tasteful" for a page about a porn actress wouldn't be "appropriately tasteful" for a page about the Pope. So this term is subjective, and I'd welcome an attempt to pin it down better. - Brian Kendig 03:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverified original research

I noticed the following (because I needed to refer to it to justify removing a certain external link from an article) under Links normally to be avoided:

2. A page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

"Unverified" is surely superfluous here, since all original research is unacceptable whether in Wikipedia content or in external links. If another adjective has to be used, I'd suggest "unpublished" (a link to a published article containing original research would be fine). The principle of verifiability is a dog that wears more than one cap at the best of times, but in this context it's particularly shifty because it could appear to allude to the content of the research rather than to whether it has been professionally published or not. So I propose the removal of the word unverified here. Any objections? qp10qp 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research is not acceptable for Editors to *undertake* for Wikipedia. It is acceptable to link to or cite someone else's published and notable Original Research. Otherwise, there would be problems citing scientific research study papers and so on. --Barberio 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
All the more reason not to include the word "unverified", surely. As jargon, the word has an intra-Wikipedia currency, but we cannot apply it to extra-Wikipedia sources, where the word abides in its more usual meaning of "capable of being proved". So I say replace the word with "published" here (or, if you like, with your formulation "published and notable").
This is not semantic juggling; it makes a difference when valuing external sources. The word "research" itself has a specialised Wikipedia meaning; non-Wikipedia material that is not research in the Wikipedia sense, for example literary criticism, is not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. It is hard to assess an external link containing literary criticism by the criterion of verifiable original research, since criticism is, at base, mere opinion; however, it is easy to assess whether such a link has been published or not (if it has been published, it is potentially a valid link; if it hasn't, it qualifies technically as amateur comment). qp10qp 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This was already fixed in the /workshop rewrite by replacing it with "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Editors should always prefer Reliable sources.". Making the test on having misleading material.--Barberio 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
How's "research of dubious authority"? Femto 19:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This passage has a problem because it seems clear it is intended for something technical rather than (how it could be read) to reject someone who writes "I watched all of John Wayne's movies and..." Obviously we can't verify that this person watched all the movies, nor would be a better link if the author's neighbor said "yeah, I saw him watch those movies." Also "published" is not the answer since everything on the web is published. Having something published in print these days is archaic and no criteria for anything. I don't know that I have a good idea for an improvement but dubious authority sounds less problematic and "unverified technical research" at least seems more to the real point. 2005 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The policy Wikipedia: No original research says:" Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." Therefore, though you may not think "published" is the criterion, the policy makes clear that it is. Since the word "unverified" in this context means "not published by a reliable source", I repeat my suggestion that it is superfluous. Will anyone object if I remove it?
qp10qp 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Websites are published, legally and logically. Published does not mean "printed on paper". There are a ton of web only articles on reliable sites. I don't know how you conclude: "'unverified' in this context means 'not published by a reliable source'". If that is what unverified meant, then a line should be written in clear English: "Original research not published by a reliable source", but again that isn't a good general criteria since it makes sense for technical documents, but is just dumb for the movie example above and other similar ones. 2005 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't. I don't see that it strengthens the statement at all and wouldn't object to seeing it elided. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Albums

"An article about an album, movie, book, or another creative work may have one or two links to professional reviews of the work." Actually, we rather consistently try to link rather more than that in the Infobox for albums, and the WikiProject that works on albums tries systematically to do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it seems your wikiproject is in conflict with some of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links", "Wikipedia is not a directory". It has always been the interoperation of WP:NOT in this guideline that external links not used as citations are to be kept to a minimum. --Barberio 10:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a deep link to the corresponding DMOZ category as a standard for the external links section (where appropriate) could be a solution to some topics discussed concerning external links?
1) as DMOZ is edited by humans it is somehow spam resistant
2) only links to sites that are not listed there have to be considered to be added to the external links section (and it should have to be argued why the site is not listed in the category although it contains valuable content).
3) it would still provide less experienced users with access to valuable external links
What do you think? --SESchreiber 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is already part of /workshop version as part of a re-write process. Including a template {{Directory request}}, to request a suitable category be found. --Barberio 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea in general. A huge percentage of Dmoz categories are rotten quality. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, it makes no sense to link to Dmoz and not sites in dmoz directly, but then allow links to lower quality sites that aren't in Dmoz. Dmoz should be an alternative when appropriate, which means if the Dmoz category is hopelessly lame it should never be linked to, and that a Dmoz category should be linked to when there are a large amount of external links that would qualify to be included in an article. A link to a Dmoz category should never be a preference, it should be a fall back position. 2005 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

TV IV

I've noticed there's lots of TV IV external links on Wikipedia (example: Kristin Kreuk). Seeing as the Links normally to be avoided section, #1, says external links should provide information not already in the article, is it OK for me to go ahead and remove the TV IV links that DO NOT provide any additional information? —B33R(talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be preferred to turn the links into citation references where appropriate. --Barberio 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube and special care

Currently we have somewhere more then 11,000 links from here to YouTube. In a small sample I found 50% of them to have linking directly to obviously copy-vio material. I think ideally we would want about 5% of the links we have now. I think one good step would be to spesificly mention "YouTube and similar sites" as ELs to generally avoid. ---J.S (t|c) 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that we need to something about linking to copyvio here; it's an epidemic. If we think this'll help, then let's act! -- Mikeblas 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There is already a bar against this in the guideline, but it's not expressed as an absolute restriction. (Which conflicts with WP:Copyrights) This has been fixed in the /workshop version.
I also think that the line recently added here is the wrong way to go, guideline's shouldn't be used as builitin boards for the current problem of the day. --Barberio 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary. We learn by experience, and guidelines should be expanded to cover newly found situations, just like what we did with search results. Also, we must educate, and using examples is the best way to do it when treating people who either come here to add their link, or with users who try to find loopholes to insert their own links. -- ReyBrujo 13:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
But it really isn't a new situation, copyvio links are already forbidden, and it isn't a specific problem with Youtube but with all publicly contributed sites. I've added some text on the /workshop version which I think better addresses this than the way it's been handled in the change here. --Barberio 13:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
True... I'm currently working to put notes on talk pages about this. A general call for editors to check articles they are familiar with. ---J.S (t|c) 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a result of some of these discussion, I think a bit of an overreaction is now taking place. In my case, I've written a series of articles on venomous snakes (see Category:True vipers). Since I don't keep any of these creatures myself, I was therefore fortunate to find someone who does and who is willing to share material from his collection of images with us. He also shoots a lot of video of his specimens that he shares via YouTube and which I consider unique and quite valuable, educationally speaking. Yet, I've seen a number of YouTube links to these obviously homemade videos removed from my articles in the past few days, apparently because they might be infringing on somebody's copyright. Is this really necessary? --Jwinius 15:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It seem that link-spamming is a persistent problem for Wikipedia. Some bogus edits come from bots, some from bad-faith humans on behalf of some website, some from careless, but well-meaning users who are genuinely trying to make improvements. I think we can probably think of some good new strategies to address an old problem. The parasitic industries of the world keep evolving, so we'd do well to stay ahead. Adopting a suspicious attitude toward external link edits is only one possible response. Here are four suggestions. They're off the top of my head, so they already might have been tried, or they might not be technically feasible, but here they are. --Loqi T. 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Attacking antisocial user IP addresses and detecting editing bots is already in effect, as much as is technically possible. It's easy enough for those actors to stay one step ahead of us. It seems to me more effective to focus on the actual payload that's being inserted. Wikipedia already maintains a blacklist of domaina-non-grata. Maybe there could be a new formal process developed for removing from the blacklist, similar to what we do now for deleting and undeleting articles. Inserting to the blacklist could be a frictionless process, based on strong personal suspicion. That way, the blacklist can grow as fast as it needs to, but there could be a peer review process to get something off the blacklist. If some user is consistently banishing the wrong links, that would become apparent too. --Loqi T. 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I will personally contact Google via snail mail, and try to determine if there's any technical way (current or future) to cause a website (Wikipedia) which might have a high PageRank score (looking in), to have little or no influence on the PageRank score of other websites (looking out). If it is possible, we might consider signing up somehow. Anyone with good inside connections (or even without) might consider doing the same. --Loqi T. 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe there's already some kind of meta tag that can be put next to links to advise search engines not to pay attention. Or maybe there's a technical way of obfuscating links to search engine spiders, but not to human readers. Or perhaps we could start a trend by inventing a new meta tag that we declare to mean "higher quality search engines are advised to ignore this link". In a perfect world, our effect on the search findability of the websites we choose to mention shouldn't matter one wit to us.
  • Even better, we could invent a new meta-tag or publicly visible list that means "this website has been determined by our team of vigilant human volunteers to have been improperly inserted on our site, possibly as a means of confusing search engines into holding it in artificially high esteem." That way, a spammed link on Wikipedia can become an extreme liability with respect to search engines that keep up with the times. There could be some liability issues with this one, and possible abuses in the other direction (anti-link-spam), but it's definitely worth investigating further. Whichever search engine starts accounting for such countermeasures would likely gain a competitive advantage among search engine users, by filtering out a bunch of crud. This could work because Wikipedia has grown extremely influential. Influence isn't just for victims anymore --Loqi T. 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of other great ideas floating around. I'd like to see some of them together in one place. It's a shame to let a swarm of mosquitos make us close our windows on the world. Let's hear some new and old ideas here. If this is not the proper venue for this posting, please feel free to move it to a better location. I see tons of feeling when it comes to links. I'm sure we can come up with some great new solutions. --Loqi T. 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The last two have actually been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam before, and they've come up again. The first is the "nofollow" attribute, which can be placed on outbound links. This is already in effect in User pages and elsewhere except the article space at English Wikipedia, and everywhere in the non-English Wikipedias. It was decided a while ago that it shouldn't be done, but I think the sentiment has changed and it might be time to revisit that issue.
The second is a proposal at the Spam project that Jimbo himself has said might be worth doing. It would be pretty easy to publish a list of sites we think are meanies that Google and other search engines could refer to as possibly deserving PageRank penalties.
In any case, the WP:WPSPAM project discussion page is probably a better place to discuss this than this policy talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What a perfectly helpful reply. Quick too. Thanks Saxifrage. --Loqi T. 05:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Great reply; thanks, Saxifrage. I was especially struck by the WP:WPSPAM discussion page that you linked to, a discussion which I was previously not aware of. I wish I had seen it earlier. Some telling statements in there, such as And spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart. I was attempting to make a similar point above (among other places), under the section Wikipedia talk:External links#Linking to fansites is essential. -- PKtm 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
PKtm. I happen to know that you have seen, and have conspicuously declined to responded to my escalating challenge about your misquoting a Wikipedia user, on this page above. I also notice you've declined to respond to my earlier challenge about your personal attack against an altogether different user, which began in an AfD discussion, and which I have neatly summarized for you on your personal talk page. You pointed out (inaccurately) a personal attack of mine, and though I disagree with your assessment of a personal attack on my part, I responded appropriately with a public apology on my own talk page. You and I have a history of prickly relations, but I'm confident we can get past this. I think it's time you acknowledge these problems, and respond appropriately. I gently suggest you reply with brief comment here and detailed comment on various talk pages. --Loqi T. 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Loqi, I've had prickly relations with PKtm too (and I strongly disagree with him about his "anti-Lostpedia" stance), but I have to say, that I don't think that your above comment is helpful. I recommend that you keep any personal issues that you have with PKtm on your respective talkpages, and stick to the "External links" discussions here, rather than devolving into a "Who said what to whom and when" debate. For my own part, having read the above thread, I like a lot of your suggestions about dealing with External Links. I especially like the concept of figuring out a way to reduce the value of search engine placement for potential spam links. As my own $0.02 idea, has anyone thought about moving controversial Links sections off of an article page, to the related talk page? That way the information is still available to those users who are genuinely interested, but it redues the spammish value of those links, and would also have the added benefit of keeping the links off of the Wikipedia mirror sites. --Elonka 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd bet links added to talk pages would likely get deleted as well (WP policy be damned). And having them there wouldn't be much use to WP readers looking for info, that just isn't what talk pages are for. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Elonka and Milo. I think Elonka is right. If neither of you objects, I'd like to retract all four of these comments, using complete deletion. I'm stepping out for a bit. Either of you has my blessing to scrub these comments while I'm away. --Loqi T. 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
(Elonka, leave the part of your comment that goes with the on-topic topic. Sorry to have spilled my frustrations here. Loqi T. 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) And Milo, I just re-read your comment and it appears to be a reply to Elonka's on-topic bit. I'll leave it to you two to sort out. I'll be back later. Sorry about my rash judjment, everyone. Loqi T. 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC) )
For the record, my comment was in response to Elonka's suggestion, nothing more. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Milo, in reply to your comment, "I'd bet links added to talk pages would likely get deleted as well," It is my understanding that the English language article space is the only part of Wikipedia that doesn't add a 'nofollow' to every external link it sees. So there's little search engine payoff for a spammer on a talk page. I agree that moving the links to talk pages would me a misuse of talk pages, and would also attract more front-end readers into our back-end discussions. If links are to be segregated, maybe there's another way, but then again removing some pressure against excessive linking might cause Wikipedia to take on too much of a web directory character. --Loqi T. 10:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at WP:WPSPAM re: the rel=nofollow issue. — Moondyne 06:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the need to pursue that. Yet, I believe such a pursuit is good but not sufficient. For sites that have advertising, the traffic driven to them by Wikipedia alone (aside from the benefit of a higher PageRank, which is what rel=nofollow would stop) is enough to make them want a link here. WP:WPSPAM gives a nod to that idea by mentioning, as one of its telltale ways to identify link spam, the following: The link is a site that has Google/Yahoo ads (AdSense/SM). There's also an extended discussion of the common spammer strawmen, every single one of which I've heard recently and repeatedly in a couple of very extended battles recently to add a link to Wikipedia for a site that yes, features Google ads. I think that heightened caution/suspicion is our best response, frankly, deliberately recognizing the immense economic power that Wikipedia has come to wield in terms of providing a fertile ground to add links for personal gain, and keeping these links only to the most notable and unavoidable. -- PKtm 03:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • PKtm, I can't help but feel the "spammer strawmen" comment was aimed at me. I'm sorry about my earlier outburst. I'm done brining in baggage from elsewhere. I'll visit you on your talk page soon. In reply to your concerns about unduly driving human traffic to spammed links, all I can say is I agree with you. I haven't thought of a good new strategy to address that. A suspicious attitude is a good start. But we'd do well to be spending less of our energy chasing individual cockroaches around. Thinking of effective new strategies can pay off immensely, if we just find something clever. --Loqi T. 10:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The link is a site that has Google/Yahoo ads (AdSense/SM) is one of twenty possible indications of spam. Implying that one alone is an indication of spam when the other nineteen aren't true seems to be taking it way out of context. And while I agree with the strawmen points, I've heard the anti-link strawman "any site with advertising must be a spammer" argument just as often. It's a violation of AGF to assume the reason for a site being added as an EL is to increase revenue just because that site has ads. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Milo, that was not what I was saying. I'm urging extreme caution, not arguing for instantly assuming an economic basis for a link being added. Then again, a repeated battle to add a given link, with multiple avenues being tried and despite repeated opposition, definitely raises those suspicions, and should be looked at accordingly. Let's please not, in this debate, accuse a failure to AGF because of someone's contrary opinion on the substantive issue. The WP:WPSPAM project referred to above rightly points out how this AGF ethic at Wikipedia has itself been exploited by link spammers ("... spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart"). So, we also need to keep this dialog respectful by not jumping to AGF kinds of statements when we disagree. Thanks, PKtm 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You say you're not arguing for instantly assuming economic basis, but that accusation has been made (and continues to be made) with no evidence beyond the fact that a site has ads. I also disagree with your characterization of the so-called "battle". You see a site getting added by different people (including long-standing wikipedia editors who have edited on a variety of subjects) on different occasions as some sort of spam conspiracy, I see it as evidence that there is demand for that link, and that the "repeated opposition" may no longer be the consensus view. That goes back to AGF and the very definition of spam - how can a wikipedia editor in good standing adding an external link one time to a site they're not affiliated with be considered spam? And if a number of editors try and add that same link, that still doesn't add up to spam. Where in the SPAM policy does it say that multiple users adding a link in different places is cause for suspicion, especially when other "spam warnings" aren't met? I'm not accusing AGF because of a difference of opinion, I'm accusing it when I see edits accused of being economically motivated when there's minimal if any evidence to support that claim. And the quote about exploiting AGF isn't a license to stop using AGF. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Milo, thanks for your views, but that simply isn't what happened. The above-referenced struggle to create a link to a site that, yes, features ads was pushed very actively by just one or two individuals (not multiple long-standing Wikipedia editors, as you claim--in fact, there's a whole subthread on how many of the proponents of the link had almost no edit history on Wikipedia aside from this one issue!) for a number of months, in the forms of multiple incidents of canvassing, a DRV, SPAs contributing to AfD discussions, multiple articles being spawned as potential vehicles for the desired link, the site owner repeatedly contributing to the lobbying without disclosing his conflict of interest, dozens of talk page edits pushing this topic in a single day by one proponent, etc. All of these facts are well documented and well-known to anyone who was watching, but we could obviously go back and forth on that, each of us pulling out diffs and links to support our stance. My sense is that it's actually pointless to debate it any further with the proponents, who after all saw their tenacity bear fruit in the end. I'd note, though, that AGF isn't a forever deal: in a particular instance, it can get broken down by specific and repeated incidents, and believe me, that's exactly what happened in this case. Either way, my view is that such repeated attempts to insert a link to an ad-sponsored site should always be looked at with some skepticism, for the reasons I've already stated. -- PKtm 01:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The diffs simply don't support your statements. I can post some for you, but I doubt they'd change your mind - if you've ignored evidence that disagrees with you up until now I don't know why you would consider it now. There have been a couple users who've done what I'd consider campaigning, but most of the most vigorous has been from people not affiliated with the site. You make the assumption that if one person campaigns for a link, that any other attempts by people to add one are part of the same organized effort, more lack of AGF. "One proponent" going overboard is reason to question the credibility of that one editor, not the site itself or others who happen to share the same opinion. And I think your whole misconception of what constitutes "spam" hinges on your last statement. "Repeated attempts to insert a link" is not spam if those attempts are by different people, particularly by established wikipedia editors. Your whole insistence on continuing to complain about a site that was kept in AFD seems like sour grapes to me. You wanted a site excluded, consensus disagreed with you. Deal with it. If you feel that the AFD was somehow invalid, dispute it. But trying to undermine it by continuing to make vague accusations doesn't accomplish anything. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Milo, stating things as facts simply doesn't make them so. But I agree with the eloquence of your first two sentences, and would turn them right back at you: The diffs simply don't support your statements. I can post some for you, but I doubt they'd change your mind - if you've ignored evidence that disagrees with you up until now I don't know why you would consider it now. The attempts I spoke of were actually not by multiple editors, just a few core ones, and they were definitely by people affiliated with the site, including yourself (many hundreds of edits at Lostpedia), as I mentioned above. As for sour grapes: if we don't learn from history, we'll be doomed to repeat it. Dogged tenacity (clearly economically driven) to include a link, including multiple lobbying by the undisclosed site owner), just because it was ultimately successful (in that you exhausted the ability of the closing admin to see through the subterfuge and misrepresentations), doesn't mean that it was innocent, or that we shouldn't be immensely wary in the future. Which is my point, made here for (at least) the third time. -- PKtm 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
As this is no longer about "new ideas for handling link-spammers", I'm going to request that this conversation be ended or continued on one of your Talk pages. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, not it's up to "subterfuge and misrepresentations". I don't disagree that there have been a couple users who may have tried to add the link in bad faith. But I think it's ridiculous (and a gross violation of AGF) to suggest that those should be used as evidence that EVERY attempt to add the link should be considered the same bad faith and the same motives. You don't honestly believe that every single time the link was added, it was bad faith and spamming on the part of the site, do you? "Clearly economically driven" is just more bad faith on your part - while the owner of the site (who is the only one who would benefit financially) has participated in the discussions about inclusion, (sometimes not disclosing his affiliation, but recently I believe he has), he has never once added a link to it. You're making some pretty serious accusations. I'd recommend taking action in the proper place if you can back them up - if you can't, I don't see what the point is of vague muckraking where it's not really on topic. Put up or shut up. If you insist on continuing your accusations, I'd be more than happy to post the diffs that prove you wrong on monday when I have access to the machine where they are bookmarked. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please take my request as a very strong suggestion. This conversation is not only inappropriate for this page, but because of the rapidity of responses it is becoming disruptive. If you won't voluntarily take it off this Talk page that is for discussing the guideline, I will do you the favour of removing it myself. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Milo and PKtm, I'm hoping this section will attract some new ideas for strategies. I'd like to avoid getting bogged down talking about tactics, if possible. I have declared peace with PKtm, found on my talk page. If either of you has some great new idea on how to make spamming not happen so much, I'd love to hear it with a first-level bullet point like mine above. --Loqi T. 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object if this discussion is cleaned up and moved to the talk page of WP:WPSPAM, where it probably belongs? --Loqi T. 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition of new concept to protected page

While this page is fully protected User:Mushroom has again added a line to links normally to be avoided: "Links to websites run by anonymous individuals." So far as I can see there has not been a syllable of discussion on this, so the edit should obviously be reverted. I hate to be a broken record, but especially since there are several suggestions for changes that have been presented here, simply adding a brand new concept is not appropriate. Please start a discussion if you want to make a concept change to a guideline. 2005 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not support the change made by Mushroom. It seems potentially controversial and should be discussed beforehand. --Loqi T. 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I was just restoring a sentence that was there before, and I explained it in my edit summary. User:Barberio contacted me and asked me to revert my edit, and I suggest that you do the same in case you think one of my edits is inappropriate. I later noticed that the sentence had been added quite recently by User:SlimVirgin without discussion, so re-adding it was a mistake on my part. Mushroom (Talk) 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith works both ways. You edited a protected page to add something not discussed and never part of the guideline for more than a couple hours. Most editors don't have the ability to revert such changes, and others aren't going to just go and make changes to a protected guideline page as you did. A revert and apology on your part cover it so lets move on. 2005 00:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

New tabs

Why do the external links not open in new tabs? If this has been discussed already, why is there not at least an option to open them in a new tab? For example: [5] (in Slovenian, but nonetheless). In this case there are two small boxes after each caption. Wikipedia could have something similar. --Eleassar my talk 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tabbed browsers can already do this without changing website code. I personally don't see the advantage, and I actually find it very annoying when websites include any links at all that force my browser windows to open pages a certain way. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)