Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 7

message: # Mike 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Bravada, talk - 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: * A late ill-informed anecdote: I concur that the "link one fansite" phrase is a problem starter. - brenneman {L} 02:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: Well, someone had to say it but it's true.  I also want to add that Wikipedia is simply not a link directory.  We shouldn't link to fan sites as a rule, as the page makes clear, such links are to be considered occasionally.  They shouldn't be the norm, and this five pages shouldn't suddenly become some arbitrary limit.  I also ask think it's pertinent to point out that I had a dispute with Mike at the beginning of the year related to the policy point he is trying to amend.  He insisted on inserting a link to his own website into the Calvin and Hobbes article, a situation which degenerated into a weary edit war.  Although he has recently apologised for that, I'm not convinced he has an unbiased view of this policy.  The thrust of the policy is that we don't link to sites unless they add to the understanding of the topic, and would generally be considered a reliable source.  Most fansites tend to fail our external links policy in other areas, for example Michael's own Calvin and Hobbes site fails on copyright violation, a point I made repeatedly to him, to no avail.  Let's not forget, most fansite links are added to promote the site, not deepen our understanding of the encyclopedia, and nor do they contain anything of great value.  Wikipedia is not google, it is an encyclopedia. Hiding Talk 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should have struck that fragment out. It is very valid and relevant and adds insight into what is really going on. In general, thanks very much for injecting some voice of reason into this disturbing example of pushing guideline changes for personal interests. Bravada, talk - 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my note on Hiding's talk page here. - Mike 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please note that this is not a cases of "polling on everything". Changes of this nature have been actively discussed for the past several weeks, and this straw poll falls completely into line with WP:Straw. - Mike 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:VIE|Votes are evil]]

message: Besides not putting copyright info into Wikipedia, there should also be a guideline against external links to sites that violate copyright.  Particularly, there should be no links that point exclusively to pirated works.  Goldfritha 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already in the guideline, see the fifth point here. When you add a link, you are responsible of verifying that the site is not breaking copyright laws. Thus, linking to a PDF file with some book contents at the publisher site may be dubious: you need to verify the copy is there "legally" (as in, there is a link explaining anyone can download the copy). Linking to a site offering the book in PDF format without a claim of whether the download is legal or not is most likely piracy, and you are responsible for adding the link. -- ReyBrujo 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to break that point out, as it's not under "Links normally to be avoided".  Putting descriptions of links to be avoided in "Links to be used occasionally" is not the best organization.  Goldfritha 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "[V]iolate copyright" is not a well-defined phrase. Do you mean US copyright law? Why should that apply to a site in the UK? If something is legal in the UK, what is wrong with linking to it? In general, it makes little sense for Wikipedia links to be concerned with copyright law (or harrassment law or libel law or  . . .) because almost all these issues vary across countries. Now, the Wikipedia Foundation itself, as a legal entity, may have to worry about this stuff, but there seems little sense in addressing these issues with regard to external links specifically. David.Kane 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has to abide by U.S. copyright law. And most developed countries have compatible laws (you can't put feature films on YouTube without their permission, for example). Unless there's an overriding reason why we should keep such links, why not delete them? Fagstein 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Foundation should not have to monitor every single link to find out whether we are violating it.  Besides, the rule is there:  it just needs to be sliced out of the "occasional" rules and fit into the "avoided" one.  Goldfritha 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this should be under "Links normally to be avoided." As to defining "violate copyright," how about "external links that are verbatim copies of copyrighted material should not be linked to unless the link provides information that the material is licensed." Or something like that. --Trödel 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree re rewriting section on linking to sites which violate others copyrights. It is so frustrating to remove a "convience link" to a clear copyright violation, properly attribute the original source and then have to explain why in detail because the policy is not as clear as it could be, and some editor chooses to read it another way. --Trödel 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: At the moment, the 'What to link to' section is considerably muddled. Most of this appears to stem from the 'Except where noted...' clause in 'Links normally to be avoided'. As above noted, this has resulted in the bar on copyvio sites being listed under 'Links to be used occasionally'. 
I'm going to suggest we reorganise under the following headings,
*Links that will make a better article. 
:The following types of links should be added to articles as appropriate
*Links to be used occasionally. 
:The following types of links may help an article in some situations, but not always.
*Links to be avoided. 
:The following types of links are to be avoided, except where they would be clearly allowed by the above guidelines.
*Links that should not be in an article. 
:The following types of links are strongly discouraged
And put the apropriate current guidelines in the apropriate places. This should make it both easier to read, and give a clear order of precedence. --Barberio 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should only edit for readability of the current guidelines in this reorganisation. Go ahead and make changes, but nothing that would change the meaning of the current guideline. That needs to be discussed here first. --Barberio 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganisation

message: *There seems to be a misconception here as to what the purpose of a wikipedia article is.  It isn't to provide external links to fansites.  It's to discuss the summarised opinions of other resources which meet our reliable sources guidance.  Now we all seem to agree that links to fansites are a contentious issue.  That's why they are listed in the links to be used occasionally.  They aren't a requisite for an article.  Whilst it is admirable to hear Mike say he has learnt stuff from fansites that we don't link to, that doesn't necessitate adding a link to the fansite in the external links section.  What that means is that the information should be added to the article.  There are many resources on any given topic, and if Wikipedia linked to them all the articles would become weighed down with links.  I appreciate that the editors of a page can have input into what makes a good external link, but let's remind ourselves first of WP:OWN.  It's also possible to be to close to a subject, and it's also possible for a group of editors to hijack a page and impose their will upon it.
*Let's remember that WP:CONSENSUS guides that:
"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."
*So in respect of that point we need to work out where Wikipedia's best interests lie.  Wikipedia is not a link repository, of that we are all agreed.  I think we also all agree that fansites are to be linked to on occasion, and that all the What should not be linked to criteria have to be met by any fansite.  So I don't really see where this dispute leaves us, beyond arguing over how many fansites we should link to.  The consensus of many Wikipedians has been that it's probably best to keep it to a minimum.
*Mike makes a great argument that Wikipedia has no hard rules.  This is not true.  This page is an enunciation of WP:NOT, a page notes as being part of the five pillars and thus one of the hard rules clearly discussed in the five pillars.
*Mike has called Wikipedia arrogant on this issue, a charge I'm at a loss to understand.  Whilst Wikipedia does aim to maintain high standards for its articles, something which would seem in keeping with its goal of providing encyclopedic knowledge to a general audience, arrogance implies an overbearing or haughty manner.  I'm not sure the consensus of many editors can be overbearing, and I'm not sure I like the judgement here.  It suggests a POV on Mike's part that shouldn't be there, that Wikipedia is authoritarian and dictatorial.  Wikipedia is a consensus.  Where there are issues with a particular link, the best method is to generate discussion of that particular link.  There will always be exceptions to any policy or guidance, that's what WP:IAR is there to note.  But amending this long standing policy to allow numerous links to fan sites to be allowed would have a detrimental effect upon Wikipedia.
*Wikipedia already has issues with link spamming and gaming of the policy as it currently stands.  As I have noted above, myself and Mike had a long argument over links to his websites, links which I removed not only because they were fansites, not only because he, as owner added them, but also because they violated, and still violate, copyright.
*Rather than amend the policy to be cautious when adding links to "fan sites". If they do not have anything substantial to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them.  we should remember Wikipedia's job is not to provide traffic for fansites, it's to provide information.  Where fansites contain information, we should add the information, not a link to the fansite. Hiding Talk 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the wisest words posted here since a quite some time. I think this just closes the "discussion". Bravada, talk - 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply adding information from fansites to articles without having the common courtesy to at least link back to them is rather arrogant IMHO. And simply doing it without credit is borderline plagiarism. - Mike 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever heard of references? Bravada, talk - 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! I think that my comment was a bit too vaugue, sorry. What I meant by it is that adding it to the references is all well and good, but when a site provides substantial content to an article it is common coutesy to link back. Most casual readers of Wikipedia go to the external links section for further reading, not to the references. Thus, if you got half your information for an article from a major fan site, put it in the external links. - Mike 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common courtesy among fansites. Wikipedia does not participate in the cross-promotion "link back" cultural norm that has developed among fansites. Rather, it participates in the academic "link back" cultural norm of referencing. Among academics, referencing someone's work is a way of saying "thank you" and of promoting their work as a good thing to go read. Linking back as a "thank you" in another way would be unprofessional for an encyclopedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trust the entire community of editors

message: External links to the Wikitravel website (see the Wikipedia article on Hanoi for instance) do not have the little arrow at the end of the link (i.e the right side) indicating that it is an external link. This is because Wikitravel links have the "extiw" class assigned to them (for InterWikis or so I've found out) instead of the "external" class.
Is it possible to create a similar image for InterWiki links (i.e. links with the "extiw" class) and add this into Wikipedia's style sheet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reinthal (talk • contribs) .
:You may need to contact Technical support to get that change implemented in the main stylesheet. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikitravel links 

message: This is a very important article that has taken a turn for the worse. Vandalism and linkspam are a major problem for the articles on wikipedia so policy instructing very specifically on how to handle the issue should not be taken lightly. I have seen more editors work out the details over a non-notable rapper's afd than what has made the change here. The first draft has issues (as seen by all the edit reverts) and needs to be cooked a little longer.--I already forgot 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the changes that I have seen in the recent past has provided ammunition for vandals (!) or linkspam. What specific changes are you referring to? David.Kane 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I reverted the wholesale revert that you made because I think you did not allow time for comment from other editors and/or address the issues above, I have no objection to to you ensuring that the copyright section is in line with policy. Edit away. With regard to your other comments, I disagree. Wikipedia should not repeat the same information over and over again because then it becomes impossible to keep those versions in sync and, when one version changes, to know which is correct and which is wrong. Furthermore, the distinction between external links as a general category and external links as an article section caused endless confusion. Now, it might be better to split this out by making an "External_links_section" page that would address that specifically while this page is reserved for external links in general. I am open-minded on that and would be curious about others' views. David.Kane 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, you seem to be putting the onus on me to find a consensus for a section that has existed in this article a long time and has been reinserted by other editors besides myself.  I find no consensus on this page for removing it, so I'm not sure why you keep removing it.  You may be correct, that it might be better to split it out, but that needs discussing first.  I happen to think that it is better represented here.  We should try and keep our guideline pages to a minimum, and try and keep related information together.  Please don't keep reverting people's changes because you disagree with them.  If people keep reinserting a section, and only you are removing it, then you aren't acting with consensus. Hiding Talk 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the change involved in splitting the article in two parts requires "discussing first." That's why we discussed it. Was that discussion not long enough for you? Again, splitting up the article is not among the main changes that I am interested in. (Those changes are here.) But I do not like it when the changes discussed and agreed by the editors involved here are trampled without due discussion. David.Kane 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I would like to request that one of the regular editors on this page (Bravada, ReyBrujo,  2005, Fagstein, Barberio, et al) revert this page to the version of September 19. As you can see from the history, I can't do so myself without violating WP:3RR.
My reason for this request is that I think that User:I_already_forgot, User:Hiding and User:Kilo-Lima have not done enough to seek the views of the editors associated with this page before making such major changes. I do not know (or care) if they are acting in concert, but it seems rude to do so. I like to think that, in my few weeks associated with this page, I have acted in good faith, but others can judge the history of the Talk page for themselves. David.Kane 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, you are the one who made major changes before seeking community consensus, and continued to ignore all of the voices that clearly said they do not support your change. If anything is rude, is behaving like that now. Bravada, talk - 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you accuse me of not "seeking community consensus" when this is the history of my edit to split the article in two parts? Now, perhaps I am revealing my ignorance as a new Wikipedian, but precisely what should I have done differently? David.Kane 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus means general agreement, not lack of opposition. There was just one voice in support. If you get no answers to your proposal, it does no constitue "silent support". And, as you see now, it was probably that people either did not notice your proposal or did not find it appropriate to even comment, as there is a quite strong opposition to your changes. Bravada, talk - 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Move Back to Previous Version 

message: Several wildy inappropriate edits were done today, particularly by User:Hiding.  I've reverted them to what I think was the last version where discussions took place for.  Perhaps it needs to go back further, but there are SEVERAL discussions going on here, and editors just rudely ignoring them and making wholesale changes is not acceptable.  Perhaps what we need to do is arhive everything and start fresh with discussion, but what is not going to happen here is the rudest person making changes without consensus just because they are rude.  Just to be clear... I'm not trying to make any change here.  My intention was to revert back to "the old version that has been around for months".  Again, perhaps I didn't revert back far enough, but adding new stuff not discussed is not nice so please behave. 2005 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank 2005 for making this change and agree with his assessment. It does not appear to me that the recent arrivals to the dispute have bothered to read the extensive discussions over the last month or so. If they have bothered to read it, they have not responded to it. Perhaps that conversation can start now. David.Kane 11:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Glad the page has been protected from editing so that we will be forced to come to agreement instead of engaging in an endless edit war. - Mike 14:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale changes made September 22 without consensus

message: I've just come to this debate. (Thank you for posting to the village pump and letting the community know that an important guideline was being  discussed).  And having read through this discussion page I'm not entirely clear on exactly what is being proposed or why.  It seems like some big assumptions are being made but it may be just that I missed the context.  Is it possible for someone to step outside of the conflict and summarize suggested changes in an NPOV way? --Siobhan Hansa 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been throwing a lot of ideas around, but the most specific one is in the second straw poll above, regarding changing the wording to the line about fan sites in the article. As of now it's 6/3/0 in favor of the change. - Mike 14:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, the most important part is the push by some users to allow more widespread linking to fan sites, blogs, forums and such by means of effectively nullifying rules governing those here. Several attempts were made to push for those, including the questioning of the entire guideline. Bravada, talk - 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer.  On the other ideas currently being thrown around, it would be helpful for people like myself who have recently joined in, if editors could try and make their remarks address a more general audience again. Restating the obvious and all that - so we can understand where the debate is at.  Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "most important part is the push by some users to allow more widespread linking to fan sites, blogs, forums and such by means of effectively nullifying rules governing those here."  This is not the discussion so why pretend it is?  There is no push to allow "more widespread linking".  The principal discussion is to strengthen the guideline to more clearly allow the most appropriate links to be added to the external links section of articles.  There is no sense of "more".  The thrust of the discussion is simple: some people are advocating raising the quality bar for links while removing arbritrary statements divorced from any quality or user-friendliness considerations.  On the other hand some people oppose the idea of making it more explicit that the most valuable links meeting the other criteria of the guideline be used, and instead want linking to be based in part on the html delivery a page or other non-content criteria.  It's strictly a more-valuable/best-for-readers versus that's-too-hard-to-do discussion. 2005 20:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is my attempt to "summarize suggested changes in an NPOV way".
#There are several small scale debates about precise elements of the guideline. On example is the dispute over whether the guide should specify no fan sites or one fan site or a maximum of five fan site or no specific number of fan sites. There are several such disputes, generally conducted in good faith.
#Overriding these individual debates is a dispute over whether the guidelines should be rule-based or principal-based. The guide is currently rule-based. It specifies what sites you may link to and what sites you may not. It is very specific and has grown more so over time. Proponents of this view believe that specific rules are good, that they leave less room for misunderstanding and debate, that they help editors in the constant fight against spam links. The rules are not perfect, but they are becoming better over time. Proponents of the principal-based rule argue that it is a bad idea to use specific rules because there will always be exceptions. Blogs may be bad external links in general, but there will be occasions on which they are good links. Context is important and decisions are better left to the editors of individual pages. A principal-based suggestion is that the guide should be something like "Articles benefit from a small number of high quality external links, useful to most readers", along with some discussion about what those terms mean. Proponents of the principal view think that the guidelines should be 1/5 there current length. Proponents of the rule-based view argue that such general guidelines would make it harder to fight against spam links. 
#Independent of these debates, there are concerns about whether or not the article is clear enough as it is. Should it be about external links in general or just about the "External links" section of an article? Some argue that it can (and does) cover both adequately right now. Others argue that much confusion exists currently and that separate articles would be a good idea. If there are to be separate articles, it is not clear what their titles should be.
#There is widespread criticism of various parts of the guidelines as they are with regard to the specific wording which they contain. See above for many examples of such criticism. David.Kane 20:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I like having rules based on principles, and guidelines where rules don't have principles behind them. For example, a rule that all external links should fit the criteria whether they're blogs, forums or anything else has a sound principle behind it. But any hard limit is arbitrary and shouldn't be made a rule. A guideline would be more appropriate that would suggest replacing any long list of fan sites by an open directory listing of them. Fagstein 05:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: Please add this interwiki to the article:
:ru:Википедия:Внешние ссылки
--Yms 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done/wangi 17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add interwiki 

message: I could have sworn that we explicitly discouraged linking to commercial sites, i.e. sites selling the product or service described in the article.  Is this a brainfart or has it been removed by consensus along the way? Guy 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently covered by the "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming" guideline, though it could perhaps be expressed more clearly. --Muchness 18:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording is good and clear.  We link to sites that are commercial when they they happen to meet the linking criteria.  If they happen to just be primarily selling a product, we don't link to them (unless it is an official site). 2005 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sort of irrelevant, but I wanted to notify everbody here that I am on indefinite leave from Wikipedia due to Wikiholism :-). I will be back, but there is not timetable. - Mike 21:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial links