Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 17

message: I'd like those people objecting to the original example to suggest others.  The purpose of the blog example was always to assert that ELs do not have to meet RS requirements.  We could split this off into another whole point with respect to form vs. bias but something needs to be said about form.  jbolden1517Talk 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see some reason why we should even consider changing this. The onus is not on those who object to encouraging adding blog links, the onus is on those who wish to change the guideline to make a case. Ipso facto, the old version is the consensus version, until and unless those who wish to make a change gain consensus for that change, and only then does the new phrasing become consensus. You are proceeding as though the change were the default action, and that's backwards. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The old version is the version with the blogs.  The version with the example removed is the new version.  It seems backwards because your history is backwards.  jbolden1517Talk 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that is not true.  You added this passage recently without any semblence of consensus. Additionally, no one has supported the wording besides yourself. As KillerChihuahua said, the onus is on you to present a reason why we should use the redundant phrasing you seem locked into.  I don't see it ever getting a consensus because its not a good precendent to repeat the same information over and over in the guideline.  Official things can be linked to.  That is what the guideline says already.  We don't need to say it again, and should not because that only makes it bloated and confusing, as in "Oh, you don't really mean stuff the first time." 2005 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really wish you and dreamguy would start being civil and stop with the claims of dishonesty.  Just to prove you are mistaken (notice I didn't say lying I'm AGFing) here is my first posts on WP:EL (main not talk) .  You'll notice the comment about the blog was included.  Now I think an apology is in order. jbolden1517Talk 00:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm looking forward to your apology. As the edit clearly shows this text was added less than two weeks ago!! You statements to the contrary were not true. Please in the future take more care to not disparage other editors when you clearly know you are in the wrong.  That new text was added without consensus and has no consensus. Your repeated reversions and additions of this text were inappropriate, and your personal comments about other editors completely out line. Now please focus on the issue at hand.  You want to add redundant text to the guideline which you have not even made an argument as to why. Please try to achieve a consensus in a civil fashion to add this text, though as I said I can't imagine why people would want to add it since it merely repeats something stated in the guideline previously. 2005 01:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: The guideline says that sites which require registration or paid subscription should be avoided. I'd like to know how strict a rule that is. I have just created the article Richard Simpson (writer). Some of the information came from the online public-domain old version of the Catholic Encyclopedia, but some came from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Both have an article about Richard Simpson, and when I created the page, I linked to both, feeling vaguely that the EL guideline might discourage the ODNB link. I then came here and read the guideline, and modified the article to include the link in a reference rather than as an external link. Of course, that has exactly the same effect, as a person who doesn't have a subscription and who clicks on the link will not be able to read the article. I feel, however, that since if would be perfectly permissible to use an out-of-print book that I happen to have in the house as a reference, it should be okay to use an URL for a very reputable source (which also exists in print) that requires a subscription. The statement that I was referencing was that Simpson was one of the first to advance the theory that Shakespeare was a Catholic, and I feel that that's the kind of statement that is almost crying out for a  tag. Any comments, please? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, references are exempt from that rule. I've tried making this explicit in policy before, but last time it was reverted by a person claiming that it was obvious and didn't need to be pointed out. --tjstrf talk  08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I felt it was obvious that refs should be exempt, but the wording of the guideline seemed to contradict that. ElinorD (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion seems to have established that references are entirely excempt from the provisions of this guideline, something that the guideline would do well to mention: it applies to supplementary non-reference links only. References are still subject to policy, however, and other guidelines may apply. Notinasnaid 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline does already say at the end of the lead paragraph The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources.  Is this sentence unclear or does it just get overlooked when people are focusing on a particular clause?  -- Siobhan Hansa 14:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very unclear what the topic of Wikipedia:External links is about. The nutshell and the intro to the article need to make clear the difference between external links and citation/reference links. It is confusing because wikipedia uses a different meaning for external links, than the normal meaning. Normally, any link with "http://" in it is an external link. From that point of view even internal wikipedia links could be looked upon as external links by "civilians". Versus veteran wikipedia editors. --Timeshifter 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To further clarify... "internal links" to many civilians mean table of content links for navigation within web pages. But wikipedia uses the phrase "internal links" to mean links to other wikipedia pages. --Timeshifter 23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I'd have to plead guilty to not having read that properly. I'm sure I've seen it before, anyway, because I did work my way through various guidelines and policies when I joined, but when I wanted to know today because of something in an article I was working on, I went to the guideline page, ignored the lead, looked at the TOC, saw "Links normally to be avoided — sites requiring registration", and scrolled down to that. ElinorD (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A slightly off-beat question: how am I to verify a ref if I can't view it without paying money? Sometimes subscriptions cost serious bank, and I've seen articles use almost exclusively refs from one pay-for-use website (example of such a ref: Mormons will use Olympics to cast positive image of church", O'Dwyers PR Daily, March 20, 2001.)? JoeSmack Talk 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to sites which require registration

message: I have been having some trouble with closed minded editors removing links to essays or studies sites over some articles, most of which point to WP:EL as the reason for the removal.
For instance, for all form of art articles, there are several sites that have insightfull essays and studies on given piece, most of which are only stating facts and information in a essay form to properly clarify some misconceptions people tend to have. Others do go to the length of addign some speculations on the subject since not much information is known to give solid factual basis on such. Regardless, these essays are often long and accepted as a good source of explanation or attention to details that are often not seen if otherwise by specialists in the area.
Essays have the problem of (a) not being an official site, (b) being prone to being called "fansites" and (c) so sites might provide mild copyright issues while presenting copyrighted material to better explain their points. 
However, all taken into account, as per WP:EL, what should be a right course of faction IF AND ONLY IF:
1. Falls under a "What should be linked" or does not conflict with any restriction in such
2. Falls under a "Links to be considered", considering that "professional reviewers" is quite vague, an Essay can often fall under "Links to be considered" item 1. Otherwise not conflicting with any restriction herein
3. Do not falls under any "Links normally to be avoided"
In my opinion ,if the three options above are true, there is no harm into EL an essay. 
Caiobrz 20:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the website you are referring to you, and personally adding to numerous anime-based articles, daisuke.com.br is a fansite (with which you are personally affiliated and where you are an admin, according to your userpage) which does not conform to several of the notability criteria mentioned on this project page and most certainly falls under numerous of the points mentioned under links to be avoided. Such fansites are certainly not "professional" nor "recognized" authorities, and should therefore not be included on articles. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just your opinion, I'm asking for a civil discussion on Essay subjects, not your biased opinion on such. Also, both Wikipedia:Spam (which you acuse me of doing) nor WP:EL have criterea against worthy essays being linked, nor anything against the administrator of the site linking them as this would be pointless. ANN and other sites over the wiki EL are also fansites but are know to be quality sources of information, and also as stated on this very talk page, biased reviews can also be a valid source of information, though I refute any claim that the essays are biased since they do not present personal views, but rather factual depictions of the events on those titles and eventual speculations whereas no fact is present. I will wait for the opinions and resolutions of people that are more involved with WP:EL. I also think it's rude and dishonest you reverted our talk in your page and I ask you to do not change my postings in this page. Regards Caiobrz 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You also fail to respect Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution whereas edit's should be avoided until a resolution and consensus and just started reverting everything to your liking, which is not only forbidden by wiki standards, but also not civil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caiobrz (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not certain I'm clear on what you're asking.  You seem to be saying - these types of links tend to fall foul of these guidelines, but if they didn't wouldn't it be OK to link to them?  In general I would say essays that have not been published by a reliable source and which do not come from authors who are established and respected experts in the field seem unlikely to be appropriate.  -- Siobhan Hansa 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Of a) b) and c), there is no problem linking to non-offcial sites; there is no problem linking to reliable/expert fan or review sites; there is a big problem with copyvio material. No comment of the specific adding-your-own-links stuff. 2005 00:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hold the view that these essays should not be linked. If WP:EL is ruled out for a moment, what about Notability? Larger fansites like Anime News Network are notable for being popular and well known, but the same cannot be said for the website you are linking. Generally, un-notable fansites are not linked on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a collection of links. And if not WP:N, then what about with Attribution? These essays are neither reliable (as far as I know this cannot be proven for a fansite) nor are they published except on a fansite. You say that these essays are unbiased, but can you be sure that all of them are? WP:A clearly states, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."--十八 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay and study sites 

message: Hi,
I run the wiki Discourse DB - it catalogs political opinions that have appeared in notable publications, and cross-references them by topic, position, author, and publication. The site runs on MediaWiki, but it uses the Semantic MediaWiki extension to allow the cross-referencing. Over time, I've added links to the relevant Discourse DB pages for the Wikipedia articles on many authors, publications and topics; yesterday, a user deleted all of them, citing the guidelines on linking to wikis - notably, that the site has few editors, and a (relatively) low editing frequency.
It's true that I've done the majority of the editing on the site - however, I think there should be different standards for database-style wikis like Discourse DB (a very new concept) than regular wikis. I think the fact that it's essentially a database, and not a collection of free text, makes a world of difference. It's much harder to include bad or defamatory information in such a wiki, because it's essentially just a collection of data entries, with very little original thought involved; free text entered that would be considered inappropriate would stick out very easily, just because free text in general would stick out easily. Conversely, that lack of original thought means it takes much less work, and fewer edits, to keep the wiki populated and stable.
One other thing is that I believe it's been a valuable resource. The links for, say, Ralph Peters (see page here) and Human Rights Act 1998 (see page here) have both been one of very few external links on those pages, and they've provided, in my opinion, important supplementary information on these subjects, information that would be difficult for readers to find elsewhere. I think it would be a shame to remove these links because the site fails the usual criteria for wikis, since it's really a beast of a different nature. Any thoughts? Yaron K. 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How / where do you want to link it?  jbolden1517Talk 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I wasn't clear; the Wikipedia page for any specific topic had a link to the Discourse DB page for that topic. You can see the histories of those two Wikipedia pages I linked above, for instance, to see how the links looked before they were removed. Yaron K. 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with proposing the link on the talk page and asking other editors to consider adding it?  -- Siobhan Hansa 00:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, assuming the editors agree to it in every case, what's to stop another user (or the same one) from removing all the links again, citing the same linking guidelines? Yaron K. 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page consensus overrides guidelines.  Even if this guideline were changed, there's nothing to stop editors deciding the link isn't appropriate for a page and removing it either. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Siobhan is correct. Consensus is allowed to change. Sounds like a WP:COI to me. Yaron, you shouldn't care if another editor deletes your link. This is why the WP:RULES discourage self-linking. (Requestion 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COI allows people to put links to their own sites. As Siobhan suggested it is a good idea to propose it on the talk page first. --Timeshifter 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, what I'm asking for is a possible update to the guidelines, taking note of this sort of hybrid wiki, so that not just Discourse DB but other, similar sites can be linked to. (And I'm not denying the conflict of interest, but surely you're not suggesting that only those with a conflict of interest care when their links are deleted. :) )  Yaron K. 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to make an exception since too many exceptions cause all sort of problems. It just wasn't a Zen thing, I was serious about my "you shouldn't" care comment. You are in for a barrel full of pain and suffering when you start adding external links to your own sites. Fight the urge, don't do it, I don't like seeing people suffer. (Requestion 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need an exception to the rule. We need a new rule. Because the existing one is not logical in my opinion. See my discussion farther down. There seems to be a misunderstanding about wikis, number of editors, and stability. I have a question for Yaron. Yaron, do you have final say as to what stays in the wiki? Or can any editor come in and change everything at discoursedb.org? Does anyone else have a say in final decisions in your wiki? In other words is there some kind of editorial control in limited hands? --Timeshifter 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My first response was in relation to your particular addition rather than the general idea that the guideline should be different for "DB wikis".  Now I've had a chance to look at DiscourseDB and I'm not sure I understand how it's any different to any other wiki.  It seems like you just have a set style for presentation and a fairly narrow focus for appropriate content.  Is there anything that makes DB wikis more inherently reliable than other wikis? -- Siobhan Hansa 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; as I noted before, there's no free text; few to no complete sentences; no analysis or synthesis of information. Instead it's all pieces of data, most of which are easily verifiable online. It's analogous to a version of Wikipedia that was composed of nothing but "list" pages. Yaron K. 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem to make it inherently more reliable though - it could still be full of incorrect information or lean towards a very one-man POV.  I think one of the points of wanting plenty of editors is to ensure there's some substance to a wiki, and it's not just a one man show so to speak.  An open wiki with a decent reputation ought to have more than a few editors. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From my point of view, the current guideline discouraging links to "open wikis" (and why only open ones?) is a rather serious example of instruction creep.  It seems far more appropriate to stick to the simple criterion of whether the page in question provides a useful, unique resource, as determined by the working consensus of editor-readers.  Sometimes pages on very small wikis do provide such a resource; sometimes pages on (cough) very large ones do not.  This is, of course, a judgment call, but if we can't trust our collective judgment then this whole project is in trouble.  -- Visviva 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your point of view, To be an external link a page must provides a useful, unique resource, as determined by the working consensus of editor-readers would be a wonderful policy.  I'd love to get that line in there.  The problem is that isn't the policy the policy has a great deal to do with who owns the resource (a corporation or an individual), what sort of format its in, what their purpose is for running the resource, etc...  The result is that we have to constantly add to this guideline.  jbolden1517Talk 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, jbolden. People have to use common sense, and look at each external link. Blanket prohibitions against wikis make no sense. That is why there are some caveats in the current guideline about using wikis as external links. I think there would be additional clarity with your idea of adding this: To be an external link a page must provides a useful, unique resource, as determined by the working consensus of editor-readers. The spirit of the guideline overrules the technicalities. Because no guideline specifics can cover all eventualities. Guidelines are not policy anyway, and so talk page and admin consensus, etc. override a too-strict interpretation of a guideline. --Timeshifter 03:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: discourse db may be a beautiful and unique flower, but the guideline is worded on the basis of it being an open wiki, i.e. anyone can edit it. that is also why it is pointedly worded regarding history of stability and a large user base. JoeSmack Talk 04:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No bot was used, I removed them myself using help from GeorgeMoney's monobook script. Large amount of editors = stability, because someone is always going to be around to keep on eye on things. Without such an open wiki can't be stable (and i could demonstrate that quite easily, except i don't carry WP:POINT to any other wiki either). JoeSmack Talk 05:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikis have many tools to block problematic editors and IPs. So it is not true that an open wiki without a large amount of editors can not be stable. I edit a wiki at wikia.com and that was a question I asked before I started a wiki there. Jimbo Wales started wikia.com and it uses the same software base as here at wikipedia. --Timeshifter 09:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki tools can block people (administrators etc) but you need people behind the guns. Wikis aren't just automatically stable when they are started. JoeSmack Talk 12:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikia.com has enough administrators to handle those kinds of problems. I don't know how the discoursedb.org wiki is run. But from what I have read the many forms of wiki farms and wiki software have all kinds of methods for restricting access. Most wikis are not nearly as open and overwhelmed with editors as wikipedia is. --Timeshifter 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of methods? I'm surprised; I haven't heard of any beyond users looking after things. JoeSmack Talk 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Comparison of wiki farms. There is a vast array of types of wiki software and tools. There are all kinds of ways to make a hierarchy of control for all the many individual wikis. People mistakenly think all wikis are similar to wikipedia in its openness. Wikis can have many levels of openness. Some parts can be more open than others. The individual wiki can be put in the total control of one person, or a group. Or a group hierarchy. In many wikis those controlling the wiki can change the rules within their wiki at anytime. In order to control problems. Many websites had these levels of hierarchal control before wikis came around. The number of editors is not important to stability for many wikis or websites. I think the problem with wikis or websites dealing with political, social, and religious issues is we really can't make blanket rules. The article talk page has to decide on how they put a variety of viewpoints in their external links. I think links to pages on sites like discoursedb.org are very helpful.  Of course to avoid promotional conflicts of interest the editors at such a site need to go through the article talk page first before adding such external links themselves. --Timeshifter 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if anyone can edit at first at an "open" wiki, they can be booted immediately if they become a problem. Or their edits can be blocked temporarily. And swiftly because there is no need to go through a long consensus process as at wikipedia. People are thinking that wikis outside wikipedia are as slow concerning process as wikipedia is. Wikipedia has to have a slow deliberative process to maintain its reputation for complete openness. But other wikis can operate as fast or slow as they want. What matters is their end product, and is it a useful stable external link for wikipedia. The reputation of the controlling editors is shown by the articles in their wikis, and the sources they list for the info in those articles. Discoursedb.org is almost nothing but article titles and sources. So an article talk page can determine if a link to an individual page from discoursedb.org would be a good external link. They can balance any perceived spin from a discoursedb.org page with links to other articles. Many wikipedia pages have a few external links to a few compilation pages from various sides of controversial issues. --Timeshifter 04:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a large user base actions aren't going to be swift - there are too few users to carry out them out fast enough or closely enough. JoeSmack Talk 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edit a wiki myself. I have a watchlist for it I check daily or several times a day. --Timeshifter 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I see why you're so gung-ho. ;) Do you check it say, oh, every 10 minutes? In 10 minutes a lot of vandalism or spam can happen on a wiki. And I bet from several users it could make more mess than you could clean easily in a day, especially if all were persistent. JoeSmack Talk 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had very little vandalism on the wiki I edit. It is easy to stop most vandals. Just semi-protecting the wiki temporarily would stop most vandals since only registered users could then edit. Semi-protection is easy to do. But I have seen so little vandalism, and so minor, that I have not needed to do even that. Other levels of control are to require email addresses during registration followed up by confirmation email to that email address. It is easy to stop or prevent vandalism. --Timeshifter 07:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure everyone has had such an easy experience as you. :/ JoeSmack Talk 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may interject here, "10 minutes" seems like an absurdly high threshold for wiki monitoring. Not even Wikipedia can routinely pass that test. This seems like a case of the desire for the perfect being the enemy of the good. Yaron K. 20:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discourse DB and database-style wikis 

message: For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article.  I'd like to add or filings made by a party to a legal case in on an article on that case Again not a reliable source (bias...) but a knowledgeable source.  I'm thinking given the comments a 2nd example would be useful.  jbolden1517Talk 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or filings made by a party to a legal case in an article on that case ? , still a difficult read for me; unnecessarily confusing. ∴ here…♠ 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd example, party to a legal case 

message: I'd like to hear other editors' opinions on including links to online libraries in External links sections.  For example:
Special:Linksearch/%2A.tc.eserver.org.  My perspective is that such links are valuable for creating the article itself, so while they are very useful on Talk pages and in articles with few references, they are probably inappropriate elsewhere. --Ronz 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that depends what specific pages on these libraries you link to. Some of the searches may bring up unrelated titles, so that would be no point in adding such links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would a resource from an online library be any different than a resource from somewhere else?  I'm not sure if I even understand the question.  jbolden1517Talk 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I do not understand these attempts to create blanket rules against linking to directories such DMOZ, tc.eserver.org, discoursedb.org, etc.. I think they should be encouraged for non-controversial topics. They are oftentimes immensely useful and encyclopedic. I did not even know of tc.eserver.org, and would not know if not for someone adding them as an external link. For controversial political, religious, and social topics we should let the article talk pages decide which specific directories to include. Are we no longer going to trust article talk page consensus, and admin oversight? There are already adequate ways to prevent extremely offensive stuff from being linked to. --Timeshifter 04:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do trust admins and talk pages. This isn't a hell-in-a-handbasket type of situation. JoeSmack Talk 04:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for adding links to useful resources but I think we should be wary of giving any informational website an open license to add links to Wikipedia. It isn't good for neutrality and I don't think we want another DMOZ discussion. (Requestion 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the linksearch patterns interesting. The names of the tc.eserver.org pages are perfect matches to the Wikipedia article names. Hmmm, so I did a little digging. I found out that a Geoffrey Sauer is the director of EServer.org. A User:Geoffsauer created the eserver.org article and has edited his own bio. If you look at his contribs you will see a whole lot of eserver.org external link additions. A bit more clicking shows a bunch of SPA's and IPs from Iowa. Looks like a basic COI spamming to me. There are 322 hits when you take out the "tc." and do a Special:Linksearch/%2A.eserver.org. This could be really big and messy. Probably should move this over to WT:WPSPAM when this discussion concludes. (Requestion 22:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I've started a spam investigation Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org and a COI notice. --Ronz 02:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not go hog wild and delete a bunch of useful external links. It is obviously not a directory of spam. The only problem may have been not going through the talk pages. But even that seems to be a minor problem. I am sure the editors on most of those pages noticed the link being added, and allowed it to happen. Sending a bot or crew to go through and delete all those very useful links would be a violation of the consensus of most of those talk pages that did not object to the link being added. Maybe just put a note on the talk page for Geoffsauer, User talk:Geoffsauer, and ask him to go through the talk pages from now on first before adding those links. --Timeshifter 04:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd leave this comment on the COI page or WPSPAM page where it is being discussed in this direction. JoeSmack Talk 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to copy anything there. And/or to link them to here. I also just left a note at User talk:Geoffsauer pointing out the discussion here. I ask people to imagine being in the shoes of the editors at DMOZ, tc.eserver.org, discoursedb.org, and to try to follow the wikipedia guideline to not bite the newcomers. They are trying to help in my opinion. Their directories are uniquely valuable resources. --Timeshifter 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say tomato, I say tom-ah-to. I think this is a WP:COI issue and WP:WPSPAM issue more than an unique resource one. JoeSmack Talk 05:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the disrespect and incivility? This talk page is about external links. There may be conflict of interest problems in how the links were added. But that is for discussion elsewhere for the most part. Do you think they are useful pages as external links? --Timeshifter 05:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to intending to be disrespectful or not civil. I think Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest speaks to this very precisely. It was added in spamming manner by the creator, and right now that is my concern. JoeSmack Talk 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I see your point. I think the problem is solved though. From Jehochman on the COI noticeboard section on eserver.org is this: "What do you know!  He received a warning on 13 December 2006 , and hasn't made a single COI edit since.  He did do a few little fixes to clear up image licensing problems, but I don't see any problems with those edits." --Timeshifter 07:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not a solution and that might not even be an accurate statement. (Requestion 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: I've tracked down some more socks and the current count is 249 external eserver.org link spams. The complete list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org. Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 . I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here  on Jan 18 2007. Sorry about this duplicate update post but it's hard to avoid when the conversation is going on at 3 different places! (Requestion 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You find one link way back in January, and continue to call him a spammer. You are so insulting to people. See Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. --Timeshifter 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link in January corrects an erroneous statement that Jehochman originally made and that you reposted here. Geoffsauer was warned in December 2006 and then spammed again a month later in January 2007. Also, User:12.216.41.63 spammed a bunch of eserver.org links on May 18 2007 which is the day this thread started. Ohh, and about WP:BITE, Geoffsauer is not a newcomer, he has been spamming Wikipedia since Decemeber 2004. Please User:Timeshifter, if you insist on being rude, at least get your facts straight. (Requestion 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geoffsauer made one mistake after being warned in a roundabout way in December 2006. Get over it. Get over yourself. Stop being rude. Stop calling people names. Stop insulting people. Stop violating all these wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You are doing more harm than good. Do a cost-benefit analysis of your actions. Ask yourself what your motivations are. --Timeshifter 02:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why treat it differently? Because it's a link to a list of links.  Maybe best to treat them similarly to DMOZ? --Ronz 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the confusion comes from thinking that the wikipedia guideline against having long lists of external links means that wikipedia can't link to lists of links. The reasons for the wikipedia guidelines in my opinion are to avoid needless duplication of directories, and compilation lists. Why should wikipedia allot valuable editor time to duplicating DMOZ and other directories and compilation lists of links? But we should definitely take advantage of them by linking to them. Especially for the non-controversial stuff. Good info is good info is good info. The more the better. Wikipedia is not paper. We have the room for a few good external links. --Timeshifter 04:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Room" doesn't mean it's helpful to readers to have a long line of links. Fewer is better. And this particular case mentioned here is clear spam and should be reverted. DreamGuy 05:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read this whole section? Did you read the last sentence in my last comment just above yours? "We have the room for a few good external links." --Timeshifter 05:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists of links should normally not be linked to.  These are worthless links that don't meet the criteria of the guideline, especially in non-controversial topics.  We should only resort to a link list when there is no other alternative, which should only be the case in very broad or controversial areas. 2005 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree with you, 100%. The only thing i'd add (to avoid mass spamming of talk pages) is to evaluate if you should be adding the link at all after reading proper COI guidelines. JoeSmack Talk 17:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to throw in $.02 I don't think lists of links are necessarily bad links.  For example the Haskell (programming language) article links to a link farm at readscheme.org which is extremely useful for finding papers on more advanced topics.  Again the quality of the link rather than the form is what's important.  jbolden1517Talk 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to online libraries

message: I've just been chewed out for adding external links to a film website I write for. I get the fact that it was because Wikipedia thought it was shameless promotion, but I added them in the spirit of film appreciation, not some seedy attempt to drum up business! And what I don't appreciate is some specky gimp staring at the computer screen and deleting all of my links just becaue it violates his sensibilities. At least have the common coutesy to send an e-mail where we can discuss the matter or something! This was my first day on Wikipedia, and as a writer I was looking forward to updating some of the subjects that I'm knowledgable about. I don't hink I'll bother now. Wikipedia administrators can shove the whole thing up their arse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantheman1874 (talk • contribs) 
: I don't know a thing about any of this. I did just now take a look at User:Stantheman1874's contribution logs and my quick rough guess is that about 50 cinedelica.com external links were added. Other than the standard please see WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM there isn't much else to say. Maybe we need to improve the spam templates or add new wording to the edit page. What I really want to know is why do people think Wikipedia is a linkfarm? (Requestion 01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spammer says: "And what I don't appreciate is some specky gimp staring at the computer screen and deleting all of my links just becaue it violates his sensibilities." Well, with that attitude and misplaced sense of entitlement, Wikipedia is obviously not for you. If you want to be able to add your own links and not have them removed by others, make your own site. DreamGuy 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You two are so frequently uncivil, expecially to newcomers, that it borders on personal attacks. See: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As I said previously, I think you are doing more damage than good for wikipedia due to your overzealousness. You are driving away very skilled people from wikipedia. I think you owe many people an apology. --Timeshifter 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t want to get involved in the personal dispute here, but reverting edits by someone who adds 50 links to their own personal site and not one contributing edit otherwise, hardly constitutes driving away skilled editors. I don’t see why we need to encourage this type of editing as it shows a need for personal gratification over a honorable one. If the user would like to volunteer their time to help create or expand articles like the rest of the volunteers here, type away... -- I already forgot  talk  20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 6 insults in your comment. Thanks for sharing. NOT. --Timeshifter 01:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but you are not going to drag me into what ever dispute you have going on. PS Borat quotes suck. -- I already forgot  talk  06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you count 6 insults there then you are seeing insults that don't exist. It's just matter of fact statements. DreamGuy 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly why you guys are a detriment to wikipedia. --Timeshifter 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, OK... and that line alone shows why you are actually guilty of everything you try to blame on others. That's far more of a personal attack than anything you've complained about by anyone else on this page. You really need to start playing by the same rules you expect others to follow. Your complaints simply can;t be taken seriously. DreamGuy 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. One is supposed to comment on the edits, not the editor. I should have said that some of your edits are a detriment to wikipedia. --Timeshifter 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Y'know, all that happened here was someone added  to the page of someone who needed it. It was entirely appropriate; perhaps the language is bad -- that "mere directory of links" is quite condescending to my ears. Maybe it needs to be tuned up for the ears of good-faith but so-far unschooled new editors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Timeshifter, I don't particularly care if you think I'm uncivil to spammers. It's ridiculous. Someone abusing the project needs to be told not to, and there's no way to say to be matter of fact about that without it showing just how horribly abusive the person is. If you are here to defend spammers and criticize those who don't then YOU are the one trying to drive off valuable editors and encouraging bad editors to stay. YOU should apologize. DreamGuy 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DreamGuy wrote: "Someone abusing the project needs to be told not to...". I am telling you to stop abusing the project. See again the wikipedia guidelines you are violating: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Timeshifter 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not abusing the project, but people adding clear spam (and editors who take over discussion pages to make ridiculous accusations against good editors for personal reasons) are. If you'd actually read any of those guideleines and policies you quoted you wouldn't be making your attacks here, as they show straight out why your actions are incorrect. DreamGuy 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Stantheman1874 wrote in the beginning of this section (I added the emphasis): "I've just been chewed out for adding external links to a film website I write for..." On my talk page someone else wrote: "I'm new to wikipedia and have been on the receiving end of comments from at least one of the people you called out about not being very welcoming...." No one gets a pass for being uncivil. And the wikipedia guidelines say that people should be warned before reporting them to incident boards for violating wikipedia guidelines. They can consider themselves warned. I am all for going back to civil discussion. --Timeshifter 03:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cinedelica.com 

message: MySpace is to be avoided yet there is a template  explicitly for linking to it which is used many times. Brianhe 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking many semi-notable bands use myspace as an official website... and in those cases the template would be acceptable/usefull. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 12:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it transcends the "semi" bit. I remember going to an outdoor concert and the opening band (who had a few Top 20 hits, but I didn't like them; I was there for another band) was saying how tracks from their upcoming album were on their MySpace profile. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also many actors and actresses have official myspace pages.   jbolden1517Talk 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I've got a handful of people (such as Kari Byron, Nathan Fillion, and Jewel Staite) on my friends list, and I know others like Seth Green, Will Farrell, and Zach Braff have profiles. Hell, Jon Favreau uses his MySpace profile to release information about Iron Man. It's very handy for the individuals, as they can quickly and easily connect with their fans (as well as the direct advertisement aspect). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm... I'm surprised this is still an issue of confusion; I really hope it will get resolved soon... it's been months since I tried to convince someone to do something about it... Anyway, Myspace shouldn't be getting cut off if the page officially belongs to the subject of the Wiki article (like a band, musician, actor, etc). After all, the information is reliable if by these subjects, and its design is practically universal (so its info and music is easy to access). The "Links normally to be avoided" section is not set in stone, as established by its opening sentence, but some people confuse #10 as such. -- Shadowolf 08:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the policy #10 should call out such a major exception to the rule. Brianhe 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template MySpace

message: I know this has probably been discussed before, but I am having a bit of trouble in a couple of articles related to this. Specifically, Clannad (visual novel) and Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume which both have an external link to an illegal fan-translation website. I tried to remove them before, but then users added them in again. I just want to get a consensus here so that when they are removed again, they won't be put back. This also applies to the Haruhi Suzumiya (light novels) article where a link often pops up from time to time for the website with the English fan translations for the novels, but I think right now they've all been removed.--十八 11:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to illegal content should always be avoided. See The first point of wikipedia:external links #Restrictions on linking. Graham87 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now currently having trouble removing the links to a fan translation site, Mirror-Moon, who translated Tsukihime and the first part of Fate/stay night, but editors keep reverting me.--十八 00:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not believe I am able to contact Type-Moon as I do not have a high understanding of Japanese, and I doubt they'd take serious an email written in English for an online encyclopedia they are not even affiliated with. The translation patches cannot work without the game, yes, but Mirror-Moon is still freely distributing English translation patches without having gained a legal license on the material they are translating, thus I do not believe it is legal what they are doing. This same discussion could be applied to fansubs, and is the reason why we don't link to fansub websites.--十八 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with your analogy and would assert you are absolutely incorrect in your understanding of copyright law.  A program designed to change the content of a copyrighted work that is worthless in and of itself, without the copyrighted work is not a violation of copyright law.  Fansubs are perfectly legal with regard to copyright.  Some may be DMCA violators (because of DVD related issues) but I doubt it.  The fact is fansubs aren't illegal and there is nothing to prevent wikipedia from linking to them.  jbolden1517Talk 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are tons of fansubs that are for licensed anime. Is it not illegal to distribute fansubbed versions of licensed anime if nothing else?--十八 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So no I'd argue that by in large it is perfectly legal to distribute fansubs. Too bad most people don't agree then huh? Why do you think Media Factory sent a notice to AnimeSuki telling them to remove all fansub listings to products they produced? Or, even better, why there is a section questioning the legality of fansubs in the fansub article at that?--十八 04:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a relevant comparison in any way, unless AnimeSuki was not hosting encoded .avi files and just releasing the .ass scripts. --tjstrf talk 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I read the article (otherwise I wouldn't have known what a fansub is).  I can send you a cease and desist letter for a legal activity.  Those letters do not represent the law.  A ruling has to occur.  These works are being distributed for profit if they were a copyright violation they wouldn't need to issue cease and desist they could just report it to the police (i.e. this would likely be much more than just a civil violation).  jbolden1517Talk 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, by that argument nothing would ever be illegal until such time as a ruling was already made. That's not how the law works in the slightest. Copyright infringements are illegal but almost always are civil matters and not criminal even when they are distributed for profit. Calling the police would only be for the most severe forms with pre-existing specific court orders. This statement of yours above alone shows a tremendous amount of ignorance about the process. A cease and desist order would most assuredly be the proper and expected way of handling the situation you describe. DreamGuy 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your understanding of copyright law is incorrect.  First off having something is never a copyright violation.  You can distribute derivative works under certain conditions (that for example is why we have all the fair usage images here).  You can alter your copy of a copyrighted work in any way you like.  For an example of a company that essentially does the same things as Fansubs (which is partially owned by RCA BTW) is ClearPlay.  jbolden1517Talk 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're are making straw man arguments completely unrelated to the real nature of the problem. I didn't say having anything was illegal, but distribution without the copyright owner's permission and without a valid fair use rationale certainly is. An individual can alter copies they own, but a site cannot distribute a derivative work without permission, and we cannot aid and abet that crime by linking to it ourselves. That's what we're talking about here... not to mention the wholly nonencyclopedic nature of the entire thing. Clearplay is not the same situation, or at least not to the same extent, because what they distribute is only information that allows people to skip past parts they think they won't like (which they do face lawsuits over, by the way). DreamGuy 12:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. A more accurate comparison other than ClearPlay (which Congress had to pass a special law to let it get away with what it was doing, if you read the article) is CleanFlicks, which was shut down as a copyright violator. It's the difference between distributing information on how to customize something you own versus distributing customized files with modified copyright materials (i.e. illegally derivative works). DreamGuy 12:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well if you are familiar with the cleanflix case you'll notice the illegality was the act of copying back to another physical dvd, the change in medium, which cancelled out the first sales defense.  It was not the act of providing the derived work.  This was a very literal interpretation of first sales doctrine.   That act occurs on the customer's site in the case of a fansub so your precedent doesn't apply.  jbolden1517Talk 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are simply incorrect. It most definitely was the act of distributing a derived work that was at issue, and that's exactly what is going on with the fansubs. Without Congress passing the specific exception for ClearPlay that would have been illegal also. There is no exception for fansubs. DreamGuy 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to illegal content 

message: Avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser. It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media.
In an instance where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given, as in the following examples:''
This contradicts itself.  Try to avoid... would resolve the contradiction.  Anyone object?  jbolden1517Talk 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me. That is one of the things I proposed at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 16 #Clarification of rich media section. Per that conversation, I think the section needs a rewrite. Graham87 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: This is a pretty important page on Wikipedia. Any changes that are going to be made should have a pretty broad base of support already in place on this discussion page before they are actually implemented. Timeshifter has been doing a lot of talking, but not getting much agreement and also getting a number of disagreements. That's not consensus. SlimVirgin has several times now just up and changed the policy quite dramatically. That's not consensus either. Please stick to offering up suggestions on how to make changes. If any of them are necessary then a number of people wlll agree. Until then you shouldn't be making any changes.  DreamGuy 11:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person disagreeing with the idea of making the introduction clearer as to exactly what Wikipedia:External links covers is Requestion. --Timeshifter 11:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen.  Changing the guideline without consensus is rude and presumptuous, as well as just dumb since the changes will be reverted.  And in case some don't get it, even good ideas should not be added without consensus, since at a future date anyone could remove them because they lacked a consensus when added and we are back to square one, with a contentious disagreement to boot.  I don't get people who think their own opinion is all that matters, but that's not how this guideline is going to work no matter how many times someone tries. 2005 21:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What consensus means

message: I would like to point at:
*the general 
* being replaced with 
* being replaced with 
This is a move by User:Phil Sandifer to enhance the visibility of external links that are recognized as Free Content sites. I understand wikipedia wants to promote the use of Free Content, but this seems a bit over the top to me. Also the fact that the redirects leave people no choice about which of the two forms they want to see on their articles, seems premature to me.
The whole discussion kinda got out of control because of User:Matthew's involvement, but that doesn't take away from the fact that several people so far have objected, and that some admins now seem to support this replacement simply because Matthew opposed it.
Some more input would be appreciated from users that regurly touch the EL subject.
TFDs:
*Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:FreeContentMeta
*Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:HarryPotterWiki
Users that have opposed this full replacement seem to be:
*User:Matthew
*User:Illyria05
*User:Sohelpme
*User:Sceptre
*User:Visviva
*User:A. B.
*User:Requestion
*User:Elonka
*User:RockMFR
*User:Titoxd
Please try to give your objective opinion on adding the boxes, replacement of the old link, etc and try to avoid being pulled into any edit warring. I'm trying to pull more people into this discussion, because it now seems to be a Matthew vs. the admins issue, which is clouding the discussion more than a bit. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also proposed a solution to the edit conflict --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The tactics people use to violate this guideline are mindboggling sometimes. 2005 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure WP:EL applies here since the TfD's are about inter-wiki links that are internal links. The potential for abuse is still there but it's just different. A lot of the spirit of WP:EL should apply though. (Requestion 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are links to Wikia, not Wikipedia.  Wikia links certainly don't deserve special treatment. 2005 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean Jimbo's Wikia creation? I believe these TfD's are about links to inter-wikis that are part of the m:Interwiki map. In either case, I agree that they shouldn't get any more special treatment than they already get from being internal links. Even the internal linkage is questionable IMO but that isn't the topic of the TfD.(Requestion 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick (and I assure you, good faith) question: can you point me to where "to promote other free content resources" is stated as "our" (I assume WP's) mission?  Thanks. UnitedStatesian 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: m:Mission statement, particularly "The goals of the foundation are to encourage the further growth and development of open content, social software WikiWiki-based projects" and "Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases in all the languages of the world that will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free documentation license." Phil Sandifer 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I don't see the text you quote on the linked page. Is it possible one of us is looking at an out-of-date version? UnitedStatesian 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the exact wording Phil quotes either, but I do see something very similar.  You might also take a look at the WikiMediaFoundation's FAQ  which includes:"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."' That certainly seems to support Phil's position (assuming one does not read as limited to content collected and disseminated on WikiMedia's servers). -- SiobhanHansa 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad - I failed to notice that I got redirected off of the meta site when I clicked a link. The text I was looking at is at . Phil Sandifer 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The lack of courtesy was in creating such inappropriate templates without initiating a discussion on this page.  It is not our mission to promote other free content resources.  Frankly that is a bizzare thing to say.  This is the Wikipedia  encyclopedia, not a promotional platform for anything.  Wikias very seldom merit a link, and making a template for these spam holes is one of the strangest ideas I've ever come across. I don't know how much cleanup is needed to remove these things, but i'd hope you undertake that cleanup yourself.  And in the future, start discussions before taking inappropirate actions. 2005 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above link to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement. You are wrong about the goals of Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make things worse by deliberately confusing the issue.  The Wikimedia Foundation is not the Wikipedia.  You're just being obstinate now.  Wikia have their place, but they do NOT have the same priority as the Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation covers more than the Wikipedia.  The templates you created directly violate the Wikipedia's external links guideline.  You should have the courtesy now to clean up the mess you created.  Links to open wikis are normally to be avoided, period.  Sometimes they can be linked to, but usually not.  THAT is the guideline, so please do not pretend otherwise.  And, if you disagree with the consensus and think the guideline should say something else, have the courtesy to start a disscussion advocating that.  Don't create templates to end run the guideline. If you can persuade the community that such Wikia links should be encouraged, fine, but as of now they are not because it is not the consensus of the community to link to open wikis, regardless of what you insist. 2005 23:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop being dense, sir. Phil Sandifer 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a surprise.  You get caught breaking the guideline, you don't care, and then you accelerate your rude behavior.  A simple, "I'm sorry, I should have brought it up on this talk page before creating the template" would have been appropriate.  You obviously know you are wrong, unless you STILL have not read this guideline.  So please spare us any more rudeness. 2005 01:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When confronted with an explanation of why the guideline is worth ignoring in this case, the onus is really on you to come up with a better response than "you didn't touch third base." Your response is both unhelpful and uncivil. Phil Sandifer 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now on top of deliberately rude and "bold" you fall back on "ignore".  Good lord, you aren't special.  Please act with more courtesy, and stop defending your plainly inapprorpriate action.  I askes you nicely more than once to fix the mess you made, but you insist on instead making rude comments and then saying you'll just ignore consensus anyway because you just can.  You can say you are going to be unhelpful and uncivil if you want, but it won't do anything to prevent other editors from having courteous discussions where we try to arrive at consenus, and of course remove nonsensical templates when they are inappropriately added.  I encourage you again to clean up the mess you've made, and come to this page with any proposals you want to make to change the guidelines. 2005 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (Outdent) Well Phil, I'll take a crack at a civil response: I think it is a logical stretch to refer in this case to the WMF by-laws (so obscure that even you couldn't find them on the first try), bylaws which appear contrary to at least one WP policy (are they formed by consensus?).  I hate to tar with this brush, but refering to by-laws (the letter), instead of continuing (as you started to do) trying to build consensus around demonstrating how those links make WP a better encyclopoedia (the spirit), seems like WikiLawyering. Do these by-laws trump every WP policy: can we include WP:NPOV or WP:OR material form other Wikis in articles in the name of ""encourag(ing) the further growth and development of open content, social software WikiWiki-based projects"? I also think you have ingnored potential unintended consequences: there may be only one Harry Potter wiki today, but what about when there are 50 (and there will be, someday, I assure you): should we clutter up hundreds of WP articles with links to all of them, all in the name of "encourag(ing) the further growth and development of open content, social software WikiWiki-based projects"?  Creating an encyclopedia (unarguably the MOST successful of all Wiki projects) so cluttered with links as to be unusable, I would argue, does just the opposite.  Every thoughtful WPian I have run into in WP (and you certainly seem like one), even (especially?) the ones with whom I strongly disagree, is committed to the best possible WP, and measures their actions SOLELY by how they advance the goals of the WP encyclopedia. Continued discussion welcome, of course. UnitedStatesian 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page really isn't that obscure - I found it by going to m:Foundation issues (Which is a very important page) and following a single link. I just didn't realize that link was taking me to the Foundation wiki instead of Meta - an understandable mistake, I should think. And I I should point out, my argument has rather more to it than just a quote from the Foundation's mission statement (which is, I should think, an important thing). As for the unusability of Wikipedia, that seems a slippery slope - surely we can maintain these on appropriate articles and remove them from inappropriate ones. Phil Sandifer 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears, looking at the archive, that no more than seven or eight people weighed in on the discussion of external links to wikis. Truth be told, reading the discussion, it's a relatively poor one - no one mentioned the basic issue of promoting free content (which is part of the mission statement of the Foundation, as I've said), and the discussion seems to be predicated on the idea that enforcing WP:NOR and WP:V on our external links is a good idea, which I have no idea how anyone proposes to square away with WP:NPOV. Honestly, the guideline lookst o me like a classic case of the sort of bad, overzealous, overly robotic policy that routinely gets written when small groups try to write a policy to deal with a problem. It's the exact sort of thing that WP:IAR is made for - bright line guidelines that were created without any thought to the specific situation being faced. Nobody, to my knowledge, is seriously advocating that these boxes spread with no editorial judgment. Nobody, to my knowledge, seriously thinks things like the link to Wookieepedia on Tunisia was reasonable. But in the face of clear benefits (promoting free content, encouraging contributors to consider other avenues for certain types of contribution) I really don't find "violates guideline as thought out a year ago by seven people" that persuasive a reason to abandon the subject. And, it should be noted, given a hotly contested and almost certainly no-consensus-forming TfD on the FreeContentMeta template - one that has far more people than were involved in the discussion of the "no wikis" line of EL, it's clear that the line lacks consensus at present. Phil Sandifer 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion on wikis for external links centered on whether the information they can provide is the sort of information that is appropriate for an encyclopedia to be promoting - our concern was for quality and how the issues inherent in an openly editable website impact that and what editors could look for in a site to ensure those issues were mitigated.  You make a false equivalence between free content and wikis.  Wikis are not, by their nature, free.  They only have free content if they are released under a free license.  Non-wiki sites can be free and wiki sites can be non-free.  The argument that we should treat wikis differently because they are free is a false one.  We might want to consider whether free content should be encouraged in external links - and how to do that - but that is a different question to one about wikis in general.   -- SiobhanHansa 14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your dislike of the guideline is understandable in that you have completely unencyclopedia ideas about linking. "Free" is basically useless criteria to base external links on, as is your political agenda. This guideline cares about users and thus focuses on  merit, value and authority. Lots of people put up free pieces of garbage. We aren't here to link to "free".  And we aren't here to link to unstable stuff that might not be there tomorrow.  We want to link to recognized authority that adds value to articles over and above what we can have here.  Blogs and wikis and forums and anonymous sites, while free, are in general miserable links, even if there are plenty of exceptions.  Your position really is astonishing.  It's like you think the typeface of the links is what matters.  I suggest you start thinking about users and encyclopedic value rather than a desire to use the encyclopedia to promote your personal agenda. 2005 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am. So are most of the people who supported these templates and who demonstrated that your hardline view lacks consensus. Now, do you want to work with us to find a mutually acceptable solution, or do you want to be uncivil and obstructionist? Phil Sandifer 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ongoing uncivility is mind boggling.  Spare us the petulance and act like a cooperative adult please.  If you want to propose a wording change, and get consensus for that, fine.  Till then the wording that had a previous, fairly longstanding, consensus is the operative text of the guideline.  So go ahead and propose wording that allows wikis, blogs, forums and anonymous websites to be okay as external links as long as they are free.  Frankly that would be fine with me since "free" is not relevant to value, and and low quality "free" would still not be linked, but I suspect those editors who foam at the mouth when they see a free blog link added will not be happy. At the same time though, please present a reason why you oppose the current wording which is for the most part excellent.  We state when wikis can be linked.  It excludes most wikis, which for the most part are pure garbage, and allows an exception for high quality ones with stability and a significant number of editors.  What on earth is objectionable about that?  Please be specific, don't just say "I want to support free stuff" as that is no compelling reason to link to crap stuff. 2005 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have anything invested in this guideline one way or another - I think it's a crappy one, stitched together of a dozen or so patches and decisions created for single incidents that apply poorly to the larger project. I think progress on it would require a nearly complete rewrite, and that, thankfully, it's an obscure enough page that it's easier to ignore than fix. Which is what I'm mostly doing. So I'm not going to propose a wording change, no. You, who are invested in tehg uideline, might want to, though, in order to deal with the lack of consensus the current form just enjoyed on TfD. Or not, really - 'tis all the same to me. I'm going to wait for the last of the TfDs on these to close and then go about my business again informed of the consensus or lack thereof for these boxes' exclusion. Phil Sandifer 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you disagree with a consensus doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you arrogantly ignore this guideline, your spam additions will just be removed. Arrogance, petulance and meglomania are not the three pillars of editing.  Please respect the consensus of other eidtors and the consensus process yourself, or you will be the only thing "ignored". 2005 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I respectfully suggest that ignoring the results of multiple TfDs to edit war and remove templates would be... a poor decision. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So STOP.  The TFD establishes there is no consensus for those templates. There never was.  You recognize it as a poor decision so just stop. 2005 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the guideline. Links to wikis can be done in the rare cases they meet a criteria.  They can be on appropriate articles.  But we certainly do not need a template for exceptions (and at the very minimum the template should state it is for exceptions).  Templates are for normal, mass consistency.  Links to wikis will be by definition rare. 2005 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the fandom, we have between dozens and hundreds of articles that are completely appropriate for this kind of link. Templates are surely appropriate for that scale. Phil Sandifer 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to think the Foundation's mission statement is a reasonable basis for considering how we ought to apply guidelines and policies on Wikipedia - tempered of course by the necessities of this project.  And because of that I think favoring external open content in someway - when it meets our purpose as an encyclopedia - is certainly arguable and I support it in theory.  Having said that I don't like the templates at all, I don't think they do a good job of promoting free content, and I think they are really set up to promote particular wikis rather than free content in general.  A small icon like we use for PDFs that can be added to any and all external links to free content would seem to be a better way to highlight our free content. -- SiobhanHansa 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop with the nonsense.  The guideline does not say they are absolutely verboten.  Please take the time to read it before making any more posts like this. 2005 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That really dodges the main point I was making - the TfD just showed that your claim that these templates violate the guideline lacks consensus. This could mean your interpretation of the guideline is wrong, it could mean the text of the guideline fails to describe current practice. Now - what do you want to change to resolve this contradiction? Phil Sandifer 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows nothing of the sort. The guideline has a consensus.  If you want to try and change it do so.  If not, please stop insulting the efforts of other editors and begin acting like an editor of a cooperative project, not one where you just ignore anything and everybody you please. 2005 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the TfD means... Phil Sandifer 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what it means.  There is no consensus for those templates, period. They can be removed on sight by anyone. 2005 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Phil, I think the TfD means the template survived, nothing more. No one was voting on changing guidelines. JoeSmack Talk 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About three times as many people weighed in on the TfD as on the section of this guideline in question. And it's only a guideline. It seems ridiculous to suggest that the template survived but still cannot be used. Phil Sandifer 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if there was consensus to keep the template, that would still not equal a blanket license to spam Wikipedia with it. Usage of the template will be judged just like any other link. Same rules, no special treatment. (Requestion 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You're correct on everything you say (well, except possibly about SourceWatch, which I haven't seen and can't comment on). External wikis should be avoided at all costs, and certainly not encouraged with templates. And some attempted new policy page that went up a while back got soundly rejected. So we should start to remove competing wiki sites when they come up (and I would include such things as NNDB, as it's the same concept and process even if not explicitly called a Wiki project). DreamGuy 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL pimping of free content sites 

message: Subsequent to the mind mapping discussion, user MPS has made an interesting policy suggestion over at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Proposal_to_avoid_duplicate_links.2C_and_to_shorten_page_load_times_for_dialup_users. Your comments and suggestions would be welcome. Nposs 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy discussion about external links and references in lists 

message: Could someone take a look at the recent cleanup efforts of the external links in Ergonomics.  A discussion has been started, but it doesn't say much yet Talk:Ergonomics#Recent_External_links_cleanup. -- Ronz  17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link cleanup in [[Ergonomics]]

message: There has been extensive discussion on the Baseball project page on the amount of links found on many article pages.  One of the sites in question is being discussed extensively.  The only defensible point that I can find is that this site presents the data in a different fashion than some of the other sites.  Nearly every site that includes baseball statistics includes information in a table or in a similar format.  The site in discussion presents them in pie charts and graphs.  If the information is identical to other sites, but presented in a unique fashion, is that a satisfactory reason to include the site in the external links section?  I am not inclined to, since the other sites are already in place AND tables are the most familiar and recognizable format for baseball statistics. //Tecmobowl 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's the information which we deal with here.  Painting the information on the side of kittens does not improve it sufficiently to require a link to the same information in a different format.  Charts and graphs are sometimes more useful than numbers, but does that site's presentation bring any new insights?  Maybe one should wait for some reviewers to comment on how great the pie charts are, and then there will be sources which indicate that it's a useful site.  (SEWilco 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments.  There might be one or two tidbits of information that are not found elsewhere, but nothing I would deem substantial.  As a result, I have suggested that this type of information be included in the article and then referenced.  In case you want to read up on the disccusion, here is the link.  I'll warn you, it's a scattered and heated discussion that seems to focus on my editing style rather than the topic at hand.  Many thanks for your response! // 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Appropriateness 

message: Apparently Merriam-Webster now hosts an "open dictionary" (read: user submitted, no notability or reference required) on the same URL as their normal dictionary. I only noticed it when a user tried to cite MW Dictionary in their article on a neologism they made up.
Not certain whether or not this is common knowledge, but since they both originate from http://www.merriam-webster.com and only one is legitimate, I figured it might be worth a look. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Merriam-Webster]] Online 

message: I have made a call for removal of some links at Talk:Kushan_Empire#External_link_policies.  The two sites I am asking to remove do not cite any reliable sources and one is a coin sales site, clearly a commercial conflict with an academic article.  Another editor does not agree with my views, so I am asking for outside opinion on these links.  If any of you can chime in on the talk page for the article it would help break a deadlock. Buddhipriya 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for opinion on some links 

message: Could use someone to take a look at the article on Allstate insurance.  User:Ombudsman keeps re-adding what I consider questionable links , and anons. come along adding other questionable links.  Other IPs (often registered to the company) then come along and remove them.   It's questionable that the company edits its own article, but in this case, I don't think the links are appropriate.  This cycle has been going on for a very long time.  I have had conflicts with Ombudsman on other articles, so would like others to look at the links in the article. --Aude (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allstate

message: I am coming across many articles filled with these sort of links (an example would be Visual Basic. My understanding of external links was that they should be included if they add to the content of the page, in an encyclopedic way (or are the official publisher etc..). What is the situation with howto's?-Localzuk(talk) 12:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that if external links could "add content", then they should NOT be external links but rather used as references. On the other hand, how-to's and such like are EXACTLY the kind of things that should be externally linked, as they provide useful content that is WP:NOT included in the 'pedia. Zunaid©® 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that in most cases how-tos should not be linked. The important thing about an external link is that it be to a site that contains encyclopedic information by a reliable source (most often at a level of detail inappropriate for general encyclopedia article). How-tos don't constitute encyclopedic content and since external links should be kept to a minimum, it seems like in general they should not be linked. Wikipedia itself should not include "how-to" info (WP:NOT#IINFO) and I haven't seen an instance where a link to a "how-to" was appropriate. (Although, I don't rule out the possibility.) Nposs 14:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we certainly don't want a whole sheaf of them as exist in Visual Basic... in most cases such as this, there are a few major portals/directories to which we can leave the job of linking specific how-to resources.  I would say the general rule should be "maximum 1, only where of remarkable merit."  -- Visviva 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howto's, free code, tips and tutorials links