Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 10

message: Is there any requirement that the external links be in a particular order? Some articles have the links alphabetized, while others seem to be organized based on when they were added. Tkrpata 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's an issue then the article clearly has too many links. Do you have a specific example? Thanks/wangi 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two links is considered to be too many links now? Koweja 22:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? I do not think that was the intention of the original question. Clearly the more link there are the more ordering becomes an issue, and the more link there are the more likely it is that there are too many. Thanks/wangi 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Official links go first. If necessary, use subtitles like ; Official sites and ; Unofficial sites and put the links there. Inserting fan sites in the middle of official ones is a very good way of catching spam. As for order, there is no specific rule. Maybe you can sort them in order of reliability. -- ReyBrujo 22:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link order

message: How welcome are wikitravel links on wikipedia articles?--202.164.137.59 15:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikitravel links

message: My link to youtube.com in a footnote was deleted, apparently because someone posted on WP:EL that "knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."  I was going to challenge the deletion of my footnote by realized that I can't because the WP:EL IS NOT FOOTNOTED and is locked from being edited.  Wikipedia cannot base its policy on statements lacking a cited source of information.
I work hard to cite all my sources of information and to find one of them deleted because of some un-sourced, over exaggerated, and mostly untrue statement leaves me shaking my head.  The source of the WP:EL sentence "knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States"  needs to be cited so that I can show you several reasons why this statement is wrong. -- Jreferee 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This part of the external links guidelines comes directly from our copyright policy. You should be able to cite your source without linking to copyright information.  Please also note that Wikipedia can base its policies on uncited statements, and most Wikipedia policy is based on values and ideas about human behavior that are not verified by reliable sources. Many Wikipedian's would be against linking to copyright violations regardless of whether there was the possibility of legal sanctions - they simply believe it is the right thing to do. It is the consensus of the community, and the occasional pass down from the foundation that determines which rules we turn into policy and guidelines on Wikipedia.  --Siobhan Hansa 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributory infringement

message: I wonder if we don't need to cover Wikis.  For a long time, I gave them a pass without really looking-- they were wikis after all.  But if you do look, many of them turn out to be written by one or two editors, and they are frequently linked to when they contain at best a handful of articles.  Some also are used essentially as forums.  Seems to me many belong in the same category as blogs, forums, et al.
While on the subject, I recently had a run-in with an editor who took "Links to forums, [...] unless mandated by the article itself" to mean "was really really important to some readers of the article".  I think what is meant is "the article is actually about the blog/forum/etc. (as stated under Proposed_re-organisation, above, by Bravada, talk - 23:11, 11 October 2006). Can we get agreement on this, and change the policy accordingly? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikis are one level below blogs and should never be linked to.  Obviously if we put a value on reliability and stability at all, no public wiki should ever be linked to. 2005 22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's an argument to be made for not using wikis as references or sources, but I don't see any reason not to link to them if it's appropriate.  After all, linking isn't necessarily an endorsement of the content there, just pointing out that it exists and where it's available - there's a link to Weekly World News.  Wikipedia obviously doesn't have a problem with linking to wikis as evidenced by links to Wiktionary, WikiBooks, and a number of others on the main page.  And if it's objectionable to link to an external wiki on the grounds that there might be inaccurate info there, shouldn't a wikipedia article not link to other wikipedia articles for the same reason?  (I'm only partly kidding.)  Any argument that all wikis inherenly bad must apply to wikipedia as well.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree-- I was referring to wikis with a handful of editors.  I wouldn't be working here if I didn't believe that the open source process yields worthwhile results, but it does require a reasonably high level of participation to work.  I must say, though, that outside of Wikimedia wikis, I haven't encountered many I think we should link to. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to Wikipedia Foundation pages aren't the same as external links.  Any guideline that prohibits blogs plainly implies a prohibition against wikis as blogs are infinitely more stable and reliable, even if they aren't very much of either. 2005 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "plainly implies a prohibition against wikis" is your interpretation, and in my eyes it's a stretch.  If it "plainly" prohibited something, it would come out and say it.  I think that many WP editors would take issue with your opinion that wikipedia is infinitely less reliable than blogs.  And as far as I can tell "stable and reliable" aren't necessary criteria for an external link, based on this policy and based on what is linked from WP.  What's wrong with judging each wiki on its own merits based on the criteria here?  Why would it be necessary to make the blanket statement that all wikis are inherently bad?  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be absurd about it. We are talking in general.  Obviously the very best maintained wiki is "better" than the very worst maintained "blog".  However, also obviously this encyclopedia says that citing itself is not a reliable source.  Anything that can be defaced by a random user is not trustable. "Why would it be necessary to make the blanket statement that all wikis are inherently bad?"  Why is it necessary to say all blogs are bad?  I hate blogs in terms of their trust and value, but I don't think they should be always prohibited (if not offical). SOME are fine. However if they are prohibited, it is obvious that a type of thing that can be instantly anonymously edited by many crackpots is less reliable than something put out by one crackpot. Wikis should be, at best, treated like blogs. That's all. 2005 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree with you that blogs aren't inherently bad, and I don't think it makes sense to forbid links to any blog, especially when we're seeing blogs published by major periodicals, written by the same writers.  I don't think it makes sense to try and compare wikis and blogs in this context, or use the exclusion of one as justification for the exclusion of the other.  And while I agree that wikis generally shouldn't be cited, this article isn't about citations: "This guideline refers to external links other than citations."  As long as an external link isn't a citation, I don't see why it must be disqualified for not being "trustable".  Linking to a site doesn't mean that wikipedia is promising that the information there is 100% accurate.  Look at IMDB, it's notoriously inaccurate (and open to editing by the public) yet it is linked on virtually every article about a movie, tv show, actor, or filmmaker.  What's the objection to judging each wiki on it's merits, since many are reliable and accurate?  (same goes for blogs)  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, IMDB cannot be edited directly.  Users can submit information, which may or may not be accepted.  I'm unaware of IMDB being notorious for inaccuracy-- do you mean like Wikipedia is notorious :-)  -- Mwanner | Talk 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple examples are upcoming movies - IMDB tends to include any rumored info on future films regardless of source (or lack of).  Also, casting info on individual episodes is horrible, there's tons of stuff that is simply wrong.  They supposedly have people screening info, but I suspect that they can't come close to keeping up and just end up taking much of it without even checking.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikis 

message: Any objections to replacing the current youtube specific wording with this...
:"Links to sites containing publicly contributed content, such as video upload sites or photo collections, should be removed if the copyright status is in doubt."
--Barberio 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I object to assumptions based on no evidence.  Hopefully that's a pretty small objection to most people.  No evidence usually means no crime. Wjhonson 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Youtube wording. 

message: This guideline needs to address linking to pages in sister wiki projects like WikiSource, WikiCommons, etc. And throw in WikiTravel while you're at it :) i.e. what templates are useful, what pages should be linked to, should they go at the top of the list or the bottom, etc. Kaldari 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to Sister wiki projects 

message: Hey folks, I was wondering if I could get your feedback on an appropriate upper bound of links for an article to have. Animal rights has a considerable number that seems a touch unnecessary. Is there any policy on reducing the amount of links in an article? --Brad Beattie (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I swear I put a tag in that article... -- ReyBrujo 13:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no, someone else had done that, and I had agreed while reviewing the articles at the external links cleanup. First of all, move all the external links into a proper section. They have just merged it into the Further reading one. All links that point to the homepage of a site are external links, those that point to pages other than the main one could be considered further reading (AGF). Then, trim the external links section. The fact that someone had merged the further reading and the external links section is an attempt to keep them there, so I would suggest splitting back and purging as many as possible. -- ReyBrujo 13:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasonable number of external links 

message: I might add that on Google Maps, there is a warning (in comments) " ATTENTION! DO NOT ADD LINKS WITHOUT DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE.  THEY WILL BE REMOVED."  This is enforced, and I think is helpful in keeping the link section in check.  If consensus on the talk page says okay, then the link can be added.  Harsh as it may sound, this strategy is used on the main September 11, 2001 attacks page and it works.  On most pages, such explicit warnings may not be needed, but maybe the guideline needs to mention something about consensus for adding links.  After official websites, I think consensus is the next important criteria. --Aude (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: I just wanted to say I think you did a great job on the re-write.  The guideline is much clearer, much easier to follow, and better presented. Thank you all for your hard work.  --Siobhan Hansa 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great re-write 

message: Another article I'm currently working on, Gun violence in the United States, I am VERY hesitant to even include ANY external links.  Anything pertinent is included as a reference.  Once an external links section is added, it's vulnerable to POV linkspam (see Gun politics in the United States#External links).  I wonder if including zero links is okay? I'd rather not open a can of worms for links. I can think of one or two "official" government links   to include if we must include an External links section. But these also are included in some way or another as references. Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement to have an external links section to become a Featured Article, no. JBKramer 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In some cases I can see where the appropriate number of external links would be zero. --Barberio 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are external links required?

message: Per this announcement Open Directory Project seems to be having some ongoing technical problems.  In light of that, should the recommendation to link to it be removed, at least temporarily? Little Miss Might Be Wrong 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ODP is still working, and links there still direct to visible pages. This is only a problem with their dynamic content backend, and will lead to a delay in adding links there. This isn't (yet) an issue that calls for removing the recommendation. --Barberio 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with ODP 

message: I see many changes over the last few days, but see no discussion about these changes. I have reverted to previous consensus version. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the rewrite discussion archive. It's been going on for months. - Mike | Talk  01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes of last few days? 

message: Until recently, the section "Links normally to be avoided" included the exception "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless it is being used as a source".  For clarity on sourcing, should not that exception be carried forward to the new "Sites requiring registration" section? --CliffC 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, we say up top that editors should "Refer to the citation guideline for instructions on citing sources". Seems to me we should leave it to that page to cover. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: External links that require registration are not useful, just as external links that require special software for browsing (Java, Flash, IRC, etc). However, if you are using such external link as reference, and you are showing exactly where the reference is being used (that is, it is an inline citation and not just a link in the references section), then it can stay as reference. Thus, I agree that we should point that out, with a link to the citation guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, yes, I was referring to in-line cites.  The citation guideline mentioned by Mwanner doesn't seem to mention sites requiring registration just yet, so I'll hope to see it in "Sites requiring registration".  Thanks.  --CliffC 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sites requiring registration  

message: I saw an interesting Edit summary just now: "rm linkspam, sites solicit financial contributions" (at Arctic Refuge drilling controversy).  I'm kind of sympathetic-- I see lots of links added to pages that, among other things, seek contributions.  Generally I just judge the site on the usefulness of its content, ignoring the funds pitch (though if the site is borderline useful, I tend to count the pitch against it).
Of course, one could look at fundraising on a site as the equivalent of direct retail sales, the major red flag for me.  So, should we mention fundraising?  If so, as a major bar to inclusion, or a minor one? -- Mwanner | Talk 21:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing a link from a site just because they solicit contributions is terrible. The guideline already mentions an excessive advertising, so nothing else is needed. A fundraising link on any site or page should be irrelevant. But like any other type of money-making, if that is excessive and all the site/link is about, then it isn't appropriate. 2005 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sites that solicit contributions 

message: What is the purpose of including external links? I don't see anything in the policy explaining why external links should be included at all. I mean... it's kind of obvious, but I thought that stating the purpose could decrease the edit wars. -Freekee 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose =

message: I discovered a great website/portal about all things African (knowingafrica.com) that I wanted to add to the Africa, but after adding it today, it has subsequently been removed.  I would like to understand this better and challenge the rationale for having it removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.55.223 (talk • contribs) 03:25, November 20, 2006
:Looks like a nice resource to me.  The folks at Africa recently went through a large purge in external links Talk:Africa#External_links_section.  Even though there is nothing obviously wrong with the link, wikipedia is not a link directory, and the community behind Africa may feel that they have enough resources already.  Raise the issue on the article talk page at Talk:Africa if you feel strongly about its inclusion.  ∴ here…♠ 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also possible that it was reverted because it was added five instances of it were added at once .  I remember seeing it at the time and considered removing it myself as being a spammy sort of behavior, but didn't 'cause I don't edit that article much. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an external link...why was recommended my link rejected? 

message: I am just bringing to everyone's attention that there is a citation in the policy, but there is no instance of .  A footnotes section should probably be added (or the citation removed).  – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  05:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation in the guideline 

message: I was looking at the text which begins "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines otherwise...". I can see a problem with this. This is all very well for the small site where someone wants to promote it. But how about, for example, a big company which has a tie-in cross product web site: official but secondary, relating to perhaps dozens of articles. They can post this and the person can say "I don't own or maintain this site. I don't even work for the company that made the products, nor the one that created the site: I work for the marketing company they hired". I'd like to suggest an investigation of whether this form of words could be made more all-inclusive; or indeed whether adding such links is a valuable service to Wikipedia readers and shouldn't be stopped; or whether existing policies are adequate. Notinasnaid 11:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No investigation is needed. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest already addresses this problem. Even if you are not employed directly by the company, or the company that made the site, acting as an agent for either constitutes a conflict of interest. I've updated the guideline to add 'acting as an agent'. --Barberio 12:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this apply to sites where users can add or edit content, which could include wikis, imdb, etc.  Is anyone who edits disqualified?  Admins?  Just the owner?  Can the article about YouTube only be edited by people who've never uploaded a video?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you originated the specific content on Youtube OR you are the owner, employee or agent of Youtube, then it's a conflict of interests. If you uploaded an unrelated video, then there's no conflict. --Barberio 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This would certainly include those who set up wikis then seek to use Wikipedia to promote them. But not, I think, those who add to it. Notinasnaid 14:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A website that you own or maintain" 

message: I would like more information about this policy. Most websites these days include a blog component, as it's the thing to do. However, does that mean that a website that includes a blog IS a blog for the purposes of this policy? In other words, say you have a content management website with longer articles and also some blog entries. Is this automatically exluded because of the blog component? Some article editors seem to think so.
*No. It means we should not (in general) link to the blog part, but rather to the static part of the site. (Radiant) 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the confusion is probably because WP policies assume that all blogs are self published, which isn't the case any more.  Where is this discussion going on?  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current discussion is on Talk:Ava Lowery, but I don't think it is applicable to that particular article. But I am being insistently told there that WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves is no longer policy, and that ANY link to a blog in ANY case is to be removed. Obviously, since this exception for primary sources is still in WP:RS and WP:V, someone is confused, and I don't think it's me. Crockspot 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps those taking that position have missed the first line of the "Links normally to be avoided" section, namely "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:"  I think the equivalent exception used to be in the blog entry itself; when it was made an overall exception, people may have thought it was simply removed from the blog entry. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Linking to "Blogs" 

message: It's been my understanding for a while that we don't link to websites of song lyrics because they keep those lyrics posted in violation of copyright. I don't see anything in this guideline that directly addresses this question, so I thought I'd ask here. Is it legit to link to lyrics sites, such as Beatles Music Lyrics? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly not all lyrics sites violate copyright; some may have very old songs or may be official provided or with permission. But in other cases, it is covered by Restrictions on linking, item 2. Notinasnaid 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  currently has 662 links. These sites are usually in copyright violation because the lyrics are copyrighted by their authors, who don't permit redistribution unless granted permission. I suggest removing all these links, as well as any other site with lyrics. -- ReyBrujo 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, it is not our task to prove these links don't break copyright, it is the task of the editor linking to the site. Thus, I suggest removing them unless the editor informs that the site is not breaking copyright. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the strong language "prove".  It is certainly not the task of editors adding links to "prove" anything, copyright or not.  It is only our task to have a certain level of belief that the material is not in violation of copyright.  That belief only has to extend as far as : "It appears to be the work of the author". Any more harsh position would disasterously affect wikipedia's ability to link to anything. Wjhonson 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unluckily, linking to sites that breach copyright without doing anything to prevent it is considered breaking copyright, as stated in the Fair use pages. Thus, someone linking to a lyrics site is effectively working against Wikipedia, making us as guilty as himself. It is not different from linking to YouTube, a PDF version of a book, or a mp3 file. While pointing to lyrics in the official site of the singer or band is fine, linking to these generic sites is not. Note that some sites have agreements with determined record companies to upload certain lyrics, but most don't. -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a completely incorrect representation of case law on this subject.  Scare tactics will not stop me and other editors from continuing to link to sites that make Fair use of copyrighted materials and sites which have material whose copyright is suspect or stated for use.  YouTube is a medium for exchange of material that may be in the public domain, and may be copyrighted by the person posting to it.  Any links reverted on presumption, are subject to edit-warring.  Editors are not responsible, under case law, for items they felt were fair use.  Don't wikilawyer me on the subject. Wjhonson 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already stated (maybe you decided to bypass that part), some lyrics site have agreements with record companies or with bands to post the lyrics, while others do not. Extensive copy of copyrighted text (commonly, 100% in these sites, as they post lyrics for the full album) cannot be justified under Fair use. Trying to think you can justify anything under Fair use is faulty. While I am saying "Let's clarify that a site posting the full contents of an album cannot claim fair use and should not be linked because it is breaking copyright unless explicitly stating they have an agreement with record companies", you are basically saying "No, let's not mention it, so that the editors of Wikipedia can claim ignorance and thus not being held responsible". I will point you to www.azlyrics.com/copyright.html, a site that posts lyrics. This site clarifies that Unless you have received permission from the copyright owner or their representative to distribute the lyrics from their songs, you are in violation of the law. and that a certain Publisher demand us to cease and desist from offering these unauthorized lyrics for distribution via our website. In other words, even these sites know posting determined lyrics can violate the law, they do not invoke Fair use to continue posting the lyrics, and that they would remove lyrics when asked to. They are not claiming "ignorance" as a safeguard like you, but instead "let's hope nobody realizes about this", which is the same approach torrent sites use ("If something you are copyright owner is here, please tell us so that we remove it"). The editor inserting the link must get sure the link he is adding is not breaking copyright. Or, as with images, we will have to have a team checking every link to see whether the link is breaking copyright or not. And since we get 15-20 new external links per minute, that is pretty impossible. -- ReyBrujo 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "The copyright owner must show that the webmaster actually knew or should have known of the infringing activity."  I direct your attention to "must show" which is not a statement by the owner, it's that they have to *prove* their case by the preponderence of the evidence.  Also I direct your attention to "actually knew".  Technical language which excludes the case where the infringement exists, but the infringer did not know.  I rest my case. Wjhonson 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wjhonson, a C&D order would need to be dealt with by our lawyer... and he costs a lot of mula.  I prefer to see donations be spent on servers and bandwidth. ---J.S (t|c) 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All a C&D says is "stop doing that".  You don't need a lawyer to stop doing something.  It's another red herring argument.  Again I'm not suggesting linking to sites that can be SHOWN to be in violation.  Only that we cannot restrict linking to sites about which a reverting editor has not made any attempt to *determine* *whether* they are in violation.  It should not be up-to-the submitting editor to *prove* that a site isn't in violation.  That would be an almost unbelievable high bar to cross. How exactly do you prove something like that? Wjhonson 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally disagree with this. It is the burden of the person adding information to provide references for it, and it is the duty of a licensee to show that they have a license. So why shouldn't the person adding a link show that the link is properly licensed. If it is not, then you can still use the reference without a link. To do otherwise is to turn our heads and allow violations - then we are no better than youtube users, napster, or any other group that willfully steals from others. --Trödel 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics sites 

message: Further reading redirects to here. An invitation to further reading of a physical book isn't an external link. Last time I read these MoS entries there was a distinction made between the two, and the consensus at the time was to have external links and other media in a section called "Further reading". Has this policy been reverted or was I reading another contradictory policy elsewhere? --Monotonehell 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: There is no absolute prohibition in linking to sites you maintain, etc.--WP:V clearly delineates the self-publishing exceptions. WP:EL is a guideline, and as a guideline should not contradict policy. If you want to go into detail on discouraging self-publishing external links, that should go in "links normally to avoid."
Cindery 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a guideline about external links, not sources.  Also, what do you think in WP:V even comments on adding external links to a site a person owns or maintains? 2005 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is an absolute prohibition in this guideline, primarly because people have generaly agreed that there should be. It it rooted in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is rooted in WP:NPOV not WP:V. This issue has been a pretty clearly established aspect of NPOV. --Barberio 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should never link to GFDL video on Youtube.  If the self-publisher is willing to release video under the GFDL, we or they should upload it to Commons and not link to it on Youtube. 67.117.130.181 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  That way the video can't vanish as it easily can from YouTube. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are confused about the language.  The External links guideline is not talking about self-published websites.  It is talking about the owner/operator of a website adding a link to that website to the External links section. 2005 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds like you're not really taking issue with recommending that people don't add links to their own self-published material, but are just saying that it's a guideline and not a policy (so it can be absolutely forbidden).  I guess I'd agree with that, but I can't think of an exception where I'd think it would be OK for someone to do so.  Personally I'd prefer if forbidding people to link to their own sites was a policy and not just a guideline.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: restrictions on linking viz COI

message: Just a thought: in broad agreement with what WP:EL already advocates in spirit and letter, we should discourage the use of "external links" sections in articles altogether. We should instead use a term such as "further reading" or "further information", since this is what external links are supposed to provide anyway. The use of "further reading/info" would immediately conscientise the editor into considering whether or not an external link genuinely provides more information for the reader or is just linkspam. Another advantage is that if there is no "external links" section (there being a "further reading" section instead) there is no place to dump drive-by spam. I edit the occasional geographic article where accommodation links are often posted, as well as car articles that attract a proliferation of forum/car modification website links. If the section was titled "further reading" instead it would cut down on well-intentioned but inappropriate external links at the source.
In reality the external links section is actually just further reading/info where said info happens to be web-based. External links are the means, further reading is the end. As I said, the letter and spirit of the EL guideline already makes it clear that this is how external links are to be used, so why not make it clear in the articles themselves? Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Further reading / further information as any more discouraging of barely on-topic links. If anything, it is even more open-ended: "But the person who looked up this war may want to know all about the Avalon-Hill game that simulates it". - Jmabel19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes interesting I hadn't thought about that, but I agree with your idea.  We should title the section "Further reading" not "External links".  Then within that section we could have links and non-linked works, or even sub-sections I suppose if there are a lot of them.  Good idea. Wjhonson 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, my initial instinct upon hearing/reading "further reading" is that it would be a bunch of wikilinks, not external links. Like Jmabel said, changing the wording won't do anything to prevent people from putting improper links there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further reading can also include items that are not links at all.  Such as a book, whose contents are not on the internet.  Or a magazine article reference.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that changing the title will add or detract from whether people misuse it.  Just that "Further reading" is a better title than "External links" since it's more comprehensive and also more standard in other reference works. Wjhonson 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be obvious that it would make it more likely to be abused, since other editors can look at an external link, while a we all can't just grab a copy of some obscure book whose title sounds interesting.  External links is proper in that they are just that, links.  Non-linked items should almost never be outside of sources.  Also, the point of external links are for users, not anybody else.  Links can be seen immediately.  Almost any other "further reading" type thing requires payment/registration or something like that, and thus fail in the same way as "Sites requiring registration". Again obviously the sites requiring registration section of the guideline would need to be removed completely if external links were changed to a broader further reading criteria.  There is no value to users in making the change, and a half dozen reasons not to. 2005 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Almost any other "further reading" type thing requires payment/registration or something like that" There are things called libraries which one can borrow published works for free. "External links" is a limiting title, it excludes published works. Published works, which are a better recognised authoritative source than websites, are an important resource for wikipedia articles. There's no way wikipedia can be considered a serious encyclopedia by reliying on websites as source material. Some readers wont have the need to visit real paper, but others may be interested enough to take out a book from their local library. Even WP:CITE which is the parent policy to this page uses the term "Further reading". --Monotonehell 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "'External links" is a limiting title, it excludes published works.'" Yes, that is by design.  They are things that can be seen via a click.  You seem to want to put a round peg in a square hole.  The external links section is for links that are freely accessible.  That's it. "Published works, which are a better recognised authoritative source than websites..." That is just patent nonsense.  Silly generalizations like that won't get you anywhere. 2005 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My completely ignored post above states pretty much the same thing. I'm sure this was policy a few months back. I just can't remmeber where I read it. I've been doing it on a lot of pages that I'm involved with. It works well on the pages I've put it on as the further reading does include printed works as well as websites. Term "external links" doesn't put the section in context while the term "further reading" not only contexualises the section but opens it up to real media, where more authoritive sources exist. --Monotonehell 23:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use "further reading" instead of  "external links" sections 

message: ::(I haven't taken part in this discussion before, but came here after people started mass-deleting links, regardless of the copyright status of the linked-to content.) Jossi, you ask "how linking to video sharing sites is any different than linking to a personal website or blog".  While both can involve personally-created non-authoritative content, a site such as youtube has a large amount of authoritative content, provided by major WP:RS sources like NBC.  Blog content is mostly POV and non-authoritative, but it can be linked to in some cases.  Ditto for personal websites.  An image or a video can have the same issues (for example, a video of the uploader talking to the camera about something) - but often it does not; it's a recording of an event or an item.  Also, while a bigfoot video on youtube would probably not meet WP:RS and WP:NOR, a video of a major event that gains notability might.  For example, if youtube had existed, the Rodney King video might have ended up there instead of at broadcasters, and might have been appropriate to link to from an article on Rodney King.)  Someone might upload a video specifically for linking to from Wikipedia the same way they upload images to Wikipedia, and as the copyright owner give explicit permission as owners often do for images here. My feeling is that video-sharing links and photo-sharing links need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and right now they're not - some editors are trolling for links and mass-deleting them (using the "linking to content of unknown copyright is a US violation" argument) when obviously there's considerable disagreement.  jesup 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass deletions are not welcomed. The use of video material uploaded  by a studio, news outlet, record label, etc., may meet the threshold for inclusion on El sections. That is not disputed. As for the Rodney King example, it is not applicable: if such a video was ever posted in YouTube, Wikipedia will need to wait until a major news organization refers to it and confirms the content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass deletions without reference to the content or its status are happening, and at high speed.  See Spartaz for an example (deleting 2-4 per minute it looks like), and he's not the only one.    As for Rodney King, I said it would need to meet notability guidelines, which would almost certainly mean that it had been referenced elsewhere - but once it did it would probably have been linkable.  My point was just that it's different than blogs.  jesup 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried actually looking at what's being deleted?  I just looked at half a dozen of Spartaz's deletions, and I didn't see one that I would miss.  Actually looking at this stuff also raises the issue of how one determines that copyright isn't being violated.  With images, it's pretty much up to the uploader to state and demonstrate that copyright is not an issue.  On these links, there's nothing at all to go on, not even a claim on the part of the editor adding the link that they ever even considered the issue of copyright.  And one of the links was already "withdrawn by the uploader".  I for one am not all that worried about losing this stuff. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you understand that your argument applies to ALL web pages ?  Not just video, all of them.  Ninety-eight percent of all web pages say nothing about copyright whatsoever.  Are we to assume they are all in violation simply because they don't address it?  That logic fails. Wjhonson 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The contents of 98% of all web pages is not uploaded by random users.  Have you tried looking at the images our users submit to Wikipedia in a given week?  Take a look at one day's worth. That's the kind of content you're dealing with at YouTube. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're not addressing my point.  All web content, per that view, comes from "random users".  How do you propose, finding the copyright status, of *any* web content?  You want to assume that all web content, of any type, is in violation of copyright first?  Our policy is not to remove images immediately but rather to ask for copyright status of the image.  So are you proposing that wikipedia needs to allow video uploading?  Cuz if you're not I really have no idea what you are proposing.  A blanket prohibition on links to video is simply not going to stand.  So you should come up with some alternative.  A link to video doesn't normally start off by saying "here's the copyright data wikipedia needs".  I would propose that we act in good-faith by assuming copyright is in the hands of the uploader UNTIL we have evidence otherwise.  Innocent until proven guilty?  I think that works well with all other web content. Wjhonson 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was kinda leaning in that direction, but the servers here run pretty slow sometimes already.  Still there's a major difference between sites that solicit user input for content and sites that don't, in terms of the likelihood of encountering copyright infringement.  And yes, you're right I suppose, an outright ban on the site won't cut it, at least until Wikipedia is ready to accept video uploads.  Thinking out loud, though, it would be possible to say that links to YouTube and the like would be permitted only via, say, a template that tied in a page on which the linker was required to make a statement similar to what we do on image pages: indicate the source and the copyright status.  Too clumsy, perhaps?  Might be worth thinking about. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a site such as Flikr, or other photo-sharing sites, almost all photos uploaded are taken by the uploader.  At youtube it's different, but at a guess from looking over the "recent additions" I'd say around 75% are taken by the uploader.  Now, the links in wikipedia to youtube probably skew the other way, I agree, and probably many youtube links in wikipedia are inappropriate for various reasons.  Warnings are appropriate, reviewing is appropriate, banning or mass-deletion are not, IMHO.  jesup 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've looked a little.  If the content is copyvio or not useful to the page, fine - but Spartaz certainly doesn't seem to be making that distinction; he/she appears to be mass-deleting youtube links.  His talk page includes discussion on how to configure AWB to make it easy to do, and editing 2-4 pages/minute removing youtube links tells me he's not reviewing the links and checking for appropriateness or copyright; he's just deleting all youtube links.  If as jossi said, mass-deletion are not welcomed, well, then, spartaz is doing something unwelcome - and he's not the only one who took this entry in WP:EL as license to mass-delete.  jesup 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No I took the discussion on AN/I as reason to review these links and I see no reason at all why we should keep obvious copyvios or videos whose copyright status is unclear. I asked you to give me a diff for an incorrectly deleted file and the one you gave me was of a file that did not have any evidence that it was free and where you made assumptions about its copyright status. I'm afraid that this isn't good enough. If the file is not clearly free than we can't link to it in case its a copyvio. I also reviewed the file you objected to before I deleted it. In future, I would prefer you to address objections with me before making public allegations of misconduct.  On a more cheerful note, I'll be very happy to review any other deletion that you disagree with.  I'm sure that we all want the best but lets concentrate on the issue - copyvios and vidoes whose status is unclear. If you can think of a better way to handle this problem please let me know. I'd be delighted to find a simpler way forward. Thanks --Spartaz 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is suggesting keeping obvious copyvios.  The problem comes when assumptions of copyvio are used as a reason for mass-deletions without comment.  That's a problem and has to stop. If you claim other are assuming copy, you are assuming copyvio.  You don't have the high ground here. Wjhonson 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the articles I deleted links from yesterday had already been tagged to highlight concerns about the free status of the videos.  The vast majority (95% of the links at least) were either copies of TV programmes (copy vios) or links to commericial music videos (copy vios). In the case of Katana the vid had a link to a website where the vid wasn't available and there was no evidence that permission to upload the video had been granted (likely copy vio and deletable in the same way as an equivilent image). I'm still waiting for someone to show me a video I deleted incorrectly so I can understand where the consensus of the line should be. If you could review my deletions and show me any that were incorrect it would be exceedingly helpful. --Spartaz 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I didn't mean to accuse you here without discussion, but others here asked for an example of apparent mass-deletion, and that was the one I knew of.  I didn't see how someone could review 4+ pages and videos per minute and remove them; that looked like mass-removal without review, especially given the comment that implies that no review for copyvio is needed.  The Katana link hadn't been flagged that I know of.  The video appears to be an amateur video with title added, done by a student of that dojo and the person giving the demo.  The comments there from the uploader imply (but do not state) so.  The site mentioned (apparently his sensei's site) has some professional-quality videos, but not the one linked to, and not with the title on the one linked to.  I agree, there is no absolute certainty it's not a copyvio - but it's not obviously a copyvio either.  But the real issue I have is that the summary for all these edits appears to be misleading, and implies they were not removed for copyvio, but instead were removed due to a blanket mass-deletion policy which is at best a controversial opinion held by some of the editors.  Even jossi here doesn't support a mass-deletion.  If they're copyvio and the editor has reviewed them and decided they're obvious copyvio, then remove it and summarize as such (including that it was reviewed).  This will make future editors much less likely to undo the edit.  If it's possible copyvio, ask a question and get one of the page editors to investigate.  As I stated in response to spartaz, "not clearly no copyvio" != "copyvio".  jesup 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, well I think there is considerable doubt about the status of that video and I don't think we should be assuming anything (other then good faith of course). I think we already discussed the summary to death. We will update it. Can I ask you whether you had any objections to any other link I deleted, or just the Katana one?  --Spartaz 05:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Happy thanksgiving. The way to resolve this is to have more long standing editors take a look at this issue, rather than keep arguing the same arguments again and again. I am placing a request at the Village Pump. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I find your assessment that this is "recruiting" to be quite peculiar. When there is a dispute pertaining to policy and guidelines, the way to move forward is to expose the issues to the wider community. While Wilkipedia is not a democracy, it works by establishing a wide as possible consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitary Section Break because this is such a long thread

message: Re this section: could someone insert an example of the "proper" use of the language code in an external link? I find it much easier to understand an instruction (and less likely to screw it up) if examples are included. Thanks-- RCEberwein | Talk 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give some examples. - Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language links 

message: appears to be a site offering full movie scripts. Their site claims All rights not reserved. and has no copyright notice about the different scripts. I suggest removing every single link pointing to a script. Someone disagrees? -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scifiscripts.com 

message: As these are almost literally a dime a dozen, and in no way verifiable as accurate, true, non-libellous, etc., and in no practical way different from blogs, is there any reason why we should link to them? Would any serious encyclopedia link to them? Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unless it fits this policy. Did you have a specific link in mind? Fagstein 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course they would.  Obviously they are different than blogs so why mention that non-sequitor?  The prohibition against blogs relates to their changeability, not any sense that anything written on a blog has to be useless.  This guideline lays out what is valuable to link to. Many non-corporate websites present very valuable content, even if most websites of every kind would never merit a link.  Brainless, blanket prohibitions show contempt for users and that is not what an encyclopedia should do.  We link on merit, accesibility and appropriateness. 2005 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your argument. The problem with blogs is not that their content can change, because that is true of all websites. Rather, the problem with them is with the nature of their authorship, and their complete lack of editorial oversight.  Personal websites of notable people are, of course, encyclopedic, but personal websites of non-notable people don't have any particular value, and anonymous websites could say anything at all, without any possibility of knowing whether or not they are true. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that personal websites, including blogs, shouldn't be linked to. The only exception I can think of is a blog belonging to the subject of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with blogs is their changability. That has been establieshe ad nauseum in discussion here which you seem to have not cared about. It's ludicrous to say no blog can ever have useful content on it, so your position is unfathomable.  We link based on merit, accessibility and copyrights.  That is what is all over this guideline.  Personal websites from non-famous are often excellent things to link to, like someone's website with hundreds of historical photographs of Peoria.  The fact that aperson is not famous does not mean that a website can't have authority and value.  Your wild generalizations make no sense at all, while the wording trying to be added makes even less sense.  Filmsite.org is Tim Dirks personal website, and it is a great site to link to.  Michael Grost's film essays have been online for a decade and are great resources to link to because they are meritable, accessible, stable, and everything else good, even if on an AOL homepage instead of some corporate site. The guideline speaks very strongly against lightweight, unhelpful links.  That is what it should do. Great links that meet the criteria should be linked to, non-qualifying ones should not.  Thoughtless generalities have no place here. 2005 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Blogs have been in the guideline for some time. The "personal websites" part is a recent addition that was made without discusion. There are numerous exceptions to both, notably when the blog/personal website qualifies as the "official site" - one of the prime criteria for linking. Furthermore, there is no real, underlying consensus on blog ELs: even wikipedia currently links to blogs and to video hosted on blogs (another topic much discussed here of late). I'm reverting your addition, as the issue requires more discussion. --JJay 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't articulated the difference between a "personal website" and a "blog"; in fact, they are essentially identical, though they have some minor differences in terms of the editing tools available. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is too bizarre.  Are you honestly going to insist that this http://googleblog.blogspot.com/  is a personal website?  My goodness, you really need to give some thought to your assertions here. 2005 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep making assertions without meaningful content; please make a coherent argument. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of this are you failing to understand?  You continually ignore example after example.  You ignore statements backed up with logic and reason, and instead just fall back on bizarre assertions, in this case asserting that Google's blog is a personal website.  Okay, if all blog are personal websites, explain the exact person this official corporate blog belongs to.  Stop avoiding responding to the several reply that make your statements completely absurd.  You brought up coherence, so please be coherent now and tell us how the official Google Blog is a personal website, and what person, specifically, it belongs to.  Or, better, just agree your statement that all blogs are personal websites was silly so those of us interested in this guideline can move on to real topics. 2005 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If they are "essentially identical", why do you believe further explantion and iteration is needed in the guideline? Furthermore, why are you talking about "personal websites of non-notable people"?. We have a few guidelines on notability, but this page relates to ELs and as per the entire guideline, we don't link to "non-notable" information, whether that information is found on blogs, personal websites, major news sites or anywhere else. That is blatantly obvious starting with the statement about "meaningful, relevant content" in the "what to link to" section. --JJay 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JJay, I can't see why you're reverting exactly, and what is a "recognized authority"? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Andrew Sullivan is a professional researcher/journalist (we can add journalist if that will make it clearer), and newspapers' blogs are the kind of blogs we want to link to. Can you show me an example of an acceptable blog that would not be covered by the current wording? The problem with the "recognized authority" thing is that it isn't just vague, but meaningless. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sullivan in a journalist and his blog consists of his personal writings. If you are going to add journalist to your definition, then you now need to add diplomat, government official, politician, judge, author, artist, performer, actor, political candidate, rabbi, imam, union leader, pro athlete, museum director, board member, CEO, nobel peace prize recipient, etc - none of whom are necessarily "professional researchers" or "news organizations", but all of whom may be "recognized authorities". Recognized authority is not meaningless. It is vague. Vagueness has its virtues, because the road you are heading down is a never ending street, where exceptions invite more exceptions, etc. It is a zero sum game.--JJay 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but this guideline has to take into account the wording of the relevant policy, which is WP:V, and the words I used here reflect that. It's true that the bar for external links is lower than the bar for sources, but it should not be wildly different. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The bar is lower for ELs for good reason, because the ELs are not acting as references for the article. They point users to sources of additional related information, within the confines of a fairly rigid guideline. "Recognized authority" is a perfectly adequete measure to judge the worthiness of a blog/personal site link, but may or may not be sufficient as a source. "Professional researcher" excludes every field I named, and to respond to the comment below, people from all these fields are blogging about their work. There may be occasions when those blogs can serve as valid ELs. The present wording excludes them, just like with the professional timpani sites referenced below. --JJay 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People may be "recognized authorities" in one field, but not in others. In fact, that's the typical case. Most of the people you refer do not write professionally about their fields. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In relation to your previous question, "further explanation" is apparently needed because some people don't actually seem to understand what a blog is. Can you articulate a meaningful, content and policy based difference between a blog and a personal website? As for "non-notable" people, the whole point of EL is to link to stuff that isn't, well, crap.  Personal websites/blogs are a dime a dozen; the only reason they might be of value is if they are the personal website/blog of someone who is a professional or expert in a specific field, or perhaps a blog of an inherently reliable source (e.g. a respected newspaper), or if they are the personal website/blog of the person an article is describing. And you still haven't articulated the value of linking to an anonymous website, for which there is absolutely no way of verifying the validity of any of the information found therein. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the million of dime-a-dozen (or free) personal websites or blogs (btw, the difference between a personal home page and a blog is only te underlying publishing technology), are not worthy of being linked to, unless the site in question is published by a notable/recognized expert in the field. Anonymous websites are evidently not worth linking to, as there is not accountability and no feasible way to attribute the opinions placed in that website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As per Jossi. An anonymous website is one for which we have no idea who the author is; there is no personal name or organization which takes credit for or claims ownership the contents. As for "adding" blog to the definition, it has already been there for ages; a blog is just a shorthand name for/special type of personal website. Sites which have little or no editorial oversight in general should not be linked; while the guideline for External links is somewhat looser than for reliable sources, that doesn't justify linking to all of the millions of sites on the web. An encyclopedic link is, in some sense, one which we know contains information that is at least somewhat reliable, ideally not defamatory, copyright violating, etc. With personal websites, unless it is the website of someone who has a reputation in the field in question, there is no such guarantee. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * Yes, all of which is already covered by numerous clauses in the guidelines - i.e. the ones that relate to the reliability of the material. However, I will point out that the guideline now excludes Jossi's "notable/recognized experts"  (which is pretty damn similar to the previous definition of "recognized authority" that should be retained). Instead, it makes an exception for professional researchers and news organizations. That is way too exclusionary. It is not supported by Jossi's statement, nor is it even supported by User:Jayjg, who writes: "Personal websites of notable people are, of course, encyclopedic". The approach shown here, by adding a new definition after a 24 hour discussion, ignoring objections and then edit warring to impose the change is counterproductive. It won't stick as written. That's not the way this page is edited, but is the way that has led to numerous page protections in the last few months. --JJay 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that people differ strongly on how "reliable" material is; it's essentially a personal view. On the other hand, "anonymous" and "personal" are quite specific, and deal with 95% of the crap currently linked to that contains "unreliable" information. As for the guideline, it has been held hostage for the past couple of months by people who resist both change and logic; that is not the way the page should edited, and that methodology "won't stick". Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm interested in the 5% that would also be discarded. And your use of the word "crap" is offensive, as is your comment that the page has been "held hostage for the past couple of months" by those who "resist change and logic". It is particularly offensive to the hundreds of editors who have contributed here because I can't find any evidence that you participated in the page in the last few months (besides one revert) or made any attempt to add any sort of logic during that period. Maybe I missed your previous comments. As for the "change" you have tried to impose here in the last 24 hours, argue your points without ad hominem remarks on the work of other editors.--JJay 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jayjg acting arrogantly and dismissively of others is not going to get your opinion included in this guideline. Just because you disagree with and did not particpate in lengthy discussions on this guideline doesn't mean you or a couple of others can just come in and make major changes, especially ones that don't even make sense, particularly since they have not even been attempted to be explained.  I don't understand this desire to be illogical, but please behave like an adult acting in good faith.  If you or anyone else wants to present a case for improving the guideline, THEN DO SO.  Don't just arrogantly try to cram something down other people's throats.  Not only isn't it polite, it won't work. 2005 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more clear wording of policy has been explained, but I haven't seen any logical responses yet. Perhaps you can try that, rather than focusing on other editors and hurt feelings. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The current guideline would not exclude those links at all, since they are by non-anonymous professionals. Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the current wording, those links could be easily removed, since they are not by professional researchers or news organizations. --JJay 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * See "Links normally to be avoided":  #2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Which points directly to WP:RS, which bans extremeist and partisan sources. See also the sentence that requires links to be: proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.). And it's not "my version", it's everyone's version, built through consensus. Just like with articles, where editors are more than competent to remove that type of link, without the ongoing laundry list approach of this guideline  --JJay 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was referring specifically to that; please prove, using undeniably objective standards, that the source contains "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", or that it is "extremist and partisan".  Clearly the author feels that the information is accurate, useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. and not extremist or partisan. Who is to say that he is wrong and you are correct? And if you rely on WP:RS, then why not just scrap WP:EL and insist that external links meet WP:RS instead? Finally, the consensus version is, of course, the current version, which also appears to have a consensus of the current editors. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The guideline points to WP:RS. And your link would be gone immediately, without much protest. Furthermore, your interpretation of what the author "feels" has no bearing on editing articles.  Instead, point me to the edit war over this link and the failure to remove the link due to the previous inadequacy of the guideline. --JJay 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep making assertions, but you have not been able to actually answer the questions. Please prove, using undeniably objective standards, that the source contains "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", or that it is "extremist and partisan". If you want to convince others of your position, you'll have to make an argument for it. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Asked and answered above. If you don't think Bushisanantichrist is an extremist and partisan website more power to you. Please argue that point on WP:RS. If you see "factually verified research" in that link, well perhaps we need to change WP:V radically. If you think that type of link was acceptable, and would have been accepted by editors, until you got the insight to add "anonymous website" to this guideline, then I can only refer you to WP:Common Sense. In the meantime, I'm not here to play mind games and if you need more opinions on your link try the Village Pump. --JJay 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm at a loss as to understand the reverting here. Is someone saying that anonymous websites should be linked to? Who is saying that? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would being "anonymous" be a factor in linking?  The criteria for linking is spelled out already: providing extra info not in the WP article, being accurate and verifiable.  As long as a site meets those, what's the difference if it's anonymous?  I think personal websites are comparable to blogs in regards to EL, and I don't think there's a blanket statement that can cover either.  There are good and bad blogs and personal sites, and they just need to be judged on their own merits, according to the rest of EL, and the same as any other external link.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously anonymous websites sometimes merit links.  I'm at a loss as to why you insist on trying to cra this addition in, especially without offering the slightest reason for it.  Anonymous websites will seldom meet the criteria to link, but sometimes they obviously will, like an example of hundreds of photographs of Peoria from 1900 to 1940.  Such a site would not become infinitely more valuable if the title "photos by John Smith" was on it.  This is guideline to help linking to help readers.  It isn't some thoughtless, arbritrary thing that throws logic to the wind for no reason.  Linking is primarily based on merit.  Anonymity adds no merit so anonymous websites have a much higher road to climb to deserve linking, but that is all it is, a much harder road.  It's blatantly silly to say an anonymous website can NEVER have value to our readers. C'mon, you have to understand that. 2005 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what we mean by "verifiable"? We mean "with reference to a reliable source." There seem to be editors on this page who have never read the content policies. This page, and all other pages, must be consistent with the content policies. "Verifiable" does not mean we can check whether it's true (how could we?) It means we can check that it was published by a reliable source. The bar is lower for external links than for sources, but the words as used by Wikipedia don't suddenly change their meaning. Your opinion of the merits of a link is likely to differ from other people's, so the criterion is only this: has the thing been published by someone reliable? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I know what it means, you can lay off the ad hominem attacks.  An anonymous page can be verifiable if all the information on it is cited.  It can also be verifiable if it's something like a TV episode synopsis, where the primary source is a work of pop culture (which is what can be used to verify it).  In both cases, the info "has already been published by a reliable source" and meets WP:V so it's consistent with the content policies  - a linked site doesn't necessarily have to be an original source.  Don't forget, wikipedia isn't all scientific topics.  Anonynimity really has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable, just as a source having a name to it doesn't automatically make it reliable.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:V, which is policy. WP:RS is NOT policy. And it's not an ad hominem attack to point out that a lot of the people on this page seem to be unfamilar with the content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So point me to the part in WP:V where it says it applies to external links.  Should be easy, assuming you're familiar with the content policies.  :)  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But if we have to look to other reliable sources to properly verify the information on an anonymous website, wouldn't it be best to cite to those sources, and skip the middleman link to the anonymous site? I'm not being rhetorical, I really am trying to understand your position.  Thanks, Satori Son 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. [[[User:Milo H Minderbinder]] may need to re-read our core policies and understand these well before contributing to a guideline that cannot be writen in a way as to contradict policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit telling me to read the policies, you're just using that as an excuse to avoid addressing what I have to say.  Satori - one example would be a list of quotes from a work of fiction.  Citing the original would require many citations (and lists of quotes are specifically discouraged on wikipedia), while citing the list would be much more convenient.  Assuming this hypothetical list was sourced to the original material, allowing it to be verified, how would it violate WP:V or WP:RS?  How would it being anonymous make it any less verifiable?  And would it somehow become more verifiable just by slapping the name of the author on it?  Quoting from V: ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."  How would this hypothetical page not meet the standard set by that policy?  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For log or numerous  quotes, you can use Wikiquote and use the  template. As for your last question, the only way a reader can verify the information is if it is published by a reliable source. An anonymous website or any other personal website is not a reliable source: It can be changed, selectively quoted, placed alongside POV commentary and editorializing, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiquote is an alternative way to do it, not a reason an anonymous site can't be linked.  You didn't answer my questions above.  And any online source can be changed, selectively quoted, placed alongside POV commentary and editorializing, etc.  Anonymous or not, and "personal website" or not.  If a site does those, that's a valid reason not to link to it.  But none of those have anything to do with anonymity.  And I completely agree that info is verified from reliable sources.  You just seem to be missing the fact that a linked site doens't have to be the reliable source itself (particularly if the site provides sourcing). I'd recommend reading WP:RS#Popular culture and fiction: "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."  So this policy says that they should not be used as secondary sources, but says they are acceptable otherwise.  Since external links aren't held to the same standard as sources, it certainly seems that personal websites and even anonymous content may be acceptable assuming it meets the rest of EL.  I don't think EL should even mention anonymous content or "personal websites".   --Milo H Minderbinder 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to think we verify external links.  Where does that come from?  We most certainly do not. There seems an awful lot of confusion here.  The content of Wikipedia articles have different policies governing them than external links.  Most obviously external links very commonly have POV and are unencyclopedic.  External links are not sources, so lets not pretend they are. 2005 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we verify ELs. And if you do not, I would advise you start. All external links that are hosted on sites that are not considered reliable sources, that push a POV, that are un-encyclopedic, that do not add value to the article for these reasosn should be removed at sight. The EL section is not the dumping ground for what could not be added to an article because it fails to meet WP content policies ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have caused a lot of problems with this page due to now four misunderstandings of yours about wording or policies (two of which you seem to have relented on once you recognized you misunderstood the wording).  The idea that an editor verifies that John Smith batted .231 in 1964 before a link from baseballreference.com can be added is counter to policies, and just plain absurd.  You need to ask more questions instead of insisting your very mistaken assumptions are the only valid concepts for anything. 2005 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2005, can you please make coherent arguments, rather than borderline personal attacks? You have yet to articulate how we assure that anonymous websites contain verifiable material. Note, not "verified", but "verifiable". Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And "please make coherent arguments" isn't a borderline personal attack?  Assuring that anonymous websites contain verifiable material has already been addressed (and I guess ignored?).  Could we all please address the actual content of the guideline instead of complaining about the other editors?  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please make coherent arguments" is a request regarding Talk: page comments, not a personal attack. What coherent argument did you see in 2005's statement, and in what way do you think that the issue of ensuring that sites contain verifiable information is addressed? Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed this multiple times, you'll find my comments if you search the page for "fiction".  And how does "Please make coherent arguments" actually respond to what he said or help make this guideline better?  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jayjg your behavior really offers no reason to even deal with you, let alone explain a dozen times what you could learn by just reading, but I have already shown how anonymous websites can have verifiable content.  Besides yourself, I doubt there is going to be anyone who asserts that they NEVER can.  But now try and follow this, THAT ISN'T THE POINT.  The guideline prohibits websites that contain things like copyright violations, unverifiable original research, and so on. THAT IS COVERED.  Insisting a site without a name on it somehow can never have linkable content but one with a name on it can is simply absurd.  If you do have any genuine views here, you need to start thinking about the content, and the prohibitions in the guideline.  Which means, if you do believe an anonymous website could never meet the criteria of linking, then it is redundant and pointless to say it again in the guideline.  Your interpretation is illogical, but even if you actually believe it, the guideline already addresses your concern.  Now I'm not going to go over this same point again and again and again just because you want to argue.  I am instead going to say clearly: READ THE GUIDELINE.  Perhaps after you do you will have a better appreciation of how unreliable, unhelpful, unvaluable things that don't merit links are already addressed.  2005 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal websites of non-notables, and anonymous websites 

message: WP:EL is a guideline dealing with one of the most difficult and contentious aspects of the encyclopedia.  Please do not just attempt to add pet peeves and personal opinions into the guideline.  If you feel the guideline should be changed in a substantive way (that is, new new concepts, not just wording clarifications or grammar), please start a discussion here with your reasoning.  Please treat your fellow editors and their views with respect, even if you disagree.  Please do not just try to arrogantly ram your favored changes into the guideline just because it seems like you can. 2005 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. This guideline is one of many. Editors are expressing their opinions based on their understanding of current policy, which this guideline cannot bypass, but only support; and you can start treating fellow editors with respect by not calling them arrogant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's rather odd that you would insist that we "treat your fellow editors and their views with respect" when your edit summaries say things such as "behave" and "act like an adult". Perhaps you should try modelling the behavior you demand of others. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of you, please don't do this.  If you want to discuss an issue, do so.  If you want to see a change made, propose it.  Repeatedly trying to force a change that has no consensus to a page that says it was developed by consensus is rude and arrogant, in my opinion.  If you don't agree, fine, but I hope you will begin to adopt tone and behavior of a cooperative nature.  Force and ignoring others is neither fun nor nice. 2005 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a guideline

message: I have full protected the guideline. Please discuss before modifying the guideline. This page is visited by thousands of new and established users, and we can't just modify it every other hour. I also ask administrators not to modify the article other than correcting spellings. I thought we had already learned in the last edit war. -- ReyBrujo 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What template? Shouldn't this go on the template's talk page? ---J.S (t|c) 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehem... sorry, I was multitasking with a template and got the heading mixed. -- ReyBrujo 02:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm glad this is protected, I have to say that it's currently locked into a pretty bad state that doesn't reflect consensus.  I particularly disagree with the inclusion of anonymous content and personal websites, both of which are only in the guideline because they happened to be in at this particular point in the revert war.  So how do we go about getting the guideline back into stable shape?  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion of the inclusion of anonymous websites aside, I do agree with Milo H Minderbinder that the current wording is more indicative of where the music stopped in the game of edit-revert-revert than it is of demonstrated consensus.  Let's please keep discussing this to ensure the guideline reflects current community opinion.  Or maybe it's time for a strawpoll to get a quick read? -- Satori Son 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A locked page is always the wrong version: this is an established principle. The way to get the right version is to discuss and reach a consensus, which is what should have happened before every single recent change instead of this appalling edit warring. Please don't try to take shortcuts to "the right version" which should be "immediately obvious". Notinasnaid 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus, Cindery. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact their was.  The page should be reverted back to where it was stable and previously protected, here , as a result of several months of discussions.  It should then be protected, (semi)permanently, with any changes to be discussed here first.  There is a very clear previous version to revert to, the same version that was protected previously. 2005 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In the absence of consensus, changes shouldn't have been made.  I hope the current version doesn't give anyone an excuse to go on a massive editing spree.  I agree with Radiant that a poll probably isn't the best way to go, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what ends up happening.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No polls, please. The issues need to be argued and agreed upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody seems to want to take the time to propose a change (as in: I think that where it says "XXX" we should add/replace it with "YYY" with all of the wording). Instead, instant gratification, making a point by changing the guidelines. I feel this has to stop, no article is for making a point, still less these critical ones. Even now, nobody has proposed any form of words since the protection! Nothing should be changed until exact wording reaches a consensus. Notinasnaid 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started whit a proposal for the lead, above at #The_concerns_are_valid_and_need_to_be_addressed. You are welcome to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As Notinasnaid stated above, administrators never protect the right version, that is why the template has a disclaimer. I am willing to revert to a version with consensus, but unluckily there is none. The page was full protected on July, September, October and November due edit warring. And I am sure next month will be again :-( -- ReyBrujo 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected