Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 8

message: I suggested this already, but it got lost in the wheel war and angstyness.
At the moment, the 'rules' we have are very very confused. The only *solid* bar against links we have, the copyvio ban, is under 'Links to be used occasionally', our recomendations on what not to link to are all overidden by other rules, some things that don't fit into a simple rule have been shoehorned into one so we can put it in a list.
I think we should reorganise to this kind of structure,
* Links that add to an article
* Links that may be useful
* Links that should be avoided
* Links not to be used
* Special cases
I think the 'the below do not override the list of what should be linked to' line is silly and just an extra layer of confusion. I think it should be left up to a case by case decision on which takes precedence, rather than always defer to the what to link. This is what 'ignore all rules' is for, we shouldn't be putting in confusing replcations of that. 
Some time ago I put an example rewrite based on an earlier version of the page we have now at Wikipedia talk:External links/workshop, since we've made some changes since then it's out of date. --Barberio 10:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - but I might naem the first bullet - "Links that support verifiability" --Trödel 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there is a need to rewrite anything at the moment. We might discuss about specific points, but I guess most concerns have already been sorted out. Bravada, talk - 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can it be sorted out when the page is protected? --Trödel 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could probably get the protection taken off now, but I'm not convinced the issues have been settled.  I think we do need to generate some discussion on the future of this page, and a rewrite might be the best idea, even if it leads us back to where we are.  Hiding Talk 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write proposal. 

message: Just a reminder. This page is not, nor ever has been, a wikipedia policy, it is a wikipedia guideline. Please try to remember this, and make yourself familure with the difference. --Barberio 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, even more than I support consistancy.  Tidy is nice, a welcoming environment that allows for a variety of ideas is better. - brenneman {L} 02:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder. This page is not Policy. 

message: We don't really need to be second guessing ourselves, and adding in extraneous leniency to recommendations on what are good and bad links. As a guideline, leniency and and acceptance of special circumstances is automatic. Adding in all this 'unless it is a good idea to' things just makes the guideline longer and more complicated. Confusing, over complicated, and rule crufted guidelines are bad things.
"Ignore all this if it makes a better article" is automatic, we don't need to be explicit unless we have evidence of the guideline being abused in that way. For example, yes, we could just say 'Linking to Fansites is discouraged, as an alternative you could link to a open directory listing of such sites.'.  (Altho, I really don't see why Fansites need their own special note since the concerns are already covered by other recomendations.) If there are *good* reasons for linking to a fan site, then those will be obvious in the context of the article, we don't need to spend time defining what we think an acceptable case may be.
Our recomendations should be simple, clear and make an 'all things being equal' assumption.
I think it may well be worthwhile trimming the other complicated clauses, and just put in a single general 'Exceptions can be made where appropriate'. --Barberio 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that makes sense. We should make the "rules" universal, but use fansites etc. as examples (unless they're explicitly mentioned people will think they don't apply). Fagstein 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A general note about leniency 

message: At Platte Canyon High School shooting there is discussion about whether links to two memorial sites for Emily Keyes, the girl who died in the school shooting, can be included or not.  I believe that they should not be included because it doesn't add to the article on the shooting, instead it just memorializes a victim.  By looking at the site, they're not neutral sources on the event and are biased, leaning towards the victim (obviously).  If the article was about Emily Keyes, then I think the links would be okay, but since it's not I don't think they're appropriate.  However, another user thinks that they're appropriate since Emily has no article so they can be with shooting article.  Could we get some outside opinions on this?  Thanks, Metros232 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, I agree with that. The memorial is suitable in the article about the victim, but I have my doubts about putting them in the shooting article. -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there is no separate article about the victim, whose only notability is that she got shot and died. Emily Keyes is, appropriately, a redirect to Platte Canyon High School shooting. So if these links belong anywhere in Wikipedia, it would be this article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel these links belong in Wikipedia. What's the purpose for including them? Simply so that somebody reading up on the high school shooting can find out about Emily, who doesn't merit her own WP article? Submit the links to a web directory instead. - Brian Kendig 03:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial sites 

message: I suggest adding a note about online petitions to the guideline, treating them as forums, blogs and social networking sites. The only way online petitions could be accepted is if they are "official" to the topic (in example, an online petition presented by a rock group in the rock group article), if it has been featured in the mass media (newspaper, other reliable sites, etc), or if they have managed to get a huge support (over 50,000 signatures would make the petition fairly known). Thoughts? -- ReyBrujo 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe replace the seperate bars on all these with something like 'Spurious linking to sites that the subject of the article is not closely and directly related to.'. This would cover blog sites, forums, petitions, fansites and so on. --Barberio 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Links to online petitions only seem appropriate to me when the article deals with such petitions, and even then they are a bit controversial. Inserting a link to a petition in a way promotes the cause, which is POV. For example, would we consider a link to a petition demanding the ouster of some president or other official inappropriate, but a petition initiated by himself in his own cause OK? But even if some popular and acclaimed rock group started a petition against something terrible, like killing young seals or something, linking to it would still be promoting it and POV. We need to have a firm policy on that, otherwise we will be dealing loads of abuse. Bravada, talk - 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't use an arbitrary number as a guideline. Wikipedia:Reliable sources already covers this. If the petition is mentioned in the article, or has gained media recognition in its own right, then include it. Otherwise, it's spurious. Fagstein 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bravada and Fagstein.  Petitions should not be linked unless they are discussed in the article - and that should only be when they are notable.  In Bravada's example, the link to the rock band's petition should only be linked if the petition is notable/verifiable - if they've gotten press coverage for their petition, for example. Generally, I find online petitions to be pretty unreliable documents in general. I don't think 50,000 "signatures" on an online petition would necessarily make the petition notable or at all legitimate. Schi 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesterday I removed at least 20 online petitions. It is easy to make one appear in the article ("Upon closure, fans began signing to bring the show back", etc). Only one petition had over 10,000 votes, a couple at less than 3,000, and all the others at less than 1,000. Per our spam guidelines, we should remove or reword them on sight, as it is an invitation to include more ("Online petitions were raised to bring the show back." becomes "Online petitions like this were raised to bring the show back." and then "Online petitions like these were raised to bring the show back." and finally, "A number of online petitions like these in this site, these in this site and these in this site were raised to bring the show back."). -- ReyBrujo 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone writes into the article something like "Upon closure, fans began signing to bring the show back" and they don't provide a secondary source to back it up, don't you have the right to delete it? Schi 20:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In terms of reliability, primary sources are fine, although you would check to see if there were mechanisms in place to prevent stacking the votes, and what those mechanisms were. However, you couldn't make analytic statements on the primary source without a secondary source per WP:OR. As for whether or not the material was sufficiently related/notable to the topic on hand, or if there was enough verifiable material for its own article, that's a separate issue. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the fact that the online petition is a primary source isn't the problem.  I should have clarified that based on my personal experiences with online petitions, most online petitions probably wouldn't be considered reliable sources by themselves (i.e. without a corroborating and reliable secondary source) per the online and self-published sources guidelines.  But that's a generalization. Schi 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online petitions 

message: Maybe we should recomend linking to an open directory listing where appropriate, as a stand alone recomendation independantly of any issue of fansites/blogs/so on. This would tie into the 'Wikipedia is not a link directory', but still let the readers be able to look up further information.
I think this also ties into the blogs/fansites/forums/petitions issue, as one common call for linking to these is 'that they are potential informative'. Since it's not Wikipedia's role to be a linkings directory for potentialy informative sites, we should transfer this to projects that are. By directing people to link directories on the subject, then it still leaves the potential to find information. (Maybe there should be a link wiki?)
Maybe it would also be usefull to advise adding links to these directories, or even adding categories, and so on, instead of adding the links to the article page. --Barberio 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a lot of links, sure, but a short list won't hurt. Although, if this is going to be a Wikipedia/Wikimedia user-contributed list anyways, why shouldn't the Wikimedia Foundation host it, so that the list will be subject to our needs and standards, and consensus of the Wikimedia community. One solution, if there is a series of articles all on the same general topic, would be to create a separate article on it, e.g. Bibliography of the Darfur conflict. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been suggesting using the Open Directory a lot of times, but one thing for a fan is saying "My link is at Wikipedia" than "My link is at dmoz". Just look at this kind of abuse, in example. -- ReyBrujo 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should be promoting and redirecting to Open Directories more strongly than before, to fend off spamlinkers, as well as encourage "fans" to use the correct project. IMHO, as long as we allow any single fan link in WP, people will be craving to have their sites linked from WP. As simple as that! Bravada, talk - 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point, but I still think there are advantages to leaving control of which sites are linked to in the hands of Wikipedia editors, especially where Wikipedia editors are motivated to select a small number of high-quality links. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "High quality" is subjective, and quite many, if not most Wikipedia editors likely to get involved here are motivated to promote their sites/causes :D Wikipedia's aim is to provide high quality content, not high-quality links directory or selection. Bravada, talk - 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A guideline should tell the users what to do. Stating that "High quality sites can be accepted" is extremely subjective, and basically common sense. I am currently cleaning up forums from external links, and I can tell you a good number of articles abuse external linking, just see :Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. I have put a good number of links there. Unluckily, people don't understand this is an opportunity for expanding the article and not only to advertise. -- ReyBrujo 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) That's a rather depressing outlook. It's probably more true on articles which get less attention than articles which get attention from a large number of editors. I would certainly support linking to an open directory as a way of resolving a content dispute over which fan sites were best. Although these links may be a suggestion for possible sites to use as sources by someone who doesn't know if they meet WP:RS or doesn't have the interest/time to check facts, given the poor quality of referencing in many of our media articles. (In this case, the long term goal would be to either integrate them as references, or get rid of them, but Wikipedia is a work in progress.) On the other hand, linking to an open directory would be less effort, which is good if media articles are being created faster than they can be well-written. *undecided* Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to directories 

message: *Okay, we have civility guidelines people. I've stricken comments I think are unneeded. Anyone wants to re-instate them, that's their call, but let's think about how they move the debate forward, yes?  If you can't keep it civil in a debate, don't post it.  Walk away, have a cup of tea and a sit down and rethink.  Wait until your mood changes a bit before you rejoin the debate.  Let's just stick to the issues and not the actions.  Now, to address 2005's comments:
*1: We don't have to have two weeks of discussion about anything.  A major rewrite of Verifiability and No original research policy was begun by just one person at Wikipedia:Attribution just a week ago and is heading towards acceptance.
*2: We don't generally straw poll, indeed even the page outlining straw polls notes that. It states In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes.  I doubt many people would agree that proposing a rewrite of a page in a workshop is a difficult case.
*3: I have no idea what this would address.  Multiple rewrites?  Wikipedia is built through multiple rewrites, we don't need to call for them, that's the basic premise.
*4, 5 and 6:Any discussion can be held here or on the workshop talk page.  But let's just end the idea that we need to hold a straw poll on everything.  Otherwise we end up holding a straw poll on whether to straw poll the community on which option of straw polling should be used to survey people on whether to straw poll on the issue of rewriting a page.  Straw polls are used in difficult cases.  Let's just widen the discussion, get more people in, see if we can get a rewrite we can all live with and keep it civil.  I don't see that anyone has addressed the point that not guiding on fan sites makes.  It means that if a fan site meets all other guidance, it can be added.  If a fan-site is thought to be neutral and accurate, add it.  If it adds to the value of the page, add it.  Let's not make exceptions for fan-sites, let's just build some guidance which states that where a link is of value to the article, and is of a high quality, we add it.  Nobody here wants to link to Bob's list of wild flowers, with a huge under-construction sign and the list composed of three flowers and last updated in 1995.  But there are grey areas, and we will never be able to guide a clear path through that grey area, so let's not try.  Let's allow individual editors to use their judgement, and allow the process of debate to determine if that judgement was right or not.  So, let's move the debate on, yes? Hiding Talk 11:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hiding for striking out those comments (including mine). This has gotten to be quite a passoinate debate and the advice to "count to ten" before commenting is very good. - Mike | Talk 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *No problem.  Like I say, there's a link up at the village pump now that might drive some eyes this way and broaden the debating pool.  But if we could try and get some clear sense of what we're all discussing, that might be an idea.  Like I say, I think we all agree that where adding a link to quality fan-site adds something to the article, and the site isn't in violation of copyright or added by the site-owner, there's no harm done.  If we can all agree on that, we can then work out the best way to cover that in the guidance. Hiding Talk 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not vandalize comments on this page again.  Also, why would you state "I think we all agree that where adding a link to quality fan-site adds something to the article, and the site isn't in violation of copyright or added by the site-owner, there's no harm done" since there is a proposal right now that links to such fan sites are not to be allowed.  It doesn't help anyone to mischaracterize the issues here.  2005 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you direct me to that proposal, so that I can comment on it. Hiding Talk 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently up at Wikipedia:External links/workshop and actually had moved fansites to "links to be avoided". Later Barberio removed them entirely. I don't really see any consensus that there needs a be a complete rewrite of the guideline, and I think it would be most usefule for us to simply go back to our primary focus on the fansite rule. We seemed to be moving towards consensus when this rewrite (which basically began without any prior discussion) interrupted the process. - Mike | Talk 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Events elsewhere on the page may supercede this but I don't think that's what the workshop page is proposing, actually.  It's just trying to avoid the specificity of saying a fansite is good or bad, which would lead to a lot of lawyering over whether a fansite is good or bad, and is trying to make guidance as to what makes a good link.  If a fansite meets the guidance, add it, if it doesn't, don't.  Let's not get over prescriptive either way. Hiding Talk 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A problem with the conceptualization of the workshop is its dual focus: rewrite guideline and/versus change guideline.  Simply simplifying/clarifying/rewording the guideline is a different thing than rewording the guideline but turning some principles 180 degrees.  My position is I don't think the word fansite should be in the guideline.  It serves no purpose. We should link to really great stuff that adds to articles, and not link to medicre or rotten stuff that doesn't.  A simplification of language would be a good effort to undertake, but it shouldn't be done as a way to alter the existing thrust of the policy (for example, adding that no links to sites with red backgrounds are allowed is fundamentally altering the document, not clarifying it). 2005 22:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am one of those Wikipedia contributors who (stupidly) added external links to sites I am affilited with, without realizing (by failing to read) the full extend of the rules. Truly added my links with only the best intentions. Then, got caught up in a number of discussions with the Wikipedia SPAM patrol. My first reaction was surprse, then, a little bit insulted, which quickly passed as reason set in, and the awareness that what I see as truly excellent link resources may not be seen as of the same value to others. The only thing that upset me is that assumptions were made as to who I am and what my motivations were, and it was posted about me being just some "guy" who SPAMS this project. The definition of SPAM is clear, and clearly, this was never my intent. Yes, to (quote) "Walk away, have a cup of tea and a sit down and rethink." (end quote) is one way to handle the situation -- vice versa -- by both parties!!! And yes... once settled, discussions do not need to go on forever. It makes no difference anyway. Wikipedia, as a group will prevail. --Danni R. 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A plea to keep it calm

message: *I've put a link to the rewrite on the village pump, that should generate comment and discussion on the merits of the rewrite. Hiding Talk 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I like the proposal. I don't have time to review it, but it looks pretty well. I am worried about the third level of heading, since it appears to contradict ("What to link to/What cannot be linked to", in example). -- ReyBrujo 03:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of the rewrite

message: I have recently removed some links to lyrics websites since they violate copyright. Before going on, I would like to make sure that there is a consensus for the removal of these links. This is what I think:
*Lyrics on official websites should always be preferred.
*If these can't be found, links to sites that have explicit permission from the copyright holders are acceptable.
*If these can't be found, no links should be put in the articles. Google is perfect for finding lyrics. Wikipedia is not Google.
If there are no objections, I will go on with the removal. Mushroom (Talk) 06:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, if it's not the full lyrics, but only a small percentage of the full lyrics, it should be clear-cut fair use. (Although, considering many songs are short anyways, how small a percentage is small enough could be debatable, but at least lyric excerpts don't include the sounds or notes.) Granted, lyric excerpts might not be that useful, unless it was lyric excerpts from a variety of relevant songs. Secondly, copyright does expire eventually. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some points: most official sites do have lyrics already, so try checking the official home page of the band to see if they already have the lyrics there, if so, feel free to remove the links. Also, most fan sites post full lyrics, that does not qualify as fair use. If they post a section, they usually don't discuss it in a critical way, which fails fair use again. Finally, if the song is 6 paragraphs long and they post one, that is over 15%, above what is accepted as "small portion of text". So yes, I believe it is justified to remove sites with lyrics. -- ReyBrujo 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's what I think too. I was not talking about excerpts, and I was not talking about expired copyrights (and anyway it's not that easy to identify them). I was talking about sites that post full lyrics to an album without permission, and articles that link to them. There are thousands of them on the English Wikipedia, and I'm planning on removing all of them eventually. I just wanted to know if there could be a good reason not to remove them, but I guess I'll have to do it. It will take some time. Mushroom (Talk) 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other than the fact that it's a huge job, esp. for just one editor... no, there's no reason not to. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyrics

message: We realy need to stop putting in complicated special exceptions for circumstances.
Idealy, a rule set should be simple, and applicable to situations as they arise. Especialy considering the general disclaimer of 'guidelines are just guideines', we don't need to put in cavets that you can link to a Fansite if it's especialy notable, or officialy endorsed. We need to ween people off this kind of beuocracy, rather than adding to it. (see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep)
As an aside, linking to fansites just to link to fansites goes directly against the 'Wikipedia is not a Linkings Directory' policy. It is not a guidelines place to overide policy. I see no reason to recomend people to link to fansites. And they should be included in a general recomendation against 'spurious unrelated links' which applys in a more general way. If there is special reason to link to a fansite, then it's not a spurious unrelated link. No other special wording is needed, so under Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep it doesn't need it's own rule. --Barberio 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid special exceptions, [[Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep]] 

message: I notice that we currently discourage linking to "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research." Surely we do not mean that literally. Most university sites contain unverified original research in the form of student papers; newspapers often contain factually inaccurate advertisements or letters to the editor; speeches that are archived on the site of a typical government body undoubtedly contain enormous numbers of lies; etc. If this standard is to be taken at face value, we clearly cannot link to the White House site, the UN site, etc. And that cannot be the intent. So what is it intended to mean? - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. It's intended to stop people from linking to conspiracy sites as if they were real sources, or sites of radical commentators who don't back up their claims. The issue is what is linked to, not what else is on the website. How else could we word this? Fagstein 07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've atempted to fix this on the workshop. --Barberio 10:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Any site that contains…"