Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Archives

Sorted by subject /workshop: Discussion of 2006 rewrite Sorted by date Archive 1: 2003 - 2005 Archive 2: January 2005 - March 2006 Archive 3: April - July 2006 Archive 4: July - August 2006 Archive 5: August 2006 Archive 6: August - September 2006 Archive 7: September - October 2006 Archive 8: October 2006 Archive 9: October - November 2006 Archive 10: November 2006 Archive 11: November - December 2006 Archive 12: December 2006 Archive 13: December 2006 II

Discussion forums

I, like many people here, interact with WP as both a reader and an editor. My editing is not as prolific as many but I do what I can to help. I have been trying to see what is wrong with including discussion forums (even if I have no connection with them) in External Links. As a reader I may read an article. If I am more interested I will read the references and External Links. If I am yet more interested then I want to find discussion forums. I go to Google but they are sometimes very hard to find. As a reader, I would like to see a list of discussion forums. As an editor, I do not see a problem with listing them except for the guidelines here. WP is not a fixed, written encyclopedia but a constantly changing online encyclopedia. What is the problem with including links to discussion forums? Thank you.—Who123 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a web directory. Even if it's useful, if it's not encyclopedic, Wikipedia isn't the place. There are other sites like Everything2 that might be more helpful for you. --Improv 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster, I see no reason why a forum shouldn't be included, particularly those that are established and provide sections of information that don't change and can be used as a reference. Is there a way of propsing this? or finding a debate that took place earlier to discuss this issue? Stephenjh 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Improv. An online forum is typically unmoderated and its contents are unpredictable. They may include copyright violations and unfounded personal accusations against people. Allowing these links would essentially open the door to include, via a single link, all the content that we try to keep out of WP and would defeat our effort to present a respectable encyclopedia, IMO. Crum375 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A related problem is that many discussion forum are comparatively ephemeral. They're not archived at archive.org, sometimes they change to member-only, and sometimes posts expire. While this is true to some extent with any web link, I find that if I follow a link on Wikipedia, and it's a dead link, 95 times out of 100 it's a link to a discussion forum. So from a purely practical perspective, forum links place a higher maintenance load on our editors. That by itself is reason enough to prefer different sources. Nandesuka 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, most forums (I visit) are moderated, and contain nothing I couldn't find either in Wiki' or it's talk pages. Any link posted here can take the reader in all sorts of directions to content that is kept off of Wiki', but that's there point. I thought (in my case) linking to the 4 largest forums on a subject, each with over a 500 members kind of kept the junk out of things. That's what I would be interested in, establishing some kind of standard for a forum to be included as an external link. Just a suggestion. Stephenjh 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would note that the forum exclusion has been in the guidelines since at least April this year[1], which means that it has been extensively discussed in these pages. Those proposing its elimination might want to look back through the archives. To me, the primary problem of including forums is low reliability and low density of information-- rather like the discussions here, you find opinions ranging all over the place-- it can take a substantial amount of time to get a sense of where a discussion is going, and frequently a thread will end not because a solid consensus has been reached, but just because people have tired of the discussion. In short, they are less reliable than other resources, which is the sine qua non of a good resource. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Improv. Online fourms are not to be linked to from wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a external link farm. If you like a certain fourm, then bookmark it. They are most definetly not a reliable source, and do not meet WP:V. They are places for people with a Point Of View to go. Wikipedia is NPOV. If we are to remain any kind of respectable an encyclopedia, we can't start linking to crap. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Who123 well stated some reasons for including selected links to external discussion forums. These same reasons are likely why other respected encyclopedias such as Encarta include links to external discussion forums. There's no good reason why Wikipedia can't do likewise, and in fact the current wording DOES NOT prohibit links to discussion forums -- it merely says you normally wouldn't do that. However the guideline is often misinterpreted, as well illustrated by some of the above responses. The issue about quality of external links is not isolated to discussion forums, but includes all other web sites. The points about reliable source and WP:V are misapplications. It's true links to discussion forums should not be used for these purposes (e.g, footnote to support an article main point), but they are rarely so used. Rather they are merely jump off points to additional information for the interested reader. Joema 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through your edit history, it looks like http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/ is an example of the kind of forum you feel is a quality link that improves an article. I'm sorry, but I really don't agree. As I said above, it's just really lightweight, low-quality, low-density consumer-blather info, where consumer A says "I bought one and it was the greatest", while consumer B says "it's a piece of junk", blah, blah, blah. They web is just crawling with opinion spewing sites like these. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you carefully examine the site you referenced, you'll see by discussion forum standards, it's a high quality site, and includes detailed educational explanations about the physics, electronics and optics of flashlights. It's not dramatically different than the link to a model railroading discussion forum in the Model Railroading article -- which BTW, the above responses would also prohibit. Selected links to discussion forums assist the interested reader. True they may appear lightweight or irrelevant to a casual reader not conversant with the subject. That is why whether a site is suitable should be up to the editors of that article, not determined by a blanket prohibition. Fortunately the current guidelines allow selected links, although this is widely misunderstood. Joema 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact there are three forums on that page, along with 28 other external links-- far too many by almost any standard. Don't get me wrong-- I have gotten useful information from forums from time to time, but I wouldn't voluntarily repeat the experience for any search where there was a remote chance of finding reasonable info on a regular site. And it's not as if good forums are hard for our readers to find via on their own via regular search processes-- Google "flashlight physics", and candlepowerforums.com comes up as the fourth link. I just don't see the value in pointing our readers at them. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your points, and agree we should discourage (but not prohibit) external links. The current guideline wording does that. I'm concerned about the frequent misunderstanding (see above) that all forum links are totally banned, but that's another topic. Re replacing forum links with "see Google", the same argument could be made for most external links. Other credible encyclopedias besides Wikipedia use links to external forums, so their editors obviously see value in that. E.g, the Encarta article on Mathematics contains a link to this math discussion forum: [2]. Similarly the Wikipedia Mathematics article also has a link to a math discussion forum: [3]. Joema 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

solutions for WebCites

Are there other services? Then we could more realistically say "such as " or could even use a device like the [[ISBN] page for listing numerous sources. The advantage of being able to provide permanently usable link is so enormously great that it might justify some stretching of the usual criteria if necessary. I do not follow this closely enought to know, but, assuming goood faith, and recognizing that your solution has been launched as buch for the general benefit as well as the commercial, I ask Eysen whether there are good alternatives besides the two mentioned.DGG 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the answer is no. To fill this gap was why WebCite was developed in the first place. I don't even know whether "the two mentioned alternatives" are viable alternatives at all (haven't tested them, someone should).--Eysen 16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

consultant newsletter articles

Hi - On many articles, the EL section ends up including articles from consultant newsletters in the field. This frequently happens in law articles; I also recently saw one on the Eye tracking article. The articles themselves vary: some are written in good faith, some are thinly disguised promotional pieces; some are high quality and add news about new developments, and others are simply client-newsletter filler. It occurred to me that it might be helpful to have a series of "case studies" for the EL guideline, to help users/editors evaluate these kinds of things. One such case study could be "consultant / private practitioner newsletters". Or perhaps there's a better way to handle it, or it already has, and someone could kindly point me that way. ... I scanned quickly thru the archives & didn't see this previously addressed; if it is somewhere else, point me to it? (being able to search the talk archives for a particular page would be helpful) --LQ 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to Dmoz?

Isn't it time that Wikipedia stopped endorsing Dmoz as the sole guardian of the world's links and suggested rather that people should link to "a good site or directory of external links on the subject", e.g. http://dmoz.org or http://chainki.org As things are at the moment it forces people to use Dmoz, period, which I often don't think is the best source of links.

Currently the project page says:

Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics.

I would suggest replacing this with something like:

Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to:

• either a page of links on a specific site with the best collection of links on the topic, or
• a related category in an open directory such as the http://dmoz.org or http://chainki.org.

Rugops 09:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would only support a "best collection" option if there are specific criteria for disallowing. "Best" is very subjective and there are people who will argue, for instance, that categories that include significant amounts of commercial crap or advertise-influenced rankings will be "best". If you sayAnd perhaps the swording should be "best", you need criteria for what disallows consideration as "best". --LQ 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

either a page of links on a specific site with the best collection of links on the topic, provided that the page has apparent stability arefrequency of updating. or

The Dmoz idea is a good one. I wouldn't go any further on link lists though than on rare occasions Yahoo. Since a zillion sites could just copy the same link list, there isn't any reason to link to anything else. (I assume the chainki thing was a joke, or at least i hope it was.) 2005 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why we highlight Dmoz. The drive appears to be two fold - Dmoz supporters, and editors who want an easy way to stop people using Wikipedia as a directory. I understand both these positions, there are some very good Dmoz categories, and it can be tiresome to keep reverting links to every website related to an article, but I disagree with the idea we should promote Dmoz over other website listings. In general Dmoz seems to suffer from even more systemic bias than Wikipedia and isn't any better than suggesting people use Google. It's lazy to put the Dmoz category in just to stop people listing their orgs and it doesn't really serve our readers any better to send them to one site where the there are lots of un-prioritized and barely appropriate links than to have them on the article page. Since the new version of the EL guidelines came out I've seen editors come in to several articles that they do not regularly edit and remove links that have been discussed by article editors and replace with horrible dmoz links to categories that are very poor quality. I would much rather see us hold the line on the directory issue and only suggest linking to appropriate external directories when the majority of editors believe they provide a well rounded and well focused service for readers. --Siobhan Hansa 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Dmoz link should be a last resort, not a first, and it shouldn't be used if the category is pathetic, which they sometimes are. (And of course it can't be used if there is no category.) Sometimes articles are so broad or popular that there is no way to be sensible with external links. Dmoz is the best general directory even though isn't very good overall, but it seems to be the best, and simplest, solution in many cases. 2005 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

These points against dmoz are all well taken but chainki sounds even worse. dmoz at least exercises some editorial control over its contents, pretty weak by WP:RS standards but better than nothing. Dmoz also is closer to being an open project than chainki--its contents are under an almost-open license and database dumps are available so anyone can mirror it easily (Chainki in fact is initially populated from a dmoz dump--that's how it claims 400k pages). Chainki claims to be a nonprofit but there are no copying permissions in any obvious place and I don't see anything about database dumps. I may go poke around there some more though, it looks interesting and I hadn't previously heard of it. 67.117.130.181 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

emphasis that non-commercial sites aren't exempt

I've been dealing with several spammers over the past few days who say their self-links are not spam because they claim (incorrectly by any sensible standard) that their sites are non-commercial or nonprofit, as if being noncommercial confers an unlimited license to spam. I just added some typographic emphasis to the COI section where it says explicitly that the guideline applies to both commercial and non-commercial links, to help get past spammer spin over whether something is commercial or not. I hope my edit is ok, otherwise please revert and discuss. I think we should actually try to drive the point home harder since so many spammers try to use that line. 67.117.130.181 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, JJay reverted because nothing else is bolded in the guideline. Can we crank up the emphasis by strengthening the wording instead? Frankly, bolding that sentence where nothing else is bolded makes it stand out even more, and I think that has a good effect regardless of the nature of the link someone is thinking about adding, since it expresses that the whole guideline is meant to be taken seriously. Does anyone besides me care about this? 67.117.130.181 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a good concept, although it IS stated, and a case can be made that almost anything could be bolded. 2005 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I run into this stuff a good deal. I think the weakest language in this section is the "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against." Why can't we change that lame "recommended against" to "prohibited"? Let 'em turn to the Talk page if they want to get their link on. It only makes sense-- no page owner or maintainer can have an objective view of the merits of their own page.

After all, WP:COI reads, in part:

"If you have a conflict of interest, you should: [...] avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)."

That would seem to merit a "prohibitted" on this page. Or if people are uncomfortable with using "prohibitted" in a guideline, how about "You should not link to a website that you own, maintain or for which you act as an agent." It's shorter, too. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. ∴ here…♠ 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I prefer prohibited as it's a much stronger deterrent. Also include wording that such links should be discussed on the talk page (with a declaration of the inserter's COI) and, if decided so by the other editors, someone else may place it into the article. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding links to one's own website is not inherently a conflict of interest. It is possible for even website owners and their agents to uphold NPOV. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but this is too broad for the external link guidelines. Notice that WP:COI says: "If you have a conflict of interest...". It doesn't assume that there is always a conflict of interest, as seems to be the case with those proposing this change to WP:EL. Mike Dillon 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm all for avoiding COI, but not all affected articles have "other editors" that will look at the talk page. Mike Dillon 08:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is WP:COI that needs a change-- please explain how a site owner can be sure that they don't have a conflict of interest except by not adding a link to their own site? Their POV is, literally, that of a site owner. Seems to me that WP:COI should read "When you have a conflict of interest..." -- Mwanner | Talk 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"When" is the same as "If" for me. "Conflict of interest" means that the interest of the site owner and that of Wikipedia are in conflict, so if the site really is the best, most appropriate link by objective standards, there is no conflict of those interests. You're basically claiming that website owners/agents are always acting in their own interest and that can never coincide with WP's interests, which is laughable. I understand that in problematic cases people will claim that they're doing it in WP's interest, but it's just not true to claim that they're always wrong. At the risk of appearing naive, I'd say you need to assume good faith.

An example is the case of a Prince lyrics site owner that I've been dealing with lately. I'm advocating removing links to his site because of copyright problems, but if there were no problems in that area, I would not think that his additions were a "conflict of interest". His site really is the best source of these lyrics on the Internet, they're just posted without permission. I guess the fact that he wants to keep the links at the risk of exposing WP to legal trouble represents a COI of some sort, but he is adding the links in good faith, as evidenced by his extensive, beneficial editing of the related articles. The links would be good if their weren't legal issues; the problem is that he doesn't understand that there are legal issues, not that he's ignoring them and trying to act in his own interest. Mike Dillon 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether "the site really is the best, most appropriate link by objective standards" is a matter of opinion. If a site truly is that, then an impartial third party will add it. While it's possible that the owner of a potentially linked website may be impartial and a neutral point of view, the potential for COI is too high. It's important to avoid not just COI but potential COI. Owners of a website can certainly make suggestions on the talk page. And if an article has no other editors beyond the person who wants to link to their own site, that's all the more reason they shouldn't do it. I support "prohibited" or a similar strengthening of the wording. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. This debate has been rehashed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest too many times. I think I've made my position clear. Mike Dillon 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really not a question of whether, theoretically, a site owner couldn't possibly have an objective pov. However any time a site owner adds a link to his own site he will appear to have a conflict of interest. If the site is, in fact, "the best, most appropriate link by objective standards", placing a message on the Talk page should get the link added. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this moderating voice of Mwanner. Wikipedia does not want to be "prohibiting" this, that and the other thing. If an site-owner is also an active editor, we don't want to be in the position of turning them into a vandal by mindlessly reverting every link they place. Rather the situation should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If Mwanner's position above, is explained to the editor, I'm sure a sympathetic co-editor could help place those links which are appropriate. Wjhonson 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is that this will result in good links not being added to topics that don't receive heavy editing. If the talk page is not frequented by many or any editors, then the avenues for other places to ask for a third-party edit are not apparent to most casual editors. That being said, those same people probably also don't read WP:EL, so this guideline won't affect them one way or the other. Because of that, I don't see the point in changing the wording since COI only matters if it results in a WP policy being contravened, and in that case the links should be removed on policy grounds, not based on this guideline. I guess that means I don't object to the wording being changed after all. There's always WP:IAR anyways. Mike Dillon 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So are we at concensus? In WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, replace "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against..." with "You should not link to a website that you own, maintain or for which you act as an agent..." I am avoiding "prohibitted" on the grounds that guidelines can't prohibit. Any further issues? (he asks, with a shudder) -- Mwanner | Talk 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Besides being stronger, I like that it is more concise. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think there are still gray areas when it comes to correcting existing links to one's website or adding an "official website" link to an article about a notable organization, but they are uncontraversial enough that this guideline doesn't need to address it. Mike Dillon 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see any reason to change the curent wording. The proper place to deal with this is at COI. The new wording would be the functional equivalent of a prohibition. We need to avoid the trend to play off the various guidelines, i.e. forum shop, to make one more restrictive or inclusive than the other. Policy creep is getting out of control here. Let article talk page editors resolve whether a link violate COI. --JJay 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are way to many pages with little-to-no activity on the Talk page for your preferred solution to work. And how is it "instruction creep" to bring WP:EL more in line with WP:COI, while slightly shortening WP:EL in the process? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I don't see how this change would conflict with COI or how tweaking a line that is already there is "instruction creep". Nothing this guideline says will ever be a "prohibition" since guidelines (and policies) by definition allow exceptions. But I don't think we should be afraid to say "Don't do X". --Milo H Minderbinder 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that COI's wording includes mucho "avoids", "mays", "shoulds" and "strongly encourage" (it also has a lot of bolding, which is a bit ridiculous). It does not use the phrase "should not". The current wording of the guideline fits with COI. By policy creep, I'm talking about people who go from guideline to guideline, trying to tighten the bolts on their personal pet peeves. The comment on articles with no talk page activity is essentially a non-issue. Articles with no talk page activity are not being actively edited or read. Someone who wants to remove an EL from that type of article does not need a guideline in order to act. They don't need to play off a "strongly recommended" against a "should not". The guideline will make no difference in that case, whatever the wording. This is not my "preferred solution". It is the common sense way of editing articles. --JJay 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say "should not". It says "...you should: ...avoid linking to...the website of your corporation...". I suppose there's a difference in meaning, but if so, I'm having trouble parsing it. If you'd rather substitute that turn of phrase here, I would have no problem with it, though I'm having trouble seeing the point.

And it is certainly not the case that "articles with no talk page activity are not being actively edited or read." I have had, er, disagreements that went on for days without comment by other editors on an article that was being heavily spammed.

And the issue isn't that someone "who wants to remove an EL" needs "a guideline in order to act". Its that after you act, it is very helpful to be able to say "look, here is where it says you can't do that."

Please try to understand that your common sense is not the only one going. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the wording is changed (which is not really necessary), it should be changed to "you should avoid". That is obviously quite different than "you should not". Beyond that, this guideline is already chock full of reasons or justifications to exclude links. But I would remind you that we are not dealing with "can't". Users can and will add links. Other users will remove them. This can and should be explained on the talk page, both by the link adder and remover (as you suggested above when you wrote: placing a message on the Talk page should get the link added). I would expect that your previous multi-day "disagreement" involved messages from you on both the article and user talk pages. That no other editor responded would seem to prove that the article was not being actively edited (besides a link spammer). A user who continually adds an unsuitable link to a page without engaging in discussion (and I assume this is what you meant by "way" too many pages without discussion) will be continually reverted and eventually blocked. This is already fully covered by WP:COI and WP:SPAM and was sufficiently covered here. --JJay 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must be be dense. Would you explain the difference in meaning between "you should avoid" and "you should not"? If I tell someone, "you should avoid stepping in front of a speeding train" or "you should not step in front of a speeding train", what is the difference? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Without being a grammarian, it would seem to me that "you should avoid" is less prohibitive and implies that it may be expedient at times to ignore the warning. There are never times when it is expedient to step in front of speeding trains. Should you be called upon to advise someone about stepping in front of trains, I would thus advise the use of the "you should not" formulation. Furthermore, as you are well aware, "you should avoid" directly replicates the language in WP:COI. --JJay 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. Have we, then, consensus that "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against..." should be changed to "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or for which you act as an agent..."? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make that change I won't revert. But what is meant exactly by the phrase "act as an agent"? How does someone "act as an agent" for a website? If that means "to represent", then why not state it clearly? --JJay 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And it has the virtue of simplicity. So then: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent..." Going once..., going twice... Any (wince) final comments? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New template for external images

External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)
description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)

External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)[4]
description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)[5]

A while back some editors started to develop a new way to implement external images. By now we have finished the template.

The size of this template is variable to fit better with other templates in the article. The link to the image is always given with a description of its content. This description is basically an interpretation and for this reason it has to be sourced with a link to the website(in accordance with all guidelines for the use of websites as sources). Both reference styles are possible. It is optional to affix additional unlinked text after the linked description, possibly a legend for maps in foreign languages and so on. It is advised to use redundancy (2-3 links for the same subject) so we don't loose information in case we have to face troubles with the image link of a website(it can get blocked, the url changes or the site shuts down,...). It is possible to add up to 20 image links with the templates on the right side. If you have more, start a new template and please let it be known here that there is an article with more than 20 external image links.

External images
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1) description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2)[6]

The older version on the left is still functional and the same rules apply to it, but it is advised to use the new version with its significant icons. The old version has no limit to the number of image links. The specific icon for external image links can also be inserted manually prior to the link:

I suggest to integrate it into the manual of style. I try here now to get an answer before boldly inserting and having an outcry afterwards. Wandalstouring 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like this. The fancy box gives way too much prominence to the external image links compared to other material in the article. Links to images should be given along with other links. At most, they should be identified as images by use of the little icon, like we use the icon for links to PDF files. The PDF icon is supplied by the style sheet so maybe we can do the same for graphics filename extensions. 67.117.130.181 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was explicitly requested to create something that does have prominence. Wandalstouring 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

The grammar in #1 of "links to normally be avoided" needed a tweak. It's either "..will contain if it becomes a featured article" or "..would contain if it became a featured article". As the vast majority of articles do not become featured articles, the second conditional construction is, imo, more appropriate. Deizio talk 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Search engine result pages

SERPs are listed under "Links normally to be avoided". What was the reasoning behind this? I can see listing how a broad Google search is not useful, but I have in the past added a link to an SERP on a news organisation's website which linked to many news stories covering the subject in question. This IMHO forms a perfectly good basis for "further reading" for the interested reader. I'm sure there are other cases where database-type searches (newspapers, scientific databases etc.) provide useful further reading and potential source material from which the article could be expanded. This clause should be amended to either restrict it only to general web searches or to allow database searches as an exception to the rule. Zunaid©^{Review me!} 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the original rationale, but I can see at least a couple of reasons: first of all it seems a silly thing to do in most cases (what is its usefulness? avoid some typing to the user?); secondly, the result is a moving target and there's little control on what the search could actually yield, say, three years from now. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. SERPs are not an article or document that you're referring the user to, it's a search ... with, as Gennaro pointed out, results that may differ from day to day. Really, the ideal link for me would be a citation or other template that links to the specific article, with its author, title, publication date, blah blah blah (see: Citation templates), so the user knows what s/he is clicking to. For me, ELs have value if they are further reading the user will get some understanding from, not just "more info." E.g., a WP article on digital video editing linking to an article at reputable source about digital video restoration of classic films. As opposed to a search on AFI or BFI for "digital video." This puts the burden on you to find a link that meets WP standards for citations/references, and then link to it with the proper form. Many, many editors just use the [http://somesite.com/some/article/piece Some article I found] link method, which IMHO is lazy, and requires other editors to Wikify. This is an encyclopedia, not a Web, so good links are pertinent, direct, clearly identified, and specifically of interest. A SERP just doesn't meet that standard.

That said, if your SERp finds a good article to link to, open it (ensure any user can access, as links requiring login or payment are discouraged), and see if there's a "permanent link to this article" there ... then you've struck gold. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SERPs should not be linked to from a spamming perspective. One of the methods Google Adsense spammers (or Yahoo!, for that matter) employ is to create SERP pages and put up Adsense ads on them. Google frowns on this, but there's lots of them on the web. No unique content, simply relying on SE's to provide page content to create relevance for advertisements. Calltech 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the idea of noting exceptions to the no-search-results "rule," specifically for site-search and database-search pages (of course the latter aren't search engine results at all). The rule should be: no general searches, and searches only when the provide the best point of entry to a range of useful further reading on a particular website. I've noted that people have a habit of enforcing this "rule" rather blindly, sometimes with ridiculous results (for example, removing any link if the URL contains the word "search," as someone recently did on a swath of articles). It should be made clear that the first concern is utility to the user. If a site-search result is the best point of entry -- and if there are numerous useful articles from a single source that would otherwise have to be linked individually -- then the search-results page should be linked. More or less the same thing, methinks, applies to "further reading" sections; if an anthology contains 5 useful articles, we would list the anthology once. On the other hand, if we were citing those articles as references, we would of course list them individually. This is one of several differences between further reading (and EL) and references/notes/sources. -- Visviva 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we talk about searches in general they can indeed be useful and I've used them in at least a couple of situations I can off-hand remember of: the Linguistic Universals Database (see last footnote in the endianness article) and Acronym Finder (in an upcoming version of KISS principle); in the latter case, "linking to a search" not only provided verifiability for the assertion (made in the article) that many expansions of the acronym KISS exist but avoided an inline list and the corresponding "I want to add my entry too" phenomenon which affects (to use a neutral term) so many Wikipedia articles (see for instance signature song). —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Searches certainly are useful, and the results of searches (including a link, for convenience) are certainly appropriate for posting to talk pages of articles. I think that's a different matter than putting a URL that resolves into a (say) google search as an external link or footnote in an article. I didn't see the latter in the two articles you mentioned. John Broughton | Talk 16:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

External links at Ex-gay

Would somebody who feels confident in their knowledge of the guideline look at the rather large list of External Links at the Ex-gay article? I have no doubt that many should be removed but would rather another set of eyes look at them. CovenantD 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Dang, thats a lot of links. You could legitimately remove all of them except for perhaps one or two of the biggest resources, write a note on the talkpage about the need for external links to be symmetrically, as opposed to tangentially, related to the subject of an article and caution that any individual subgroups should only be linked to from a page about them. Just because the article references a movement, it does not grant anyone connected with that movement the opportunity to be linked. Deizio talk 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Many of those links are already compiled and organized at {{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Perspectives/Sexuality/Homosexuality/|Christian Perspective on Homosexuality}} and its various related categories. This might be one of those cases where the dmoz link saves everyone some trouble. --Xixtas 06:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Overly strict on forum sites?

Can we allow some types of online forums as external links?

For instance, many neighborhoods have a community blog, which would be a useful addition to an article about the neighborhood. The same goes for articles about hobbies, where there often exists an authoritative forum or newsgroup, ex. USENET's rec.* hierarchy.

When the "forums" policy first appeared in the policy in April '06, it looked like this:

Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=49918030 )

It now looks like:

• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
• Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

which is causing people to delete blog links on sight, even when the blog is useful to the article.

I'm proposing changing to:

• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace)
• Links to discussion forums, community blogs, or USENET groups, except when the forum is about the subject of the article, the subject of the article is not a person or organization, _and_ when the forum is of a reasonably high standard.
• Links to personal blogs and web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
• Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Because of these points:

• Community blogs are more like forums than personal blogs.
• Forums are not the same as social networking sites.
• Forums that are about the topic of the article are good.
• We should probably not link to forums about people though.
• The forum should be a good, active one and we should not list any forum just because it exists.
• Clarify that we're referring to live feeds of newsgroups here, there are some situations where USENET is cited, for example, a bona fide FAQ.

Squidfryerchef 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Links normally to avoid starts by saying "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...". Also, did you see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Discussion_forums? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read that exception narrowly, it's only for links to _offical_ sites or when the article is about the website itself. This is too narrow, because it doesnt allow forums that are merely _about_ the subject. P.S. I tried and there's nothing at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Discussion_forums. Did there used to be a section for that? Squidfryerchef 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind about #Discussion_forums, found it here on the talk page. Squidfryerchef 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I misformed the link, and then it was "archived" this morning (though it doesn't seem to be in the archive(no longer true), so I have restored it and corrected the links). -- Mwanner | Talk 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PDFs

In notice that the section Wikipedia:External links#Rich media pretty strongly discourages PDFs; in practice, I don't see much reluctance to link to them, and was wondering if we should bring the standard in line with the practice? Also:

1. Given that we now mark PDFs differently from other links, is it still recommended to explicitly write "(PDF)" after each such link?
2. Hmm. I notice that the automatically generated symbol has now changed from one specific to PDFs to one that is rather more generic for a document. I think this was a poor choice. Where was it decided? I don't think there was discussion here, but with so much activity here it is hard to keep track. - Jmabel | Talk 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather link to plain text than a PDF, but a PDF is better than no link. Lots of academic and government articles are only available as PDF. I've always read the "rich media" rule as a preference for simple media, not a ban on rich media. Perhaps it should be rephrased. Squidfryerchef 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I miss the "PDF" symbol too and wonder where it went. Squidfryerchef 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be no reluctance about linking to PDFs and other documents in the external links guideline. People seem to naturally link to web sites/pages when they can, and link to other documents when they can't. Also, certain file types are frequently used for certain types of documents, such as Excel for some types of financial information and PDFs for government online archives of printed documents, so if we want to link to this content, we have to link to these file types. Besides this, the content put into different file types tends to be different, so getting an equivalent web version can be impractical or impossible from a technological standpoint. Finally, content is often available from a single source and few sources provide the same content in multiple file types.

I would prefer a PDF symbol rather than a generic one, if it is to be used solely for identifying PDFs. If it is to be used as a general file identifier, then something generic would make sense. Also, I think that specific symbols should be made for other files, like videos and text documents. -- Kjkolb 10:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the PDF symbol. The discussion is at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#PDF_icons. — Omegatron 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

[moved from archived discussion]
I would like to ask, is anyone else concerned that there are 3,343 outbound links from Wikipedia space to Wikia.com wikis? Many of these are linking to wikis that have had less than 4 edits in the past 30 days. So, that violates the current policy on External Links, but I'm not seeing much outcry or action to delete these links. --JossBuckle Swami 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[end moved]

Speaking only for myself, no, I'm not particularly worried about this. There are probably tens of thousands of exteral links to blogs, forums, and other websites that violation WP:EL, for example. I think some things just need to be handled on a case-by-case (that is, article by article) basis; this seems like one. If you really think this is a huge problem, you might consider starting a wikiproject. John Broughton | Talk 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I archived a bunch of stuff and moved the YouTube discussions to bring this talk page down to a reasonable size. I removed a little at a time and kept checking the size of the page. It is currently 39 KB, which is larger than ideal, but far smaller than the previous 367 KB. If you feel that a discussion was archived prematurely, please feel free to move it back. At the moment, I am still working on the archiving. The links to the pages will come soon. -- Kjkolb 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the archiving. The new archives, 11 and 12, are linked to at the top of the page. There is also a link to this page, where I moved the YouTube discussions. -- Kjkolb 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

DMOZ again

We have a user adding DMOZ links to scores of location articles, mostly in New York state. WP:EL as presently formulated certainly doesn't discourage this, and no one is reverting these links. I know that some have argued that DMOZ should be used only as a last resort. I would almost go further: most DMOZ location directories have a number of commercial links in them, links that we wouldn't allow direct links to, so why allow indirect ones? Anyway, with WP:EL as it now stands, I am reluctant to start reverting these links. Comments? -- Mwanner | Talk 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure that a DMOZ link provides a guaranteed great resource but the flipside is you can link DMOZ and justify the removal of all kinds of other inappropriate links. But if you did want to get rid, you can invoke #1 of Links to normally be avoided, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Deizio talk 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• ... Someone care to define what a DMOZ is? TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made that DMOZ. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• (EC) I'm not really sure I see the problem? Commercial websites are not de-facto bad and DMOZ is the unofficial link directory for wikipedia. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Commercial websites" are "links to avoid" if they "primarily exist to sell products or services." Plenty of the sites linked to by DMOZ fit that definition of "commercial website". -- Mwanner | Talk 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is if any of the Dmoz links are to the half of Dmoz regional categories that are useless. If these specific links go to useful categories, then that seems fine. Dmoz is a solution with External links sometimes, but it is also a totally useless link sometimes. It should not just be added to an article because it can. So I see it as a case by case thing. 2005 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it would be a Real Good Thing if we could wrap some language around the distinction between useful and useless DMOZ links, and give reasonable guidance about when to even consider them. The present language is, to me, far too encouraging. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Current line says: "A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article..." I think just a word or two would do it, like "A comprehensive web directory category..." 2005 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what I'm unhappy about is categories that are, to my mind, too comprehensive. For example, {{dmoz|Regional/North_America/United_States/Alabama|Alabama}} contains links to a tatoo parlor, bars and restaurants, etc. A lot of location directories contain links to real estate agents, whose links I have a particular problem with, as they tend to be especially persistent spammers.

And what about providing guidance as to when to consider a dmoz link? Is what we really mean "If you can't seem to keep an article's External links section to a reasonable length, then you might consider replacing the whole mess with a dmoz link? That's a far cry from what we currently say. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• There was an attempt to remove the Template:dmoz several weeks back that got a lot of feedback from WP editors. 100% of the comments were to keep it, citing all the anti-spam benefits that result. The fact that DMOZ categories do include many commercial websites in reality can divert links to commercial sites away from WP. It's democratic, even though dmoz editors are human and arbitrary at times. Entries do have to pass some level of notability which frees up editors here from having to check individual sites. DMOZ is certainly not perfect, but its better that Yahoo! directory where there's an annual fee (commercial sites), and most of the technical categories on dmoz have the major websites listed. I agree that putting up DMOZ (or links to any external sites) should not be a campaign by itself, but as a spam guard and replacement for long external links, its very valuable. I have used it on a number of articles for this very purpose. Calltech 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, OK, but does that mean the guideline should say "don't add a dmoz link without yanking all (most?) of the existing external links"? I wouldn't mind that quite so much, but right now we're seeing dmoz links added to long lists of links, with no guideline language to say that that's not a perfectly OK thing. dmoz is "a spam guard and replacement for long external links" if the guidelines say that that's how it must be used. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I see your point if editors are simply adding DMOZ arbitrarily, and I definitely agree that using DMOZ where the category websites do not relate to the article violates WP:EL guidelines (relevance). To me, the prelude to WP:EL says it all and that a good article doesn't need to have external links to be a good article. I happen to like the fact that DMOZ is specifically mentioned as an alternative to long lists of ELs. Not sure you can or should say the DMOZ must only be used to replace other ELs, but certainly it can be stated that this is the recommended use. Calltech 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• "it can be stated that this is the recommended use"... I like that. 2005 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's how I basically see the thrust of the whole guideline. Adding a dmoz link to a dozen others is silly. I don't agree with the too comprehensive point as what we care about is that the links we think are encyclopedic are included. What is there beyond that dosn't concern me much, since obviously if you look at it too deeply, a link to an Alabama Dmoz category can lead to navigating to the Ted Bundy or Jello categories. But with that in mind, the link to Dmoz itself is not the point. It's a way to list dozens or even hundreds of external links that could conceivably be linked on an article. So, I wouldn't write the guideline to say "either a dmoz link or other external links", that is the way I'd hope most articles would deal with it. Ideally we should choose valuable links for articles. If there are too many valuable (or contentious) choices, a Dmoz link could be a "replacement". If we can word something that way, perhaps we can say in general Dmoz links should not be added as one of many links. 2005 00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested here that the guideline should be "don't add a dmoz link without yanking all (most?) of the existing external links". I'd like to interject that I, as a dmoz editor, am very reluctant to delete other external links (except for egregious spam and obvious garbage) when adding a dmoz category link, because I am aware of the potential for a conflict of interest. I believe Alucard (Dr.) was being similarly principled when he added those dmoz links in articles for New York counties. If other Wikipedians feel that the addition of dmoz links justifies removal of other links in those articles, please feel free to do so, but please don't insist that dmoz editors make those determinations. IMO, there are few U.S. county articles that would not benefit from a link to the dmoz category for that county, as a single dmoz link (which embeds links to categories for every locality in the county) can obviate a lot of arguing about the value of inserting links to chambers of commerce, tourism organizations, historical societies, museums, educational institutions, genealogy websites, commercial web directories, job listing boards, local newspapers, libraries, recreation organizations, performing arts calendars, and similar sites that may seem worthwhile when viewed individually, but that collectively can choke an article with spam. FWIW, many of those New York counties currently have links to individual pages on a few other specific sites, including http://history.rays-place.com/ny/ , http://town-court.com/getStateCounties.php?stateCode=NY , and http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/state/his/ . If those links were instead listed in the dmoz categories, it would be easier to justify removing the links from wikipedia. --orlady 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hrm. I'm new to this DMOZ thing ... hey, it looks like the old Yahoo!, back in the day! Ah, nostalgia.... Anyway, I don't think that DMOZ links would pass muster with me as the ones I saw used as examples (above, and over at Template:Dmoz) are just links ... to links. What in 'ell is "notable" or "verifiable" to a reader about a link page which is ever-changing? Today it could have 5 good links, next week 20 lousy, commercial links and those 5 getting lost in the mess.
  
  My other criteria would be that WP discourages pages which are just indiscriminate collections of lists, or no more than links to other articles. Well, the DMOZ looks like pages which are just links elsewhere. I don't see the relevancy under a "See also" or "External links" banner. Call me a curmudgeon, but my litmus test for an EL is that on first click, it's relevant information for the article I'm leaping off of. If the link isn't relevant info, I wanna blitz it. (Yep, I feel that way about "search results" pages as well. Don't make me dig under a "See also" link. I know how to dig already.) So say I. >:( Handing the mike over to.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, isn't a user spending 20 hours adding DMOZ links to 20+ articles pretty much link-spamming? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Holy flurking snot, Batman, do you folks realize that Alucard (Dr.) (talk · contribs) spent 8 hours on 2006-12-27 just adding ODP links? If that isn't link-spamming I don't know what is. (shakes head) The 7 or 8 ODP links he posted that I looked at had no content that I could see ... just categories. (yawn) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Please, WP:AGF. --Xixtas 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Commercial and other non-essential links can still usually be weeded out using other criteria. If a DMOZ is appropriate then let it be added. Note this thread grew from a fairly mild incident, this is probably best left until we have a serious DMOZ incident to focus our minds. Are there any pages out there really suffering from the addition of a DMOZ link? If you add something else to the guideline about DMOZ you risk the implication that DMOZ has a divine right to be linked. I think it's pretty cool the way it is. WP is not responsible for the rest of the web, DMOZ is useful if not perfect. Deizio talk 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to offer profound apologies if what I was doing was link-spamming. I am a relatively new Wikipedia Editor and didn't realise that this was so controversial. I will offer that, should the concensus go the other way, I will spend whatever time it takes to remove those links. It was not my intention to cause any harm to Wikipedia. Let me try to explain my reasoning - I am an editor at the ODP (disclosing my affiliations) and I feel that the ODP and Wikipedia complement each other very well - both are volunteer efforts doing different things - there is no competition. Once of the issues I saw Wikipedia facing was that of long lists of external links was detracting from the article - and the amount of time taken to revert the drive-by link spammers. I thought that this was a great way of pointing people towards a list of External Links on a subject without it having to spoil the purity of the Wikipedia article. Yes, the links within an ODP category are commercial and non-commercial - that was a decision taken a long while ago, but they are chosen by humans to be of value to that category. The ODP uses a very different model for volunteerism, such that only "trusted" editors can add content, and while both have their drawbacks, I feel that both can be used in an effective way. As DeiZio said, the ODP is useful, but not perfect. I considered removing the other external links (after checking that they had been added to the ODP, but felt that at this stage, that would be arrogant on my part, and a wrong move. If that step is to be done, then I would be more than willing to do it. I look forward to reading more of this discussion. Alucard (Dr.) 12:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't consider what you were doing link-spamming, and I don't think most editors would either. Of course, I am a semi-retired DMOZer myself, so might be somewhat biased. Good to see you on this side, by the way. ;-) Hope you stick around, even it if it is only to add {{dmoz}} to pertinent articles. As the comments above said, not all DMOZ categories are worth adding (any more than all Wikipedia articles are worth listing on the ODP), but there are plenty that are. -- Visviva 15:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it should be obvious this was external link spamming since that is how it is defined: "Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product." WP:SPAM It seems in some of the places the links were added they don't meet the criteria of this guideline. It would be nice if they were removed. A link should only be added where it is needed, not because it can be plausibly added because it is relevant, and an absence of a Dmoz link is in no way a reason in itself to add one. 2005 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't hold to the spirit of the rule, each DMOZ link is to a specific collection of links that have generally been reviewed, not a "site" with content. DMOZ links are OK unless inappropriate in a given case, and you'd be hard pushed to argue that adding a DMOZ link for Butthole, Montana to Butthole, Montana is irrelevant or overly spammy. I'm pretty zero tolerance on ELs but it's obvious to me how using DMOZ as cruft prevention outweighs the feeling of spammery. Deizio talk 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"That doesn't hold to the spirit of the rule..." What doesn't? I quoted the guideline. 2005 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You quoted a portion of the guideline found under "Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar." and said that phrase defined EL spam. A better definition can be found at the top of the article. See External Link Spamming. --Xixtas 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Deiz's reasoning and I particularly dislike that we favor one website in our guidelines (especially without any regard to the quality of the content). We need to hold the line on poor links, not institutionalize the idea that we are a jumping off point to anything and everything about a subject. A DMOZ link won't help us build a good external links section - it's a lazy way of dealing with an article that attracts a lot of people's favorite but unencyclopedic links. If we just have a DMOZ link we deny our readers the service of a well vetted and focused external links section. If we have the DMOZ link and others we have the same problems with which links get to go on the article itself as we had without the DMOZ link. Some DMOZ links are great and are well focused enough that they provide a valuable resource for people wanting to go into the subject in greater depth. But most of the ones I have seen on Wikipedia articles are no better as resources than a link to a Google search.

A DMOZ editor who adds DMOZ links to dozen of Wikipedia articles is linkspamming - though I can see it was in good faith. It's a conflict of interest and it's pushing a particular website on Wikipedia rather than building an article up by finding the appropriate content (or external links) for that article. When one source is systematically favored over others we introduce bias that limits the value of our project. Wikipedia will be better off if DMOZ links are added when they meet our link guidelines and not otherwise. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some good points there Siobhan. Absolutely it would be great if editors adding DMOZ links check them and impartially consider their worth. And as you'll note a few paragraphs above, I do not believe that DMOZ should be further institutionalized as WP's preferred link partner. Appropriate links should never be displaced with DMOZ, only complemented if useful. And yes, indiscriminate mass DMOZ linking is undesirable. I do still contend that DMOZ is compatible with many of the goals of WP and should not be considered completely akin to linking to a commercial or other classic spammo site, placed with the aim of actual financial or other gain by the linker. I also revisit my point that this was set off by a pretty mild incident - did anyone else check out the Ex-gay posting above? Now there's a WP page DROWNING in links with a tangential connection to the topic. That's the kind of EL removal we should look at, and be ready to back each other up if editors to the page get sniffy about it being cleaned up. I can think of a few other pages where Taskforce:EL could succeed if we want to drive out spam and loose or unworthy links. Deizio talk 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You understand that DMOZ editors are volunteers and that the content of the directory is available for all and sundry? That ODP editors' raison d'etre is to find quality links on whatever subject and that useless and spammy listings are dumped in the bit-bucket? I don't think links to DMOZ categories should be added to en masse to Wikipedia articles any more than I think links to Wikipedia articles should be added en masse to DMOZ categories. However, I think there are a lot of articles here which would benefit from links to DMOZ categories. As well, people active in WP:EL and WP:SPAM maintenance have found that links to DMOZ categories tend to reduce the spam added to articles when there is a link to DMOZ. By the way, DMOZ loves Wikipedia[7]. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate the clarification and substantive discussion. I reiterate that several of the DMOZ links that I quite randomly sampled had NO ARTICLES, just categories ... requiring the reader to search/click/explore or otherwise try to figure out what the heck the EL was posted for. Other links, which have clearly pertinent articles, ought to be okay. Certainly, as mentioned, we ought not discourage editors judiciously adding a link which has appropriate content on the first level, with no bias either way about the hosting site (beyond the kinds of sites discouraged already). Clearly good faith can be assumed, but when someone who has a vested interest in DMOZ adds a few dozen DMOZ links across Wikipedia ought to raise eyebrows. Not trying make a personal attack, but I stand by my assessment. I hope that all concerned appreciate this and will act with restraint and respect for WP:COI in the future. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am puzzled by your comment about dmoz links that had "NO ARTICLES, just categories." Can you name some examples? Perhaps you misunderstand the function and structure of dmoz. It is a web directory, meaning that it is a large hierarchically organized collection of links. It is not an encyclopedia, so it does not have articles. Furthermore, many dmoz categories, such as http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/New_York/Counties/Fulton/ , are subdivided by topic and geography. As a result, no actual content links appear on that particular page. Instead, the links in that category are listed in topical subcategories and in subcategories for cities and towns.

As for your comment about people with "vested interest in DMOZ," I am curious about what you would consider to be a "vested interest." Dmoz is edited and maintained by volunteers and it has no ads (much like Wikipedia). When a dmoz editor adds dmoz links to Wikipedia (or adds Wikipedia links to dmoz), what "vested interest" do you perceive? --orlady 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Answers to above.

1. Yep, the example you provide is what I saw. IOW, one click away from the WP article, the reader does not find "related information," not a "collection of links" (e.g. old Yahoo, a page of links to pages), but a list of categories. So the reader has to click even more to search for related information. I frown on that. I think ELs from an article ought be to discrete pages with further information. My reading of the EL guideline is based on that (worthiness of the link). That's just my POV. Read some of Jakob Nielsen's early Web usability articles for more on what I subscribe to, i.e., making users click excessively or hunt for info is bad usability.
2. Vested interest doesn't have to mean money or gain, though it often does. I would define it as more than just casual or arbitrary interest. My OED defines it as "a personal stake in an undertaking or situation,...." So my idea of a vested interest (not stake, btw) could be a regular user of [OFF-SITE RESOURCE] placing lots of links to that same resource here. Say, an Admin of Memory-Alpha. A Guide/editor with About.com. If I'm a regular writer for Goopity-goop.com and place 20+ links to articles there, from articles here, you could say I might have a personal interest in seeing Goopity-goop articles linked from WP. Contrast with, e.g., my evaluation of a How It Works link to the Bluetooth article; I have no interest in that external site, so my opinion of the EL was relatively "un-vested."

So in your view the 75,000 people who have at one time been editors for dmoz should be disallowed from adding links to dmoz from Wikipedia? Would you also be supportive of the idea (conceptually) that the many editors at dmoz who are also editors at Wikipedia should be disallowed from adding links to Wikipedia in dmoz? Both points of view seem equally bizarre to me. --Xixtas 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize I'm probably taking a conservative (restrictive?), minority perspective here. As early as last June, the page encouraged consideration of links to "web directories," preferrably open directories, judged relevant by the article's regular editors. So perhaps this whole discussion is moot? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The DMOZ pages for popular subjects are broken up into categories because they can be so rich in content to be unusable otherwise. For instance, look at the larger English speaking cities, which have thousands of external links (e.g. 12000+ for London, 6000+ for New York). If they were not categorised the user would have to search these thousands of links, which presumably would be listed in alphabetic order, to find something of use. Conversely the Wikipedia pages for such popular subjects may also themselves be broken up for readability and usability. Going down the London page, there are 'Main articles' for the Geography of London, Climate of London, and many more. Imc 11:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links mentioned in the course of User Talk pages

I would like the External Link community's opinion here about the notion that I was "spamming" another User by leaving them a message on their Talk page (which was, in turn, deleted by another user who determined it to be spam). Seems to me that they're going a bit too far censoring Wikipedia users from even TALKING to each other on a Talk page, if there's an external link involved. FWIW, I am neither the owner nor being paid in any way by the external blog or the external wiki that is in question. --JossBuckle Swami 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history you appear to have been using Wikipedia to campaign for contributions to another site. That seems like spamming to me. User talk pages, along with all Wikipedia space, is to be used for the purpose of building the encyclopedia, there is no right to use this community for other purposes. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Same could be said for the Category deletionist who was responsible for at least half of those Users' deletion noms. Maybe if I add Wikia.com to my suggested external wiki recommendation, everyone will bow down in homage. --JossBuckle Swami 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with SiobhanHansa, your edit history reflects a clear pattern of spamming people's Talk pages. Our goal here is to build an encylopedia, not to spam each other. Please read WP:5P. Thanks, Crum375 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Happy New Year anyway. --Spartaz 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear if JossBuckle Swami is really looking for honest feedback or just looking to chew some butt. Here are some data:

• Centiare's owner owns MyWikiBiz
• The Wikipedia User:MyWikiBiz was indefinitely blocked in early October
• MyWikiBiz has some history with Wikipedia and WikiProject Spam:
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Oct#MyWikiBiz.com spam articles
  • User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2
  • Wikipedia talk:Editing with a conflict of interest -- many different sections
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz
• Since first establishing a user account in early November, |JossBuckle Swami has been a strong critic of Jimbo Wales, espcially his handling of MyWikiBiz:
  • User talk:JossBuckle Swami#Re:MyWikiBiz
  • [8]
  • [9]
• Copy of a 7 December Village Pump discussion of Centiare.com and MyWikiBiz
  • User:A. B./Sandbox7#Karl Nagel & Company, LLC starts up business controlled Wiki

--A. B. ^(talk) 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this, everyone? Before there's a complete witch hunt to discover where JossBuckle lives and who he dated in high school, answer this question: If there's a Wikipedia user whose Category is headed for deletion, would it be okay to leave a message on his/her Talk page, which says the following:

I noticed that the Category you created, "Foo that are Bar", is likely headed for deletion. I understand that categories like this take quite some time to develop and flesh out, yet this particular one appears to be unwelcome at Wikipedia. I hope that you will continue your work here at Wikipedia. However, just so you know, there are also other wikis out there that might very well welcome such a Category project as yours. You might start by looking at Wikia.com, Centiare.com, or PBwiki.com. Note: no actual hyperlinks, to minimize spamminess.

Would that be considered spam? The reason I'm interested in doing this, is because Category deletionism has been rampant recently, and a lot of talented Wikipedians are having their feelings hurt. Letting them know that their industry and talent might be welcome in another place is showing some more kindness than just deleting their Category. I would like to include Centiare.com, because I was very impressed with the write-up about it that Scott Baradell offered in his blog last week. I am not like other Wikipedians who think that Wikia.com is the only external alternative wiki that should ever be mentioned in Wikipedia, because that's endorsing a severe conflict of interest that Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley have. --JossBuckle Swami 13:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a reminder or clarification is needed. This site is Wikipedia. We are here to build an Encyclopedia. The messages that are shown in your contrib history reflect a clear pattern of spamming, and are totally inconsistent with our encyclopedia building goal. Political attacks on Wikipedians, such as the ones you make just above, violate WP:NPA. Please refer to WP:5 to read about this project. Crum375 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm familiar with "political attacks". I've been on the receiving end of them since about my first week on Wikipedia. I'm thinking along the lines of many other Wikipedians now -- it will be better for my sanity and my health to just abandon this project. The kids are running the asylum. --JossBuckle Swami 14:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to stay if you really want to participate productively and help us build the encyclopedia. I am not sure who the 'kids' are - I doubt I'd qualify. And getting politically attacked after one week here - if you believe you were attacked you should complain and pursue the matter - attacking others is not the proper recourse. Crum375 14:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you'd like to have a chuckle, the first case where my work was attacked in a political fashion, the admin who erased my work then erased my comments on his Talk page, where I asked why he was erasing my work! A few weeks later, when this admin was "brought before" a mediation hearing, the admin DELETED THE HEARING! When this action was reviewed, it was determined that the admin "probably" acted inappropriately, but since he was taking a self-enforced few-day "wikibreak", everything was allowed to just "blow over". It's preposterous how you folks who think you are "building an encyclopedia" actually reserve so much time for policing things that don't need to be policed, and ignoring things that ought to be on the front page of the New York Times. --JossBuckle Swami 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be first to admit that being a collection of humans (most of us anyway), we are far from perfect, although we all try our best. Incidents do occur, and if you were wronged by another editor, admin or not, you should pursue it until you feel it has been properly addressed. But I can assure you that attacking others or spamming people's talk pages is counter-productive and disruptive to our effort here, and 'policing' it (along with the other types of disruptions) is necessary to allow us to move forward. If you know of something that should be on the front page of the NYT and is not there, please report it to NYT, and once it is there we may end up writing an article about it, if it otherwise meets our notability and attribution criteria. Crum375 14:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Crum, just an honest question here, and I've already told you personally that I will stop my messages to other users that identify Centiare.com as a valid alternative enterprise for certain deleted Category creators. QUESTION: Is it "spam" if 100% of its recipients (so far) found value in the message, did not consider it spam, and complained neither to the sender nor to any Wikipedia authorities that they were being spammed? I think you have to agree that the answer is "no"; therefore, we are talking more about censorship here than about "building an encyclopedia". --JossBuckle Swami 15:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's my honest answer. To me 'spam' is an unsolicited mass mailing of messages with nearly identical contents, promoting some issue. Whether the recipients object or not does not, IMO, change the spam designation. The only exception I would make is for official WP business, e.g. notice of Arbitration, thanks for RfA vote, etc. Your solicitation, as reflected in your contribs, does not IMO fall under official WP business, nor otherwise help the project, hence it fits my definition of spam. In fact, I would consider even a single message that is not designed to help WP move forward undesirable; posting a whole bunch of nearly-identical ones is clearly improper. The WP Foundation pays for this site to build an encyclopedia - any activity that does not contribute to that effort is wasting their resources and disruptive for the rest of us. Crum375 15:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So, mentions of Wikia.com as an alternative to users is...? --MuscleJaw SobSki 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/MuscleJaw SobSki. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should in general police every single message between users, even if it's unproductive, unless there is a pattern of abuse, incivility, disruption, BLP violation, etc. In this case, if user A said to user B: "hey, why don't you consider service X?", we wouldn't be having this conversation now. But if user A sends the same unproductive message to n other users, B1, B2 thru Bn, where n is some number greater than 2 or 3 or so, it becomes a spam issue, and that is the case in point. Crum375 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that there isn't really a problem with Wikipedia users promoting an external wiki site, as long as the number of links doesn't get to be too terribly many. A former Wikimedia Foundation board member and Wikia, Inc. principal says that 2,700 outbound links "is actually very small". I pushed the number of external links for Centiare.com up to about 13, I think. Only 2,687 to go! --JossBuckle Swami 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The issue is not exceeding some external link count - it is WP:SPAM. Posting a mass mailing of unsolicited non-productive messages to other WP users is spam and hence inappropriate. Crum375 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright section

I'm rather disappointed in the people refusing discussion and just editing the guideline to represent their view on an issue. I don't want to be dragged into an edit way, but we now have an extraneous 'copyright' subsection that repeats the section on 'restrictions on linking' and adds another attempt at directly targeting Youtube. --Barberio 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why anyone should think it acceptable to link to material which violates the creator's copyright. This is, so it seems, wrong both legally and certainly IMO morally as well, and Jimbo is very big on Wikipedia having a sense of moral responsibility. It is perfectly valid to mention YouTube as the biggest, most well-known and most successful site where you have to be damn careful what you are linking to. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We decided against directly targeting YouTube for the following reasons.

• You should be careful when linking to any site, not just ones named in the guideline. Naming sites like this will quickly turn the guideline into a big list of 'forbidden sites' not general guidelines.
• There are a significant number of useful and acceptable links on YouTube, editors should not be mislead that all YouTube links are in violation.
• Issues should be taken on a case by case basis.

--Barberio 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No one else seems to have stood up to say "This new section should remain", so it should probably be removed. Please note that there is already a section on copyright, that this new one is redundant too. --Barberio 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Still no support for a second section? --Barberio 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. --Barberio 18:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed this because of all the other stuff going on. I reverted your deletion of the section because I hadn;t realised that there had been a talk discussion. My mistake, I'll revert back on a second. I do personally think there is no harm in having an extra discussion of this contentious area. Spartaz 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I just restored Barberio's last edit already, as per this discussion. Nevermind, your edit superseded/preempted mine. All is well. I agree it's redundant and unnecessary. Also as per the discussion about naming sites like YouTube, the deleted Copyright section sets us up for confusion with a specific mention of that site. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, yet again a particular editor disagreed, and the resulting edit war has left the page protected again. --Barberio 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Blog sites

Are already listed as "Normally to be avoided". This is good advice, and is clear and unambiguous. In general Blog sites are dynamic, and can change quickly, or dissapear. Which is why they should normally be avoided. Often the words are off the cuff and don't have serious research behind them, often opinions. Hence why they are normally to be avoided.

Putting "except by recognized experts" makes it ambiguous. Even blogs from recognized experts should "normally be avoided". for the reasons stated above. An of the cuff comment from an expert, who hasn't given it alot of thought, is not backing the comments by anything more than a momentary opinion, and as it is a blog, may change their opinion, or the page may dissaperar entirely is also, "normally to be avoided".

If a topic is so new in discussion that there is no verifiable and confirmed citation or reference, then it is a neologism, and should not be included in an article, nor should some link to some self-recognized "expert" be referenced on the article. Such information may be marginally informational, but hardly encyclopedic. Atom 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think blog sites should be avoided except as references if the blog writer is a subject in the article. Even then, I think the blog site should be included as an inline reference. At this point I don't see a case for ever having a blog site as an external link. Crum375 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both above. Blogs from recognized experts also contain entries from not so experts whose statements may not qualify for WP:RS or WP:V. One of the best blogs is Matt Cutts' who is a Google employee, is considered an expert in his field, and whose blog has been cited with many awards. Yet Google and Cutts both insist that content there is not necessarily reliable and that only content from Google's official website should be considered accurate and policy. Comments on a blog page may be refuted later, yet they usually remain on the blog for historical context. Traditional citation sources generally remove any content that is later corrected. Calltech 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be a lower bar for linking to a blog from a "Notes"; or "External Links" section than from the "References" section. Sometimes it is useful to include a discussion thread along with a fact that is already established by a reputable source. Also remember the quality of blogs, newsgroups, and mailing list archives vary widely and not every forum welcomes off-the-cuff responses. Squidfryerchef 19:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:RS allows blanket use of blogs, only in very limited cases. Also, nowhere does WP:RS say that WP:EL has a lower burden of reliability than the reference section for blogs. I don't see why any EL blog is needed at all - in the exceptional cases where a blog is admissible, as described in WP:RS, the blog can be cited inline and its link will appear in the References section. Crum375 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Suppose you had an article about model railroading or something like that, and you knew there was one particular forum all the serious hobbyists used, it is appropriate to include a link to that forum for the benefit of the reader. Squidfryerchef

If the site is an established well known site for serious hobbyists, it would probably be fairly stable, and we could say in the text somewhere: "Serious model railroading hobbyists exchange ideas, plans and parts, at the Central Railroad Hobbyist Forum[1]". Using the 'cite web' template, the site will appear as a regular reference in the References section. Crum375 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions. There had been an arbitration case, Israel-Lebanon, where it was established that blogs can be used in articles describing developing events. -- ReyBrujo 20:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the WP:EL page. There is nothing in WP:RS or the Arb case you cite that says that a blog should be cited as an External Link. I already mentioned above that per WP:RS blogs are acceptable in some limited situations. The question is are they ever appropriate as EL. Crum375 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We may be running into a dual meaning of "external link" as either "any link that leads outside Wikipedia, whether it's EL section, references, notes, or right in the text" or "a link in the External Links section" Squidfryerchef 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ever? No. Under restricted circunstances, in example, when the current event is overwhelming, and users add blog links to the external links section, they should not be deleted based on the guideline, but instead allowed to stay there or moved into the references section until they are analyzed. We must prevent wikilawyering in these circumstances. -- ReyBrujo 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that any internal WP link is a 'wikilink'. OTOH, most/many of our sources are external to WP. Some are hardcopy, e.g. books, magazines, etc., and some are online. The online ones are either cited inline (within the running text, or just past a comma or period), and using the cite template embedded in 'ref' delimeters (coupled with an existing References section with the <references/> line) will result in neatly formatted links to the online references, which can be interspersed with footnotes or hardcopy cites. The EL section, OTOH, is for left-over normally uncited online links, and that is the sole topic of this article and Talk page. Crum375 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The first issue is the inappropriate attempt to once again try and force a major change to this guideline without the slightest pretense of a consensus. This change will just be reverted so please stop just sticking it in there. Second, blogs obviously can be perfectly valuable external links. Sometimes they don't have comment sections. Sometimes they have a stable structure. Saying a stable URL on a recognized authority's blog can never be a meritable link is ludicrous. But beyond that, the section in question mentions the personal webpages of experts, which very often are the best external links on a topic. A random prohibition on expert sites is just dumb. Perhaps the section should be broken into two... "11. Links to personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority. 12. Links to blogs, except those with a stable URL structure and written by a recognized authority." 2005 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of context I suppose. An expert web site is good for rapidly changing issues where someone is looking for direction in problem solving, or changes, such as in the computer-IT area. It is a valuable site, -- that is a poor external link for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is enclyclopedic. A blog that has completely dissapeared, or the content completely changes in the year since the external link was put in is not helpful in an enyclopedia. By their nature/design, blog's aren't stable. And another thing, the policy says "Normally to be avoided". And not prohibited. My point is that blogs, even blog's of experts should normally be avoided. It does not prohibit an occasional EL to an expert site. All of the rhetoric seems to be people thinking we are trying to prohibit expert blog's. All blog's should normally be avoided. Atom 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Kindly desist from edit warring over this issue. Perhaps a request at the pump or an WP:RFC would help resolving this matter. >Radiant< 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, the monthly protection. Next time block the users, maybe that way people will learn. -- ReyBrujo 11:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This page should be permanently protected. This revolving door of unprotecting it just so someone can ignore the "consensus" statement at the top and add any old thing they want is ridiculous, and also leads to inappropriate statements about edit warring. 2005 11:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It is a wikipedia site. Let's just follow the rules we have established for editing. Obviously if editors vilate 3RR then that will be dealt with. Obviously if there were a consensus then there wouldn't be a edit war. New editors can't introduce new ideas to policies, guidelines, or aticles if th4e article is locked because a few editors with admin rights think that they have consensus, or think that a majority vote is the same as consensus. What you could propose is a different mechanism for things like policies and guidelines, of having a windows of discussion and editing on some regular basis, and having them static the rest of the time. An interesting concept, but not the way it works now. Atom 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • There has been a consensus. Consensus doesn't cease because one person now disagrees, that would be meglomania to think so, and certainly one person adding something to an established page is obviously not a consensus. The way it works here is if someone wants to make a significant change, they have to achieve a consensus on the talk page or the changes will be reverted. And that is not "edit warring". It's the way it is supposed to work. Editors trying to force changes without discussion or consensus just need to be made aware of their responsibilities. 2005 12:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, three different editors supporting the more clearly worded version hardly seems "meglomania" by one editor. And, since we have been discussing it here, at length, it hardly seems any editor is trying to "force" their way. Atom 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support leaving in "except by recognized experts", it doesn't make sense to ban all blogs since there are exceptions worth linking to. This has been discussed a ton recently, look at the recent talk. Quit making changes to guidelines without getting consensus first. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, or for the third or fourth time. It says "Normally to be avoided". All blogs should normally be avoided. Most people agree with that. It does not say "Blogs are banned as external links" NO one has suggested that. The point, again, is that blogs are temporal, unreliable, and off the cuff. Whether it is an "recognized expert" or not, it shoulkld normally be avoided. Not always avoided, prohibited, verboten or forbidden.

Adding "except by recognized experts" to the "normally to be avoided" suggests that somehow those blogs are okay, or are better. This ambiguity leads to more bad information in Wikipedia at a time when its credibility is already considered to be poor. Strong policies on Attribution, Verifiability, and External Links will lead to better quality, and better credibility. Who is a recognized expert? How is their opinion on a blog about things probably not related to their field of expertise something that will improve the quality of an article, or the credibility of Wikipedia? Atom 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"suggests that somehow those blogs are okay" That is because those expert ones are. Your assertions are totally at odds with the guidline and common sense. Expert sites that are meritable, stable and otherwise meet the criteria for linking are good links. Your POV of wanting to avoid anything published via blog software is not something most people will agree with. Nonsense statements like "blogs are temporal, unreliable, and off the cuff" help no one. We DON'T LINK TO blogs that are "temporal, unreliable, and off the cuff" so don't make a silly strawman. Read the guideline. The issue is non-temporal, expert, well-considered content. Even though you may disagree, the consensus in making the guideline is to link to such material for the good of users and the encyclopedia. 2005 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard a statemnet on the radio... over 1 billion blogs on the internet. I'm willing to bet that 999,999,000 of them are ones we should never link to. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Any source that has no editorial board validation is highly suspect and most likely will fail WP:RS. Blogs are in fact almost always unacceptable on WP except in some rare cases where (per WP:RS):

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

So even in these rare cases caution should be exercised. If you blindly say 'no' to any blog source, you'd be correct most of the time. The onus is on the provider of that source to prove it meets these very strict requirements. Crum375 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS only applies to items used as sources in an article. And even then, your assertion that Blogs can almost never be used as Reliable Sources has a few problems. For instance, there has been a recent rise in media professionals having their own Blogs, that are verifiably theirs. Neil Gaiman for example, has a blog, as do the creators of The Venture Bros.. Such blogs would actualy serve as primary sources for statements, quotes and announcements.

However, that said, the External link guidelines are here for where a link is *not* being used as a source, and different standards apply. There is a strong caution against using blogs, but there are still circumstances where linking to a blog is appropriate. --Barberio 12:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your premise that this entire guideline is for external links that are not used as a source is important. AFAICT, the vast majority of the ELs currently used in WP are used at least indirectly as a source, and most/many are used as a source in lieu of proper inline reference citation. So while I personally would agree that ELs are for non sources, I think current status is that they are, and the current wording of the guideline does not preclude their use as sources AFAICT. I think this issue (and hence the applicability of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP) has to be settled first, before addressing the blog issue. Crum375 13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

External links can be used to link to sources used as references, and often are, but in those cases *both* WP:EL and WP:RS apply. In cases where the external link is not used in a reference or a cite, then only WP:EL is used. I think this is clear enough already, but I would not object to adding text to make that explicitly clear. --Barberio 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never read these guidelines as applying to references and common practice sees many reference links accepted that do not comply with EL. For instance citations of journals that have an online article requiring registration or subscription frequently include a link to the article - under our EL guidelines this isn't acceptable, but it's considered a courtesy link for a reference. Our need for good sourcing is more important than our need to keep other links in check, so I don't think we should try to restrict references more than is necessary to comply with our WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It becomes much messier when a source is not linked to the assertion(s) it is supposed to support, but I don't think we gain as an encyclopedia by having blanket rules for all sources because of this. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your given example of including a link to a 'registration required' link. The guideline makes a specific exception "It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website", obviously this applies if the website is being used as a reliable source. As a service to our readers, if there is an equivalent reliable source which does *not* require registration, that might be a better source. However there is no requirement for immediate or free access to reliable sources, so using registration requires sites is perfectly acceptable. If you can find instances where WP:EL would conflict with WP:RS when using a link in a source citation, then we can add suitable exceptions. It should of course be noted that WP:EL is a guideline, and should be applied with digression. --Barberio 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Car manual external links

Yesterday I reverted the addition of http://www.analogstereo.com/ to several sites e.g. BMW 7 Series, then reverted my revert since I was not sure. I was about to remove all references in all articles - there are currently 97 articles containing this. From one point of view it contains usefull downloads of manuals, from another it may be a multiple copyright violation. Let me knnow, I've got an AWB script set up to delete them. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To expand on this, since Armadillo and I exchanged messages about it. Its unclear from the site what the copyright status of the downloadable manuals is. The PDF files are marked as copyright of the appropriate manufacturer - in this case BMW. I don't know enough about this market to know if these manuals are generally considered public domain or not. Unfortunately the site itself doesn't give any guidance (that I could find) about this issue. If the manuals are clear copyright violation I believe we should not link to that site. Gwernol 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The manual I clicked on was marked as an on-line edition so I guess it was intended to be downloaded but the thing was clearly copyrighted. I also tried to find some manuals on the BMW website but had no luck on .co.uk and .com so its not clear that BMW actually make them freely available. As such, I don't think we can consider them anything other than BMW's copyright and shouldn't link them via a third party unless more information becomes available. --Spartaz 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Some relevant information is at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. If you want to pursue the matter, you might post something on the talk page there. John Broughton | Talk 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on publishers point of view: BMW owner manuals are copirighted but freely available on their website and multiple other sources on internet(fan clubs etc), GM protects all of their marketing materials but not their technical info , Honda won't give you owner manuals but shop service manuals are free for download(not a single word of copyright, health & safety), Volvo made their owners manuals available for all models since 1973. and Peugeot warns you of french copyright law (2 years in prison + 250,000 Euros in damages);

All of BMW external links should be removed in my opinion - they are only manufacturer that clearly protected their publicly available materials with the proper copyright notice;A forum 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you a link to the BMW download? We could simply change the redirects to that link and be done with it. Spartaz 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of enforcement does not change copyright status. Freely available downloads do not change copyright status (consider: if a publisher gives away a book, those who get free copies don't get any additional rights). Links should only be to clear original publishers, unless the republisher can demonstrate a specific release that includes them. (In my opinion, of course). Notinasnaid 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here is a a BMW link BMW 7 series user manuals archive 2000-2005 - one of the manuals that I downloaded is marked 01 40 0 156 097 ue Online Edition for Part No. 01400156097 – © 10/01 BMW AG --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Scope of WP:EL: "External links" section, or offsite links from any section?

Is this policy only meant to apply to the External Links section? Because we can end up with two very different interpretations. One reading would be that we are only to impose minimum standards such as not linking to pirated material, while the other reading could imply a different, possibly higher, standard for ELs than for RS'es Squidfryerchef 04:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My read on it is that it applies to any and all links that go offsite, regardless of where they appear in an article. Is there some wording in the policy that makes you think otherwise? (I realize the title can be seen as ambiguous.) John Broughton | Talk 14:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it relates only to the EL section:

Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).

IMO there is no other way to read or interpret these words - if normal routine inline cited references are meant to be covered here, then this entire lead (and in fact the entire entry) would need a major rewrite. Crum375 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia policy is a sort of accumulation, and there is no editorial board to keep things consistent. For example, if you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), that page is divided into two sections - internal links and external links. The second (external links) section cites this policy as the main article - yet, in fact, what is in that section has almost nothing to do with this policy.

When we talk about "external links", there are really at least three different things that can be discussed:

• Technical stuff, like WP:URLs and WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Dead external links. ("How", if you will.)
• What should and should not be linked TO, which is covered by policies like WP:RS, Wikipedia:Copyrights, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. ("What")
• Which type of links are appropriate for the "External links" section -- is a subset of what can be linked to. A link may not violate any policy but still not be appropriate for that section. ("Where")

It would nice to separate out the three, cleanly, and to have each cite/summarize the other. And certainly using WP:EL for both the second and third purposes - which is the case now - is a mistake. John Broughton | Talk

Yes, I agree. As it stands now, it is very easy for the uninitiated to assume that this WP:EL policy page applies to your items 1, 2 and 3, whereas it currently is strictly 3 only. I suspect many of the discussion threads here reflect at least some of this confusion. Crum375 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It does fairly overlap on all of them. Number 3 is the primary, but if it fails the tests of WP:EL, it's sure as hell gonna fail the even stricter tests of WP:RS... I've always viewed WP:EL as the umbrella whereas the other guidelines are more there to deal with the more specific aspects. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent)For a blanket policy, the opening sentence sure is odd: Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia. If that sentence were rephrased to A large percentage of the time, Wikipedia articles don't need links to web pages outside of Wikipedia, the first editor to see it would have a good laugh and revert the change. Yet the two sentences ARE identical in meaning IF the sentence is talking about the entire article. The only way that the first sentence actually makes sense if it is talking only about the EL section, which (one can argue) isn't necessary if there are good footnotes. John Broughton | Talk 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My argument elsewhere on this page is that I have yet to see a single case where an EL section is truly needed in a stable article, since if an link provides useful information it should be incoporated into the text and cited as a reference. The current WP:EL policy clearly addresses the EL section only, yet it is logically flawed, IMO. It says you should not include in the EL section anything that wouldn't be there once the article attains FA status, yet all examples provided can easily be linked in as a reference, IMO. The only use for EL IMO is during 'construction', as a new article is being built, or some new info is quickly added; I can see using EL as a holding area for new sources until they are properly integrated as sourced into the article. As it stands, EL section is a magnet for spam, ads and low quality sources. Crum375 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, external links are quite useful for directing a user to a useful resource that because of copyrights, policy, or technical restrictions we can't duplicate. For example, the article on Nixon has a link to website that has an archive of all the campaign advertisements used. We simply can't host that for many reasons. Are the links required? No... but they are extremely helpful for anyone wishing to learn more about the elections in that time period. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it also needs to be relevant and important to the article, not simply "a useful resource". And if it is relevant, it probably needs to be mentioned, vaguely, indirectly or straight out, or at least referred to in some way in the article itself, with a footnote that either cites the source or refers people to further readings on the matter. In other words: If it is truly relevant, it would fit into the "Notes and reference" section, which is controlled by a WP:V, WP:NPOV etc.---and that pretty much takes care of any possible spam problem there. Following the rules for proper references, I might not, f. ex., decide that the anti-war ads my mom created for her highschool newspaper editorial board, showing Nixon with a pig's snout and goat horns, belong in the article "as a useful reference", just because she has now made an alumni website with old school paper archives from the age of flower-power and so happens to be also raising money for a good cause through that site, which she hopes will gain exposure by being on Wikipedia ;)(well, unless the Wiki article is talking about f. ex. a police riot that erupted at mom's school in the wake of that ad campaign, and has been made a national news item, of course). As a personal preference: away with all external links from the Wiki article text---they need to be in the ref. section. (But this is not the page to support that, right?) ;) Pia 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pia. If you just think about it, and apply the first rule of what EL is not (something that does not belong in EL in a FA), you realize that to be in EL the site would have to be stable and relevant. Then if it's relevant and stable, it can easily be cited from the text, disappearing from EL. As I see it, EL section is a temporary placeholder during construction. Crum375 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the text "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia." was quite suitable and descriptive. As opposed to "Links can be included", it reminds the reader that articles should be improved by adding links, not made worse by adding links, and that the guideline ensures that. --Barberio 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point about "improved" or not is a valid one. I changed the sentence slightly to be value-neutral, I think that should be less ambiguous (and in any case is more in keeping with the status of the page). Guy (Help!) 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be 'value-neutral', Clearly we do want to say only links that would improve an article should be added? If you do want a less ambiguous text, I would have suggested "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, where they would improve an article." (It's also more contextually correct language to use 'may' instead of 'can'. May implies it would be correct to do so, can is just that you have an ability to do so.) --Barberio 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be value-neutral in the lead of a manual of style page? Are you serious? As to may/can, I put can because it's factually correct. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Style Guideline's are specifically not value neutral, we do want to make value distinctions, that's the whole point. --Barberio 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pararescue Link

I am a Pararescuman and would like to post a link to my site http://www.pjcountry.blogspot.com . I have real time facts for people interested in the topic. Please respond with the appropriate measures in order to do so.... pjcountry@gmail.com 21:55, 2 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.143.22 (talk • contribs)

Posting of links to blogs is almost always unacceptable, and your site does not seem to be any different. Please see WP:RS. Thanks (and sorry, but there are literally millions of blogs out there). John Broughton | Talk 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• What John said. If you can get a column syndicated in a decently-circulated magazine or some such then I'd support links to your work hosted on your blog or website, but blogs are too ephemeral to make good material for links. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposing "external links section" section

If WP:EL applies to every offsite link, why not create a section here about the "External Links" section. Hopefully this will clear things up:

"Best practices for External Links section" While WP:EL is usually taken to apply to every link that leads outside of Wikipedia, many articles have long had a section entitled "External Links". However, this should be reserved for just a few ( 3 is a good number IMO ) links that are particularly relevant to the topic.

1. For example, an article about a city might put a link to the official city website here. Even if it is already buried in the References section.
2. These links do not have to meet WP:RS; self-published material may be OK in some cases.
3. These links must be about the subject of the article. Not about some aspect of the subject, but about the subject in general.
4. These links should be reasonably NPOV. For instance, in an article about a corporation you would not link to a group that is protesting the corporation. ( However, you might use that in your References section )
5. The External Links section sometimes gets used as a Reference section sans footnotes, when pages are under construction. However, this should be avoided.

Comments? Squidfryerchef 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"If WP:EL applies to every offsite link". It doesn't. This guideline applies to the external links section. We aren't here to rewrite the WP:RS or anything else. 2005 04:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might start the process by being the one who changes the Manual of Style page (see above) that specifically cites this guideline as covering all external links (as opposed to internal links)? John Broughton | Talk 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly site-wide confusion that needs fixing regarding the exact meaning of 'external links' and their relevant guideline(s). Since the issue relates also to WP:RS, WP:V and probably WP:BLP, a cleanup/clarification is needed IMO. Crum375 15:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"specifically cites this guideline as covering all external links". It does not. It plainly says Wikipedia is not a link collection. Do we really need to go down this path? This guideline (its a guideline not policy) is for the external link section. It mentions other things, but it does not supercede WP:RS. We have different guidelines for different things, and different discussions regarding the different guidelines too. Let's keep this one to the guideline for external links sections on articles. 2005 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, as written the guideline refers to all external links. It does give some guidelines which would be appropriate to links used within sources, such as recommendations on how to link to foreign language sites and rich media. However, it should not be used to over-ride WP:RS and that may need clarification. --Barberio 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that EL applies to cited sources. WP:RS applies to sources, and EL applies to links not used as sources. If EL applied to sources or vice versa, then what would be the purpose of having two separate guidelines? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Minderbinder. I think we need to clearly state in the EL guideline that it applies strictly to links that are not used as a source. Then, we have to think long and hard what kind of non-source links we really want to have on WP and what rules apply to them, as WP:RS and WP:V by definition do not apply, while WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO probably do apply, etc. Crum375 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Parts of WP:EL do apply to citations. For example, if a link in a citation is a "convenience link" and is not being relied on for verification, then WP:EL would apply. For example, when citing a newspaper article with {{cite news}}, it's common to also include a link to an online version of the article. However, in a situation where the citation passes WP:RS but the link fails WP:EL then the EL should be removed and the citation should remain... For instance, if a "hate blog" is hosting a section of a book (with a plausible fair-use claim) it would fail WP:EL... and the best option would be to simply use a unlinked citation to the book. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS tells what kind of content is good as a source, but it doesn't deal with technical issues like rich media, permanency of links, etc. For WP:RS it doesn't matter if the source is even online at all. So I'd say that WP:EL applies to every offsite link. If you cite a link in your References section it should meet both WP:RS and WP:EL. WP:RS and WP:EL may frown on certain types of sites but for different reasons. For example, WP:RS may frown on social networking sites because they are self-published, but WP:EL might frown on them because many allow scripts that play rich media ( and possible copyright violations ). On the other hand an article's EL section itself may need unique rules, because it is an unorganized list that tends to get cluttered. I'm going to _be bold_ and add a draft EL section, we can see what the consensus is. PS. If we did have a "hate blog" as a reference, and it passed both RS and fair use, I think that it might be OK under the "blanket" EL I'm pushing, but it would not be OK in the "External Links" section unless the article was about the hate blog itself of the group publishing it. Perhaps best to move the more restrictive tenets of WP:EL, which were possibly intended for the EL section anyway, into my draft section Squidfryerchef 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at the page again, quite a bit of it is specific to the EL section. However, there are people who cite WP:EL as applying to every offsite link. Perhaps the thing to do is instead of creating an "EL section" section, is to add an "offsite links" section at the beginning. Squidfryerchef 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No (or almost no) citation requires an external link, so there is no reason why WP:V (guiding policy of WP:RS/WP:CITE) would override WP:NOT (a guiding policy of WP:EL). ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the external link policies are extremely frustrating. As someone who contributes a lot lately to Wiki, and who has 800 personal web pages on just about every subject under the sun, it is saddening not to be able to draw attention to one of my own pages as a reference source. I appreciate that the policy is to prevent spam and advertizing. The idea is that someone else researching on a given topic should find my work relevent enough to incorporate. Many people like my work. I know that from the correspondence and sales of a few books I have done show. It strikes me that many articles and essays by quite accomplished writers will fail to be noticed this way. If I write a feature on the Quicksand issue, for example, I have in effect to disregard much that I already have on my own website's Quicksand page and hope that someone will see fit to add me as an external reference. Would it not be more practical to have third parties to whom an external link could be reccomended with a note to the effect, saw your article on Quicksand. Here is an article that I think should be cited as a link to it - could you consider adding me in? Thanks. That way, someone looking for quicksand info isn't going to find one of us (Wiki or me) first and not bother going tot he other - if the two are cross linked they will visit both. Obviously, a page that is irrelevent to an issue will be easily dismissed. It disheartens me to find that in an article on cults, especially Divine Light Mission, which I was in, my well recieved Brainwashing article on my experiences in the sect can't be cited as a reference, because only I seem to notice how relevent it is. Many people like it, but they are not necessarily heading for Wikepedia straight after seeing my page. If my stuff was rubbish or if I tried to link a site about hula hoops to one about pig farming I could understand it. I probably can't even list my web site here as an example so you can check out my worth as a possible source on various material. You can of course find it at my username page if you wish. (User:arthurchappell

There's a simple solution for this, and it's already covered in this guideline. Mention your site on the talk page, if other editors think it is appropriate to link to, they will add the link. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, but you must see how allowing this sort of thing treads very close to breaking the concepts of "No Original Research", "Conflict of Interest" and "Verifiability" - this is not specific to any of your 800 pages, but in general. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a link farm - there are link directories out there that do a great job of catagloging websites that deal with topics. In some cases it is these that are linked from Wikipedia pages (see various discussions on this Talk page). I think that this is the appropriate way to go. Alucard (Dr.) 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

arthurchappell, it might be benifitial to bring your website up on the related talk page. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

blogspot.com

I was curious why Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam wasn't going after *.blogspot.com external links, so I used Special:Linksearch to take a look at what was out there. I'm reporting back here on the hour or two I spent reviewing (scanning) the first 4,000 listed links. First, that got me only partly into the "d's", so I estimate that there are between 15,000 and 25,000 *.blogspot.com external links on en.wikipedia.org pages. Second, probably half are from Talk: or User: or User talk: pages, which means the other half are from articles. Third, I found a trivial amount of spam (in fact, what I found was on user pages, not in articles), so that doesn't seem to account, at all, for the volume of links. Fourth, I didn't find any obvious "vanity" articles in the articles I looked at, so using blogspot.com links to find such articles isn't a good idea.

What percentage of the links in articles to *blogspot.com pages don't meet the requirements of WP:RS and of this policy? I'd have to spend more time analyzing the links than I did to answer that question with any degree of certainty. Many seemed fine to me - for example, biograhical articles where the link was to a blog written by the subject of the article. Many certainly are not, though I didn't find more than one or two that was so egregiously wrong that I deleted it.

What is certain is that there are thousands of Wikipedia editors who think that blogs have valuable content and that it's useful to link to them. I also think it's fairly certain that there are way too many links, and valuable links, for WikiProject Spam to target this blogsite in the future. Finally, if policy is to mirror practice (many don't think that's a good idea), then a more thorough examination of what actually is being posted would be in order. John Broughton | Talk 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The last time I estimated, there were 16,019 blogspot links. I would say 90% are not necessary, and we should aggressively go against them when they are completely irrelevant. -- ReyBrujo 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the fact that most of those references are on Talk, User, or User_Talk pages indicate that the links may be "useful", but not encyclopedic? Atom 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ReyBrujo - There are some who would say the appropriate response to your call for action is Who are "we", Kemo Sabe? John Broughton | Talk 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, Wikipedia editors, of course. -- ReyBrujo 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)