Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:External links. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Yet another proposal

Here goes: Change the sentence "On articles about subjects with many fan sites, a link to one major fan site may be appropriate, marking the link as such." to "On articles about subjects with many fan sites, please be cautious when adding links of this nature. If they do not have anything substaintal to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them. The maximum number of fan sites that any article should link to is five." Sound good? I know that the "five" rule is firm, but I think that it is a rahter good comprimise. It gives more leeway for inclusion of useful links, while still being clear and firm about what the limits are. - mjg0503 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a firm number is useful, since in some cases it would be too few and in others too many. "Please be cautious when adding links to "fan sites". If they do not have anything substantial to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them. If multiple high quality fan sites exist, linking instead to an Open Directory category, if there is one, will normally be the best action." 2005 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK sounds great! However, I'm not entirely sure not having a firm limit will go over well with some of the editors here. It is ideal for me if there is none, but I think if we want to have any chance a consensus, we should have to give in on some points, and the opposition the same.

I think I would reword it a bit, particularly the bit about the directory link. - "Please be cautious when adding links to 'fan sites'. If they don't have anything substantial to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them. If multiple high quality fan sites exsists, linking innstead to a web directory listing is strongly reccomended."

The reason I object to the ODP preference is that often the listings have no editor and are ridden with broken links. The best solution would be to bring up directory links from ODP, Yahoo!, et al. on the talk page and reach consensus on the best one. - mjg0503 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With the current style guide stating "one", we are being flooded by sites. Five is too much, I would have allowed 3 since most times there are two or three big communities, but no more. However, there must be a number, be it 3, 4 or 5, but no more than 5. People don't link to open directories or Google directory, that has been proved. -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! We seem to be making some progress then. You would be in favor of allowing more links to fan sites so long as we put a firm limit on it. Here is my updated proposal: "Please be cautious when adding links to 'fan sites'. If they don't have anything substantial to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them. Articles should not link to more than 3 or 4 fan sites. If multiple high quality fan sites exsist, linking innstead to a web directory listing is strongly reccomended. If you are unsure on what directory listing to link to, bring up the multiple listings on the talk page." Again, no prefernce to one directory over another. Just link to the best one, based on consensus at the talk page. If it's ODP, fine, but if Yahoo! id better, then link to Yahoo! - mjg0503 04:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never said they weren't wrong. When I edit a fan-liked article with several links, I usually state that the 1-link is too strict, and that we should let two or three. However, if you ask me to choose between 1 or "undefined", I prefer 1. I would also like to clarify that having "4" as limit does not mean that, if the article has only one link, someone could add another site that does not enhance the article. Community-based sites with a background (that is, not created yesterday, nor sites with low amount of articles, news, members, visits, etc) should be treated as common fan sites, sites should be removed on sight when they appear to be spam, and that when in doubt, consensus must be reached in the article talk page for modifying the links. -- ReyBrujo 04:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no value calling out a number unless it is directly a consequence of adding the directory listing instead, once a threshold is hit. Dmoz and/or Yahoo should be called out specifically. No other "directory" should qualify for this "a single link that replaces other links" status. If no directory category exists in either, then the article should be linked however is best for the article, according to the other criteria of this guideline. 2005 05:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) I cordially disagree with any guideline like "5 best". How in the world are you going which sites are "eligible"? The main problem now is that people add heaps and heaps of links to all kinds of everything (I mean fan and related sites of various kinds), and it's quite hard to explain them that they are not allowed to do that when they see a lisiting of other links. My take is that this is an encyclopedia - we do not need to link to EVERYTHING related to the topic, just some sites which might expand the reader's knowledge. Official sites are an obvious example, entries in more "topic specific" encyclopedia-like databases (like IMDb.com) are another. Forums and fan sites might be fun for people interested in the topic, but they can easily find them using Google - no need to promote a "selected" group especially and engage in bitter and counterproductive bickering and edit wars with peeps from other ones. Though some fan pages that contain info that it would be unwieldy to list in an encyclopedia (like paint codes for a specific car model) might be linked to, provided that a specific page is linked to, not a complete site, and the information there is really comprehensive and adding to the topic. Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

These guidelines should be useful also for people who want to remove links, not only add. Till now, the focus is "I want to put links" instead of "I want to remove links" We must give something solid. The editor should come here and say "Ok, we can link to this, and this, and this kind of site, not to this, this nor this, and we need to put no more than this amount of links if possible", and in base of those ideas, he should be able to clean the section. If he arrives and sees "Link as long as the site is high quality. As many links as necessary.", we are leaving a huge loophole from where anyone can slip. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How's this?

No more than five fan sites. If many quality fan sites exsist, it is best to link to a web directory listing.
No forums.
No blogs, with the exceptions of The Joe Bob Smith article linking to Joe Bob Smith's blog.

--Mike 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but reword slightly (the exception for blogs is also valid for forums, like Gaia Online or Something Awful). -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic :-)! Any objections from anybody to making the change? - Mike 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullets 2 and 3 are OK with me, but I would make bullet one NO FAN SITES too. If a fan site contains some actual info (like the listing of all vehicles in a Star Wars movie, though we actually have an article on that), this very page can be linked to, and not the entire site. Otherwise, how do you define "quality fan site"? How are you going to convince somebody that their fan site is not "quality" while somebody else's is? Bravada, talk - 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen from most of my time here even with the current policy, most articles that violate the fan site rule rarely have editing disputes about it. Users are busy working on the article, no policing the external links. If an editing dispute ever came up, just bring it up on the talk page and try to reach consensus just as we do with everything else. Also, this wouldn't be the only thing that is "subjective" on Wikipedia. Just look at good articles. Nominations are just listed on page, and anybody who wants to can pass or fail it based on what they thought of it. But, wait, isn't one man's good another man's bad? Sure, that's why it's possible to delist GAs, just as it is possible to remove an external link. - Mike 03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Otherwise, how do you define 'quality fan site'?" I never understand comments like this. How do we define any site that is linked to? We have guidelines. Read them, particularly 4 and 5 of what should be linked to. What possible difference does it make if a site is owned by a corporation intent on making a buck or an individual intent on sharing a passion with the world? "Fan site" is a term that shouldn't be in these guidelines at all. 2005 04:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't like links to fan sites. I don't think it's a good idea for the guideline to say that five links are allowed to fan sites, while it's being said back here that links can be controlled by consensus on the talk page. That's formula for guaranteed misunderstandings and fights. Better to say that there should be no links to fan sites as fan sites, but only to sites that provide reliable, useful information about the subject of the article. -- Donald Albury 09:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "links to fan sites as fan sites" would be. There is certainly no reason to link to a site about something simply because it is made by a fan of the "something", but there is also no reason not to link to a site that provides "reliable, useful information about the subject of the article" in accordance with the external links guidelines simply because it is owned by someone who cares about the topic rather than a corporation. The word "fan site" should just not be in the guidelines because it has nothing to do with usefulness, merit, quality, verifiability, uniqueness, qauthority or any other concept that could be considered as a criteria for a great link. It's like mentioning sites made with Dreamweaver. 2005 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So how about we just drop the line about fan sites, and have EVERY link follow the same guidelines rather than singling them out as "evil"? - Mike 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, a link to any site should be self-explanatory as concerns the appropriateness of its inclusion, i.e. a link to "Doninvest Kondor Owners & Enthusiasts Community" is not a good one, but a link to "A list of Doninvest Kondor paint codes" or such would be. Bravada, talk - 20:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Use IMDb as a minimum guideline for fansites. Consensus seems to be that IMDb links are acceptable. A fansite with more content than the relevant IMDb page should be accceptable. Fansites with less would not be acceptable. - Arsian120 12:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll?

Well, it seems that this particular proposal has a chance at a good consensus, so should we go ahead and do that straw poll? We've been discussing these changes for nearly a week. - Mike 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the point on a straw poll about this narrow issue. The big picture dispute is between those who favor a rule-based approach to this article (i.e., these are the things that you can do and these are the things that you can't do, and on and and on) and those (like me) who favor a principal-based approach (i.e., "small number of high quality links useful to most readers"). That is, should the article be 1,000 words or 100? Until we figure that out, I don't see much reason to quibble over 1 fan site or 5 or whatever. In fact, my prefered solution to the whole fan site thing is, in cases in which there are a lot, recommend that editors either add a paragraph to the main article about these fan sites or, better yet, create a new article which provides an overview of the different fan sites available: star_wars_fan_sites or whatever. David.Kane 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal has been discussed for a day, not a week, and there seems to be no consensus emerging. A bit too early for a straw poll. Fagstein 04:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposing you haven't read above. Mr. F.Stein... The discussion has been going for a week.

Straw Poll

I think that now is an appropriate time for a straw poll. These changes have been discussed for weeks, and we still haven't reached a conclusion. I'd like to see where everybody stands on the issue and then make changes as appropriate. - Mike 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you support changing the line about fan sites to: "Please be cautious when adding links to "fan sites". If they do not have anything substantial to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a web directory. If multiple high quality fan sites exist, linking instead to an Open Directory category, if there is one, will normally be the best action."

How much longer does this need to stay open? It's pretty clear there's no consensus, isn't it? I'd close it now but for the fact I've participated. Hiding Talk 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I don't close it now is because there was a vote added just two days ago. Give it a few more days, and then we can close it. - Mike (Trick or treat) 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Since I wasn't involved, I'm going to step in to close this. --Barberio 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This poll resulted in No Consensus of support for this specific wording. I will note that significant opinion was given in support of the spirit of this change.

There is an apparent Consensus in support of a stronger recomendation against fansites. I should also note that this would move this line away from "Links to be used occasionally" to "Links normally to be avoided".

It's clear that the wording needs to be changed, and consensus is to recomend against fansites, but an exact wording needs to be discussed further. If this discussion goes nowhere, then the wording proposed in the poll should probably be used as the least objectionable change.

I'll further note, that this was probably an incorect use of the poll, since the wording was changed in the middle of the poll as discussion raised issues. This would have been better as a normal discussion on a proposed wording, and a poll was counterproductive. --Barberio 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I personally support linking to fansites which are of relatively high quality for a given topic. I'm fairly sure some of the other people who voted support are also in favor of a less restrictive guideline than "link to only one fansite", but I'll let others speak for themselves. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Barberio, your comment that ther is a clear consensus against linking to fansites is absurd, because 7 out of 12 editors supported the proposed wording, which was more lenient than the current one is. -- Mike | trick or treat 20:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The current wording suggests linking to a prominant fansite in some circumstances, the suggested replacement recomends against linking to fansites in all circumstances and prefers an alternative. I fail to understand how this could be 'more lenient'.

The poll is closed, there was no consensus on a specific wording. Further debate over what the poll did or did not show is not going to be productive. This is exactly why we're recomended not to use polling. --Barberio 22:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The new wording removes any sort of concrete limit on fansite linking, and instead asks users to "be cautious". In other words, make sure the site you're linking to isn't a flagrant copyright violation and has something substantial to add. It does the job of preventing the gigantic external links section by recommending that in cases where many quality fansites exsit, editors should instead link to an Open Directory category, if there is one. Currently, the wording states that you can only link to one fansite. Period. That's it. I consider the propsed wording to be more lenient based on this. - Mike | trick or treat 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Perhaps it would be better (and easier) to just say "no consensus" period, without trying to find something that everyone agreed on. Although I'm not sure that straw polls need to be closed. "Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do." As for you question, my interpretation of the new wording was that the determination of whether or not to link to a fansite should be made on the quality of the fansite, not a strict limit on number. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"For the record", Barberio's statements are ridiculous and reflect his ongoing attempts to ignore the will of the editing community and inflict his own agenda on other users. It is clear that his statements above, aside from the obvious that there is no consensus, are not true and in no way reflect the sense of the discussion that has occured. The result of this straw poll is there is no consensus, period. 2005 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are stepping over the line into personal attacks. Cease. --Barberio 22:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a personal attack. I would call that a frank criticism of your actions. A personal attack would be something like "Barberio is an idiot". While I think that 2005 could have been a little more polite about it, there's no need to accuse him of violating Wikipedia policy when in fact he had not. I really think that, as noted on your userpage, some of your comments are a bit "cranky". - Mike | trick or treat 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not personally attack you, so do NOT say I did. Behave yourself please. Your comments were entirely inappropriate, especially under the circumstances. You should apologize and then we can just move on. 2005 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if you didn't mean to offend Barberio, it is obvious that he/she felt offended. It wouldn't hurt to stress the fact that causing Barberio any upsetness was not your intent. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) It was probably a misunderstanding. A lot of the relevant discussion is archived. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Bravada, talk - 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
ReyBrujo 04:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
~~# Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)~~
Saxifrage. I agree with the intent in principle, but I don't think this wording is effective. It doesn't invoke the "Wikipedia is not a directory or Google replacement" strongly enough. If we are going to change the guideline to say "use your (collective) judgement", then I think we should say clearly what standards of judgement apply. Saying only "use your judgement" will not convey to new editors the existing community's standards on this, which is the purpose of policy pages. (Policy pages don't dictate policy, they explain it.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate your comment. I have added to the propsed new wording "Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a web directory" as a result of this comment. You can take a crack at rewording it if you like. --Mike 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe the only problem with the current guideline is that it allows a link to one major fansite. This is quite strange and arbitrary, and may lead to endless debates on which site is THE one to link to. I believe removing this strange rule and simply stating that fansites should not be linked to unless they clearly fall under any of the five points in the "What should be linked to" section. The general rule is that those have precedence.

The proposed wording is a bit like "yeah but no but yeah but no..." and it might not be too clear to anybody seeing it for the first time. More specifically, first-time readers very inclined on inserting a link to some site in an article might misinterpret it as giving them the right to do so, and then would go on debating with any person who would try to remove that link. It would be much more productive to simply say that fansites should not be linked to unless they fulfill any of the 5 main inclusion criteria, and then it would be up to the "linking" user to prove that the link is really falling under those, and not to the "deleting" user that he or she understands the guideline the correct way.

I would also add a statement urging the user wanting to link to a fansite to consider whether any information that is contained therein could not simply be included in the article and referenced to this site. That would narrow down the inclusion of links to fansites to really special cases.

Oh, of course it should be stated that the link should be as direct as possible, so if the criterium for inclusion is #5 {Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article), then the link should go straight to that content. E.g. if you have a vast fansite with a listing of all matches a football player appeared in buried somewhere inside the site, the link should go straight to that listing, and not to the entire site, to make it clear what information the reader can find there and why the site is being linked to. Bravada, talk - 22:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
SiobhanHansa Changing the wording in this way would seem to encourage greater inclusion of fan site links. I'm not generally in favor of that. --Siobhan Hansa 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
ToddGamblin 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Oppose. I'm also not in favor of including fansite links, though I could see a distinction being made between "open directories" and fansites.

Neutral

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

Comments

Not only is it vague, but I also believe it is improper. I believe fan sites should not be linked to in principle. Pages within fan sites than contain substantial information it would be unweildy to deal with in the article, like a list of all songs ever recorded by a singer and such, are OK as "sources of additional information beyond the scope of the article", but I believe allowing links to any fansites will create (or actually allow to continue, as I see this going on) the situation when people will be continuosly bickering about the inclusion of links to particular sites (or just add them, if there would be nobody to bicker with), and they will of course argue that the site "contains substantial stuff" and is "of high quality" and "if Brian's site is on the list why isn't mine" etc. In theory, this might seem a good wording - in practice, this doesn't work... Bravada, talk - 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But fan sites are often much better informational resources than simply official sites and newspaper articles are... - Mike 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does come down to those not wanting to link to fan sites caring more about (mostly imagined) edit disagreements rather than the quality of the encyclopedia. A generic prohibition againt fan sites is just foolish. Fan sites should be linked when they merit it according to the criteria of this guideline. I've listed several examples on this page of fan sites that would just be stupid not to link to. While the "hassle" argument has some merit it should never get in the way of making the best encyclopedia possible. That is the priority. Fan sites with a great deal of detail are outstanding things to link to, normally the best links possible. Fortunately the guideline now allows this, but it should be cleaned up to remove any mention of "fan sites" as that is just an entirely useless distinction. 2005 02:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything 2005 writes but oppose the change. Am I confused? Again, the sooner we decrease the excesive set of knit-picky rules and start trusting the judgment of editors, the better. David.Kane 04:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

David, this is decreasing the nitpicky rules. Currently the line reads that linking to one, and only one fansite is permissable. This would allow for more flexability while still keeping John Generic Bob's GeoCities site with 25 hits since 2001 out of the heap. - Mike 18:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "Be careful when adding fansites", I would take an "Do not add fansites unless it has been agreed they are useful for the article". Most fan sites are not reliable, lack neutral point of view, and do quite a lot of original research. -- ReyBrujo 04:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to remphasize the point, "most" fan sites would not be listed, so the fact most (whether that is accurate or not) are not reliable or neutral doesn't really comment on the issue. We are only talking about ones that are reliable, etc. 2005 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the proposed paragraph has a full sentence that is not needed (Please be cautious when adding links to "fan sites".). Thus, I started with the second sentence (If they do not have anything substantial to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them.) but altered the order as I believe it gives more strength to the prohibition ("Do not add links unless it is useful") and adding a note to state that consensus is needed when adding a fansite, as it is not the editor who is adding the link the one to judge if the content of the site is useful for the article, but instead the number of editors working in the article. -- ReyBrujo 04:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this an excessive amount of micromanaging? If all the editors involved in article X think that one fan site or two or 4 are "high quality cites, useful to most readers," then why not let them include these cites in the External links section? What makes us so sure that we know more than they do about what readers will find useful? The problem with specific rules is that you give all the power to one, potentially obstreperous, editor. Imagine a case in which every editor but one thinks that a specific fan site should be linked to. If we provide general, pincipal-based guidelines, then consensus will rule and the site will be link to (as I think it should be). If we provide a specific rule, then this editor will be able to overrule the consensus. That is probably desirable to clear cut cases which are a matter of policy --- like copyright (I was wrong with my comments elsewhere on that topic) --- but is unhelpful with anything else. Trust the editors. They know best. David.Kane 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you did not understand what I wanted to say. I am not giving power to anyone. If an editor that is not working in the article suddenly finds 20 external links, he is free to begin cleaning them up. The old guideline allows him to do that, and so should the new one. I added the consensus note for a) let the editors of the article know that, when adding links, they should reach consensus when there is already a good number of links, or when they are controversial; and b) to stop any editor not linked to the article to just go and delete fan sites, as consensus in the talk page will indicate otherwise, which is just the case you used as counterexample.

In other words, be bold and add your link. If an editor removes it, discuss in the talk page to reach consensus. If they don't agree, then your link stays out, otherwise your link is inserted. If the article has never had consensus for the external links section, discuss major cleanings in the talk page. Unluckily, the external links section is different from most other sections in the article, because a) it always exist; b) it attracts spammers, fans and censors; c) people always think their site should be there; and d) without monitoring it grows to immense proportions. -- ReyBrujo 15:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. First of all, a great deal of articles do not have more than one active editor, so such editors do not have to seek consensus with anyone, they can just put in whatever they fancy. Secondly, even if the inclusion of a link is a result of groupthink, it is still quite likely to be a POV decision. Why not just prohibit those sites as such, but encourage (as it is now) links to "sources that contain substantial information on the topic that is not included in the article" - then nobody can argue that his "Stephen's Super Britney Spears Fan Page" should be included, but you can safely link to a "List of all Britney Spears Live Gigs" or something in somebody's fan page, as this is linking to information, not promoting one fan site over the others. Bravada, talk - 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the purpose of "External links" was to list high quality sites with useful information rather than specific pages with detailed facts. Is my understanding correct? If so (and if External links should be a small number, like 5), then there would not be room for something like "List of all Britney Spears Live Gigs", although such a page might be linked to from the body of the article or in the References. Leaving that issue aside, the reason why it is bad to "prohibit those sites as such" --- where "those sites" are fan or blog or MySpace or whatever --- is that there are always counterexamples to such complete prohibitions. If a site is one of the top five (high quality useful to most readers), then it should be included, whatever string of characters happens to appear in the URL. David.Kane 20:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the question you pose - it is not, it is wrong. It is to list specific sites and pages that include information on the topic it would not be appropriate to include in the article (and thus can't serve as references). If there is a reason to use the list of Britney Spears gigs as a reference for some statement in the article, so be it. As a counterexample to linking to complete sites only, IMDb can list of screen appearances of an actor or actress, but linking to IMDb as a whole is rather pointless. Not to say the reasons that we shouldn't link to the whole IMDb and to fan sites are the same, just an example that you do not have to link to the whole site everytime. Bravada, talk - 21:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You are right, as the IMDb example makes clear. Thanks for explaining this to me. David.Kane 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What do any of these comments have to do with fan sites, as opposed to just sites? Your objection to fan sites is procedural rather than value based, but your comment about the IMDb seems to make it clear that in your comments "fan sites" is irrelevant. 2005 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, you seem so inclined on dismissing my arguments that you do not even try to understand what I say! The IMDb example, as I said above, was to show that not all the time we have to link to sites as a whole, but it is often proper to link to specific pages within them. I have stated the reasons why fan sites should not be linked to in principle many times here. Look at my post above David's to see just one instance! It is not procedural, it is principal. External links should be links to sites "that contain substantial information on the topic that is not included in the article" (I am repeating myself so many times here but many people seem not to read it anyway), so all pages in fan sites that fall within this category all clear to go! But having fan sites linked to because somebody thinks that they are "high quality" (wanna bet 99% of those people actually try to promote a given site?) is simply bad practice. Bravada, talk - 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"The IMDb example, as I said above, was to show that not all the time we have to link to sites as a whole, but it is often proper to link to specific pages within them." Exactly. "External links should be links to sites 'that contain substantial information on the topic that is not included in the article' (I am repeating myself so many times here but many people seem not to read it anyway)". Exactly, but you have been arguing the opposite. "so all pages in fan sites that fall within this category all clear to go!" You say no fan sites should be linked to then you say pages in fan sites should be linked to. This makes no sense, both on the obvious level, and yet again, what does this have to do with fan sites? You make no argument regarding fan sites at all. Perhaps you need to summarize what you want to see, because not only do you contradict yourself, but you make no argument at all as why you want distinguish between corporate sites and individual ones. 2005 00:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, given that you wrote these two sentences which directly contradict each other: "I believe fan sites should not be linked to in principle. Pages within fan sites than contain substantial information it would be unweildy to deal with in the article, like a list of all songs ever recorded by a singer and such, are OK as 'sources of additional information beyond the scope of the article'". Linking to a page of a fan site is linking to a fan site. Perhaps you have some unique definition of "fan site" that leads to these contradictory statements, but that just goes back to the uselessness of mentioning "fan sites" or ownership of non-official websites at all. 2005 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe more directly... you already say that fan sites can be linked to as "'sources of additional information beyond the scope of the article". So, the ONLY thing this section does is 1) generally discourage links to fan sites, and 2) say a link to Dmoz should be used if one exists instead of multiple links to fan sites. Please state how either of those two things can possibly be bad, from either a user friendly or edit/procedure standpoint. 2005 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lord, now how am I supposed to say it to you so that you would understand... I said EXACTLY what I mean and you try to imply I am contradicting myself not seeming to be able to accept that... Again - linking to fan sites as such, i.e. to their top-level domains is bad. This promotes one fan site over the other as a fan site itself and has numerous consecuences that have been discussed here over and over so I will not repeat that. BUT, some of the information sources that can be linked to according to the general guideline I mentioned above, might be pages within different sites, and perhaps also fan sites. When linking to a specific page, you do not promote the fan site itself, just link to some selected piece of content. All the other stuff within the fan site is not endorsed and that's OK. I mean, the focus should be on the fact that you link to a site with meaningful information that cannot be included in the article, but I am trying to explain why there is no contradiciton where 2005 is striving to see it.... Bravada, talk - 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is yours of course, but the language you used was entirely contradictory. The point you are making, beyond the language, is very strange in my opinion. Link to internal pages of fan sites but not the main page? That's just plain silly arbitrariness. Suppose a fan site has extensive/detailed info about all the movies of a 1950s actress. Suppose it also has detailed info about all the recordings of the actress. Suppose it has detailed info on all the Broadway plays. Suppose it details the books she has written. Linking to all four pages/sections would be appropriate if you looked at things with blinders, but it would be plain dumb to not just link to the main page instead. By the way, external links do not "promote" sites. They do not "endorse" sites. That perhaps is why you are going down this peculiar road. External links are there to be helpful to users. Try to think of them that way. 2005 05:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh bother! External links OF COURSE do promote some sites over other! I mean, it is quite obvious - you've got links at the end of the article a reader might have never stumbled upon unless he or she saw it on WP. You do promote them by exposing them to all the readers of Wikipedia! Why would you think everybody and their grandma is trying to get their sites "featured" on WP? Of course the fact that WP allows external links is because they can be helpful by the users, but by deeming them "helpful" you automatically endorse them! What is more, and what you might have not known, search engines like Google give links from WP very high rank, so getting mentioned on WP ups your page in Google search results considerably - this is why we see many people pushing particular sites and this is what we should prevent.

And no, it is not plain dumb not to link to the main page instead of the pages you've mentioned. By linking to the main page you endorse ALL of the content of that site, whatever it might be, including also all the possible unverified gossip or defamation of either the subject or other persons or entities. By linking to specific pages containing valuable information, you promote, well, factual information, and that's OK. Bravada, talk - 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Given your unique, non-standard views on endorsing links there isn't anything to talk about there, but regarding your problem with linking to a main page, if the bulk of a site is crap, then don't link to it. What is hard to understand about that? You seem to have just come up with this idea out of the blue. You should think about it more. If one page is good, and the rest of the site crap, link to the one page. If the whole site is consistently valuable, link to that. Think about what is good for a reader of any article. 2005 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) I would wait for more users to take part in the discussion. For now, it seems a bit one-sided, and no wonder my views are "unique". I've been abiding by what I explained above for quite some time, and mainly because I have seen more experienced users do so. You seem to be fairly convinced of your ability to instantly assess the "value" of any site. I congratulate you on your self-confidence, but I believe we should also take what is good for Wikipedia into consideration (which, even if indirectly, would translate into what is good for a WP user). Bravada, talk - 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

2005 is not claiming that he can "instantly assess the "value" of any site." He is claiming that the editors involved in a specific article are the best judges of the value of a site. Your attempt to hamstring them with all sorts of one-size-fits-all, my-way-or-the-highway rules and regulations fails to grant them the autonomy which they deserve. Now, 2005 may be wrong about this, but you do yourself no good by mischaracterizing his position. I agree with 2005 that we (and the editors of each article) should "Think about what is good for a reader," and that the best way to do this is to have general guidelines like "a small number of high quality sites, useful to most readers." David.Kane 01:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, David. You see, Bravada, we human beings have this amazing little thing called common sense, and Wikipedia encourages us to use this "magical ability". Wikipedia articles also have these amazing little things called talk pages, which contributors to the article can use to dicuss changes to this. And these talk pages can be used for editors to determine what should be in the external links section. Amazing isn't it :-)? (I am not meaning to be rude, all in good fun). - Mike 01:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested wording looks good. In particular I like the emphasis being placed on use of Open Directory Project dmoz links. --Oscarthecat 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Votes are evil

Well, someone had to say it but it's true. I also want to add that Wikipedia is simply not a link directory. We shouldn't link to fan sites as a rule, as the page makes clear, such links are to be considered occasionally. They shouldn't be the norm, and this five pages shouldn't suddenly become some arbitrary limit. I also ask think it's pertinent to point out that I had a dispute with Mike at the beginning of the year related to the policy point he is trying to amend. He insisted on inserting a link to his own website into the Calvin and Hobbes article, a situation which degenerated into a weary edit war. Although he has recently apologised for that, I'm not convinced he has an unbiased view of this policy. The thrust of the policy is that we don't link to sites unless they add to the understanding of the topic, and would generally be considered a reliable source. Most fansites tend to fail our external links policy in other areas, for example Michael's own Calvin and Hobbes site fails on copyright violation, a point I made repeatedly to him, to no avail. Let's not forget, most fansite links are added to promote the site, not deepen our understanding of the encyclopedia, and nor do they contain anything of great value. Wikipedia is not google, it is an encyclopedia. Hiding Talk 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should have struck that fragment out. It is very valid and relevant and adds insight into what is really going on. In general, thanks very much for injecting some voice of reason into this disturbing example of pushing guideline changes for personal interests. Bravada, talk - 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my note on Hiding's talk page here. - Mike 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that this is not a cases of "polling on everything". Changes of this nature have been actively discussed for the past several weeks, and this straw poll falls completely into line with WP:Straw. - Mike 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting

I've reverted the major change to split the page into two parts, mostly because the second part is nowhere to be found. I also think a lack of objection does not qualify as consensus to change the page in this matter, and so would like more community input on this subject. Fagstein 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The community has been asked for its input for a week. Only positive input was received. Do we need to wait two weeks? Two months? Two years? The second part was nowhere to be found because User:RHaworth moved it, perhaps with justification. Do you have a concrete objection to the change? If so, feel free to edit as you see fit. As far as I can tell, the article as it now stands is inarguably flawed because it does not begin with the standard bolded title phrase. David.Kane 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing an encyclopedic article with a Wikipedia "internal" page. This is an example of the latter, it doesn't have to begin with a bolded phrase, definition etc. It should serve as a set of instructions and guidelines for editors. The previous arrangement was OK with me, no need to change that. So, now you have an objection and cannot refer to consensus. Do revert the changes please! Bravada, talk - 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know whether any page, external or internal, has "to begin with a bolded phrase," but it sure seems common, even standard. Check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and many others. Again, this is not a universal practice, but it sure seems like a good idea. It is certainly much more common than not (judging from my brief survey) to have the title phrase bolded', even if it the article does not begin with a definition. Do you have other objections to the change? David.Kane 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. I am fundamentally against you changes - I do not see any reason for them, and you made them without a consensus. A consensus is when (almost) everybody says "yes", not when nobody says "no". You are trying to change the paramount message of this page - that Wikipedia should NOT be used as a web directory and editors should use external links with care and consideration. The previous version clearly said so in the first sentences and you removed it trying to cover it up with splitting the page. Bring it back to the original state, please, and do not try to disrupt Wikipedia policies. Bravada, talk - 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of bad faith? I was not trying to "cover it up". I proposed this change more than a week ago, I followed the suggestion to provide drafts of the changes, I corrected my mistake in not putting the second page in the main namespace. Although I have only been following this page for a month or so, I have not seen (nor do I see anything in the history) to suggest that my edit was inconsistent with how this page has changed over time. There is no evidence, AFAICS, that changes in this page require that "everybody says "yes", not when nobody says "no"." David.Kane 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving process aside, you raise a fair and important point about what the "paramount message of this page" is or should be. Imagine that the first sentence of this article was "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." That would be a true and important statement, but one which does not, I think, belong as the first sentence of a page entitled "External links". I think that the same is true with the original sentence here. Recall that it was "Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should be dominated by or consist solely of a collection of external links." This is a true statement, but it is a claim about articles in general, about what are and what are not acceptable articles. It does not belong here, or at least it does not belong as the first sentence. The "paramount message of this page" should not be about what makes for an acceptable article; it should be about what "External links" are and how they should be used. David.Kane 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the issue is further confused by the fact that the original version failed to make clear whether it was talking about "external links" of all types or just the "External links" section of an article. See the extensive archived talk pages for all the trouble that this conflation caused. So, while I am not claiming that my suggestion is wonderful, there can be little doubt that the very beginning of the article should make this distinction clear. Don't you agree? Before reverting, I would be curious to read the opinions of other editors. David.Kane 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

David, this is a Wikipedia guideline. As such, it was created by means of consensus, and it should only be changed that way. As I explained above, consensus is the agreement of all, or almost all, involved parties, and not lack of disagreement. This is a general WP rule, perhaps it is not said explicitly here, so I understand you might not have been aware of that. Your edit was highly disruptive however, and I was quite upset by it, so I let myself be carried away and indeed implied bad faith on your part. Please accept my apology.

Apology accepted. No harm done. David.Kane 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe, however, that the rules as to what to link to and not to link to apply to all external links in general, both those placed in an "external links" section, and anywhere else in articles. As imperfect as the previous webpage might have been, I believe it is counterproductive to split the rules concerning the inclusion of links in articles and the description of how external links are created technically. Explaining the latter without clearly explaining the former might lead to misunderstandings and people creating links that are against WP policy. I believe the two sections combined worked fine, perhaps the intro could be expanded more to give an overview of what can be found in this page and how does it relate to each other, but I believe that it is only appropriate to keep it in one piece.

"the rules as to what to link to and not to link to apply to all external links" Really? I have never seen this stated anywhere and it seems to be directly contradicted by huge amounts of the talk history for this page. Everyone seems to agree that the links in the External links section of an article need to be very good, high quality, limited in number and so on. There is disagreement about the details, of course, but not about the general claim that these links are special. Other external links, scattered around an article or used in a reference are held to a much lower standard. In most large articles, there are plenty of external links that almost no one things deserve to be placed in the External links section. However, I am not wedded to the article being in two parts, although I'll note for the record that no one has complained about the split. (I interpret Fagstein as more objecting to the edits in the opening line rather than the split itself.) But, if you feel that the article is better in one piece feel free to change it back. Or you can wait a little bit and I will do it, while at the same time deleting much of the material in the how to section which is covered elsewhere. David.Kane 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, by stating that, I make a clear statement that there is no consensus on chaning anything, so please revert your changes. We can discuss further, but all the changes have to be done only AFTER consensus is reached. Look below for an example how a user presents his propositions without editing the main page. Bravada, talk - 20:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. To make it clear - this article should talk about "external link" as a Wikipedia concept in general, and mention in appropriate place that those external links can be put in a separate section in the article.

"all the changes have to be done only AFTER consensus is reached." Well, I have only been hanging around this page for a month or so, but I have read the history and the talk. Plenty of changes have been made before consensus has been reached. You may think that this is a bad way to do business, but that seems the process. Note that I, at least, have been more than willing to have had various changes I suggested rolled back (see above) because it was clear that several editors objected strongly and were willing to discuss the issue. To date, no one has explained why my attempt to highlight the difference between the two kinds of external link is a bad thing. (It may be poorly done and I am thinking of turning it more into a disambiguation template of some sort, but that's a separate issue. Feel free to edit the page to as you describe above.) As to how one does this, correct me if I am wrong but I followed exactly the same procedure as below, creating a mock-up page, inviting contributions and so on. David.Kane 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Now, if there is bad practice, it should by no means be followed. People do steal, abuse and even kill others in the world, but this shouldn't serve as an excuse for us to do the same. In other words - if there were changes without consensus done to the main page, these were bad and against WP policies. I have only been watching this page for a few days now, so I haven't seen much, but any change that is not preceded by a consensus (except for maybe correcting spelling mistakes) is clearly wrong. Secondly, just because there are some random links interspersed in the articles that do not conform to any standards, it doesn't mean that the policy is voided - it's rather an infringement of the policy (be it conscious or not).
There is no difference between external links in external links section and anywhere else. External links in Wikipedia are external links, and the main page sets a policy on all of them. It also can advise where they can be put in the article, and the previous version explained that the two basic ways to use external links are either creating a separate section or using them as references. I guess there are some other uses (like in some templates), though most of the examples you can find are clearly against the Manual of Style (the sad truth is that the majority of WP articles fall short of conforming to any standards and are rather low-quality). Anyway, all external links should comply with the guidelines described in the main page, so splitting it the way you did creates the false impression that some don't have to. I hope this answers all your doubts. Bravada, talk - 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. First, consider these statement from WP:LEAD "The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold face at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence." and "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and define the terms" Whatever may be said in favor of the previous version of the article, it failed miserably to follow this guideline. Now, the current version still has flaws (indeed, I am about to add the new sentences suggested below), but it is better than what came before. Second, I do not think that the way that this article has been edited --- either in the last month or so that I have followed it or in its history --- is "bad practice." Indeed, AFAICT, it seems pretty standard for how Wikipedia operates (although I have only been following Wikipedia closely in the last 6 months or so). Third, the heart of our dispute is this "There is no difference between external links in external links section and anywhere else." Perhaps I am misreading you, but this seems clearly wrong, at least in 99% of Wikipedia articles. But it's an empirical question! Please suggest to us any high quality, substantial page with a non-trivial number of external links. I predict that we will find many external links in, for example, the References section that we all agree belong in References but which we all agree to do not belong in External links. Focussing on a specific page will help ground the discussion. You pick the page. David.Kane 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

David, you seem to be the only person who does not grasp the idea that "external links" is a general concept, and an "external links" section is just one way of presenting them. The rules of this guideline apply to ALL external links in WP articles. Of course a million billion articles do not abide by those guidelines, but well, WP currently experiences a rapid growth in the number of editors and articles, and not all editors seem to be following (or even aware) of all policies/guidelines, and not all articles are instantly "high-quality". This is why we need clear and strict guidelines.

As a sidenote - of course some references contain "external links", but I guess it is quite obvious these are not external links as such. If you need to make a distinction, add a statement making it clear that references containing external links are a separate matter. Nonetheless, if you think about it, the links used in "cite something" templates in reference sections actually have to abide by this guideline!

You also seem not to grasp the distinction between Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia "project pages", such as this one (and all that have this blue background, start with "Wikipedia:" and who have this "project page" tag at the top. A project page is not an article, it doesn't need or even shouldn't follow the guidelines for articles, such as the one about the lead you mentioned. Have you ever seen a referenced policy or guideline, for example?

Now, as concerns people totally ignoring the need for consensus when editing policy and guideline pages, well, that's the sad reality, but this is clearly wrong. If we all just changed everything according to our fancy, we wouldn't have a single stable policy or guideline, as everybody would change it everytime they wanted it to suit their needs better. Bravada, talk - 14:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravada admits that a "million billion articles do not abide by those guidelines." Great, but that's not my point! My point is that the best Wikipedia articles do not follow what you think the guidelines are. Consider the last three feature articles: Windows 2000, Caffeine and Jabba the Hutt. All (and every feature article that I have looked at) feature external links in the Reference section which would violate the standard we have here, would be things that we all agree do not belong in the External links section of an article. Can you find a single featured article that doesn't? Now, it could be that all the editors associated with these articles don't know what they are doing, but I doubt it. I think that the guidelines need to reflect that actual best practice of Wikipedia as it is. In other words, you claim that "The rules of this guideline apply to ALL external links in WP articles." This claim is contradicted by every featured article that I have ever seen. Can you point to a single countexample? David.Kane 04:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So what we've boiled this down to is that there are external links (in the EL section) and then there are references (either inline or in their own section), but otherwise no external links in the external links section. If that's the case, I would support having one article but a note at the top saying these rules are not for references. Fagstein 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! The rules for References are obviously different than the rules for External links. A great deal of the talk page confusion was due to this confusion. Barberio's clean up effort External_links/workshop is, I think, doing a good job of fixing things. I believe he is interested in input from everyone. David.Kane 04:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Coming back to the FA examples David mentioned - those are NOT just links to fan sites, blogs, myspace accounts, forums and such. Those are links to either specific pages within sites that can be more or less considered "fan" (like the Starwars database) that contain some info the article doesn't (hopefully), or to sites/articles elsewhere that present specific information as explained in the links. A "fan site" is not "any site that isn't the official site" (can you find an official site for coffeine anyway?). So, the links are perfectly alright.

The problem is that people have the tendency to dump all kinds of stuff like (let me use the example from my "editing area") - "Opel Astra Owners' Club", "Opel Astra Forums", "Mick's Opel Astra Jazzy Site" etc. and it prompts even more people to link to "Ecuadorian Opel Astra Site" (in Spanish, so of little use to non-Spanish speakers), "Even Better Opel Astra Forums", "The Super Opel Astra Fan Site", "Heino's Great Site about My Nice Astra" etc. etc. If any of the sites contained e.g. lists of paint codes, it would be absolutely OK to link to it (list, not the site as a whole) under the heading "List of Opel Astra paint codes". So, this is why I am for outright banning linking to fan sites as such, while at the same time encouraging links to all sources of information that can complement what is being said inthe article, which can be parts of fan sites themselves. Bravada, talk - 13:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Bravada and I have iterated our way to agreement! I had (mis)interpreted him as making a claim that all the guidelines in WP:EL applied to all external links, including those in references. That is clearly not true. I now see that he is making a claim about a subset of the guidelines, e.g., the stuff about fan sites. Maybe this is true; maybe it isn't. But I feel no need to fight against it by finding a counter-example. Instead, I want to focus on his preference for "banning linking to fan sites as such, while at the same time encouraging links to all sources of information that can complement what is being said in the article, which can be parts of fan sites themselves." First, this is not what the current policy says. Every discussion that I have read in Talk has suggested that a ban on fan sites would also be a ban on specific pages within fan sites. Second, I agree with Bravada's preferences, for the most part. Third, I think that the easies way to achieve this end is not to specify in endless detail what parts of which fan sites are acceptable. Instead, we should give general guidance "small number of high quality sites, useful to most readers" and let the editors on each page go from there. By giving specific (and complex) rules --- fan sites are bad but pages within fan sites can be good --- we empower one side over the other in useless edit wars. The guidance given by WP:EL should be as general and neutral as possible (outside of policy issues like copyright). David.Kane 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just see my response to 2005 below about subjectivity in Wikipedia (it's just above the "A better lead section" caption at the moment). Secondly, regardless of whatever any other person said, I don't think that expressly forbidding linking to fan sites as such does not allow to link tospecific pages that satisfy the general guideline for external links. See above for my lengthy, mutli-level explanation to 2005 why this is completely different. Bravada, talk - 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Besides not putting copyright info into Wikipedia, there should also be a guideline against external links to sites that violate copyright. Particularly, there should be no links that point exclusively to pirated works. Goldfritha 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is already in the guideline, see the fifth point here. When you add a link, you are responsible of verifying that the site is not breaking copyright laws. Thus, linking to a PDF file with some book contents at the publisher site may be dubious: you need to verify the copy is there "legally" (as in, there is a link explaining anyone can download the copy). Linking to a site offering the book in PDF format without a claim of whether the download is legal or not is most likely piracy, and you are responsible for adding the link. -- ReyBrujo 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to break that point out, as it's not under "Links normally to be avoided". Putting descriptions of links to be avoided in "Links to be used occasionally" is not the best organization. Goldfritha 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"[V]iolate copyright" is not a well-defined phrase. Do you mean US copyright law? Why should that apply to a site in the UK? If something is legal in the UK, what is wrong with linking to it? In general, it makes little sense for Wikipedia links to be concerned with copyright law (or harrassment law or libel law or . . .) because almost all these issues vary across countries. Now, the Wikipedia Foundation itself, as a legal entity, may have to worry about this stuff, but there seems little sense in addressing these issues with regard to external links specifically. David.Kane 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to abide by U.S. copyright law. And most developed countries have compatible laws (you can't put feature films on YouTube without their permission, for example). Unless there's an overriding reason why we should keep such links, why not delete them? Fagstein 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And the Foundation should not have to monitor every single link to find out whether we are violating it. Besides, the rule is there: it just needs to be sliced out of the "occasional" rules and fit into the "avoided" one. Goldfritha 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should be under "Links normally to be avoided." As to defining "violate copyright," how about "external links that are verbatim copies of copyrighted material should not be linked to unless the link provides information that the material is licensed." Or something like that. --Trödel 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't have any leway on this, and should not be putting it into a misleadingly placed and dimished wording as it is now. It's wikipedia policy, I belive based on an office action, that we do not link to copyvio sites. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. I really think this is another example of why this guideline is in serious need of a complete review. --Barberio 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Reorganisation

At the moment, the 'What to link to' section is considerably muddled. Most of this appears to stem from the 'Except where noted...' clause in 'Links normally to be avoided'. As above noted, this has resulted in the bar on copyvio sites being listed under 'Links to be used occasionally'.

I'm going to suggest we reorganise under the following headings,

Links that will make a better article.

The following types of links should be added to articles as appropriate

Links to be used occasionally.

The following types of links may help an article in some situations, but not always.

Links to be avoided.

The following types of links are to be avoided, except where they would be clearly allowed by the above guidelines.

Links that should not be in an article.

The following types of links are strongly discouraged

And put the apropriate current guidelines in the apropriate places. This should make it both easier to read, and give a clear order of precedence. --Barberio 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created a workshop at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/workshop to work on this. --Barberio 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done some considerable work on a readability based reorganisation at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/workshop. I think this makes it clearer how the recomendations interact with each other, and what special cases there are. --Barberio 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that many of your changes are sensible, although I would still like to see the whole article 1/5 of it current length. Are you inviting others to edit your proposal directly? If so, would you mind if I tried to tighten it? David.Kane 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should only edit for readability of the current guidelines in this reorganisation. Go ahead and make changes, but nothing that would change the meaning of the current guideline. That needs to be discussed here first. --Barberio 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Media linking policy

Recently User:Gmaxwell made several deletions of external links to media files from pages like 31 equal temperament. His edit summary cited WP:EL, but the wording of WP:EL is too weak to support the deletion. We had a discussion at a related WikiProject talk page, after which I saw the point of his deletion (though I did not agree with his method of doing it), and I believe that it should be policy, but it is not actually written policy. I left a message at his talk page about this which has gone unanswered. I thought I'd bring up the issue here.

If it is policy to forbid external links directly to media files (and according to some accounts, there are admins around who are enforcing this policy), then we should have policy pages that state this. The current wording of EL suggests that it be avoided, but sentences like: "If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required." clearly imply that these links are occasionally acceptable. With most links to media, there is something of value to the article, and that value is often arguably enough to put in in this "occasional" category of acceptable links. This kind of language just isn't good enough to use in a heavy handed way (like in the case I mentioned above). It might even be a good idea to stop using the word "guidelines" for this, and put it somewhere that is actually labelled "policy". There are some points about EL that are strong enough to deserve to be called "policy", and shouldn't be weakened by the title "guidelines".

In my opinion the strongest reason for disallowing them is that the authorship and copyright information cannot be determined by the reader. A link directly to media gives no readily available information to the reader. It is important to be able to determine the source of any media linked to.

Others have suggested that proprietary formats, such as RealAudio, are inappropriate for Wikipedia, and I agree with that (though I don't think this issue is nearly as important).

Does anyone have any comments about whether or not this should be policy, and what to do about it? - Rainwarrior 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is covered under Rich Media. Sometimes we write too much policy. Ignore all rules! But Parasite 08:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Others have linked to Rich Media as laid out in this section, and this aroused considerable consternation. The reality is that a more strict rule than the one outlined is being enforced. Stephen B Streater 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" is hardly appropriate when we're discussing policy. What I am saying is that current practice is not covered by these descriptions, and we should either change them (to avoid the subsequent conflicts) or stop the people who are enforcing unwritten policy. Since I agree with the policy, I am suggesting the former. My point is that it's not covered by WP:EL#Rich media, and we need to reword it. Not necessarily write more rules, but write more clearly defined ones, along with reasoning, which match the current practice of administrators. - Rainwarrior 16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy is quite clear that linking to rich media directly is generally not acceptable. Oh, and instead of "ignore all rules", my thinking would have been more clearly conveyed by typing "avoid instruction creep". However, what words are you proposing to make this preference not to link to Rich Media even clearer? Parasite 09:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear, for the reasons stated above. If we don't make any suggestion as to why a link is or is not acceptible, there is too much room for interperetation. I am putting a draft for an alternative below. - Rainwarrior 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to have as much content as possible copyable under free licences - and strategically, this means they must be in free formats. Wikipedia is patient, but having external links to content reduces the incentive to add the material into Wikipedia's database - hence the removal of externally linked content. Stephen B Streater 08:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some circumstances where externally linked non-free content will be required. The most obvious is where a reputable reference work is cited, and this is not free so cannot be added to Wikipedia itself. Currently, many external links are to documents in PDF format, but in principle a big publisher could provide content, such as video, in any format. Many cited sources are on paper, which is often not accessible for free. It is conceivable that Wikipedia will become influential enough to force publishers to use free formats (even when they charge for content). Such coercion may not be necessary for video, as free formats such as Dirac are technically ahead of the game, and include free licence terms designed to encourage commercial companies to contribute to the code base. Stephen B Streater 08:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The current page:

As remarked above, there is a strong presumption against linking directly to rich media. It is acceptable to link to pages in straight HTML, PHP, ASP, etc., that in turn link to rich media.

In an instance where a direct link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given, as in the following examples:

(examples)

It is briefly mentioned in passing above this, and the reasoning is never explained. Instead of those two paragraphs I suggest something like:

There are two reasons that links directly to rich media should not be used. The first is that the source of the material and any applicable copyright is not evident from the link itself. For this reason a link to an external web page (HTML) that adequately describes and links to the media should be used instead.

Second, many media formats require external applications (e.g. Adobe Flash) which may not be freely available. Many of these formats are controlled by a single company and are not appropriate for use in an encyclopedia with a public license. If copyright permits, the media should be converted into a more suitable format and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, from which it may be linked directly. In the rare cases where a link directly to the link is appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given, as in the following examples:

(examples as before)

I think an explanation like this would explain exactly what is objectionable about these links, and provide a much better guideline for which are and which aren't acceptable. - Rainwarrior 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd add Where copyright and other restrictions permit, as many legal restrictions are not copyright eg character rights, contract rights. Stephen B Streater 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, that's a good point. It seems this will have to wait until the other dispute gets resolved... I don't know how long that will take though. - Rainwarrior 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem with current wording proscribing links to forums

It says: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself." There are two problems with this:

It lumps blogs, forums and MySpace, and treats them identically. There's a big difference between a personal blog site containing one person's opinion and some discussion forums. E.g, there's a link to a Stamp Collecting forum in the Postage Stamp article. The current wording implies this link should be removed. It's not "mandated by the article", it just makes the article better.

The clause "unless mandated by the article itself" is confusing and ambiguous. What does that mean?. That the article body itself must mention the forum? That the article topic must be about the forum?

I thought about breaking out forums to another bullet point, but we want to solve this the most minimal way possible. I suggest simply removing the "unless mandated" clause. I know it was added as a safety valve, but literally interpreted, it adds (not removes) restrictions. The brief statement "should generally not be linked to" is simple, direct, and already contains sufficient exception. We want to deprecate these links but not totally proscribe them. I think the previous wording comes closer to that. Joema 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Forums, while cool, are not really useful links for an encyclopeda. For example, a link to a dicussion forum on the New York Yankees article really wouldn't add anything substantial. While in some cases a link to a forum directly related to the article may be appropriate, for the most part I oppose linking to "fan forums" and such. Not that I don't like them (I moderate one), but they just aren't encyclopedic. - Mike 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joema that the "unless mandated" clause should be removed. At least to me, it's very unclear as to what that clause means (when is it ever mandated?). While blogs, forums and social networking sites are usually not encyclopedic, I think there are instances where they may be properly used as external links, for example linking to a band's official MySpace or Arianna Huffington's blog (note the current disclaimer about how one should normally avoid using such links but that they do not override the above section, What to link to). The bullet point would still say to avoid linking forums, etc., but removing the clause - or at least re-wording it - would probably cut down on confusion. Schi 22:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what the "mandated" bit means. If it's the article on Scott Adams, then it's okay to include a link to Scott's blog, or if the article is about a band, as you said, then you can link to their official forums, etc. I'll clarify that on the page. - Mike 23:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying with the example, Mike. I would still change the word "mandate" though, which means "to make mandatory : ORDER; also : DIRECT, REQUIRE" (according to Merriam Webster). I suppose I'm splitting hairs, but while it may be allowed to link to, for example, a band's official MySpace, it's almost never required (unless it's provided as a source for a claim perhaps, in which case it would be linked to in the References section.) Right now I can't come up with a suitable replacement word though... Schi 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a different word to replace that would be nice, although it's really not that big of a deal. I can't really think of anything either...:-) - Mike 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Schi is right. It's not splitting hairs, the word "mandatory" is incorrect. I understand the intent, but I think it's best to just remove the entire "mandatory" clause. Joema 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit to remove the "mandated" bit and change it to "directly related to". Same general idea, just a slightly different wording. :-) - Mike 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In terms of questionability, a reasonable hierarchy would be blogs, then myspace, then forums as the worst thing to link to. In general they are the most anonymous and least authoritative of the three. All three of these should be downplayed, but forums should be downplayed the most. 2005 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Myspace pages are totally useless, too. I would even put forums before them on the list... - Mike 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A blog is one person's opinion, typically with no editing or moderation whatsoever. At least forums represent the collective wisdom of a group of people, often moderated. There are many articles with links to forums that seem appropriate -- they provide a service to the reader directing them to additional information. E.g, the Model railroading article has a link to a discussion forum on model trains. Joema 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the entire line, as well as much else in this entry, should be deleted. Some blogs (and forums and MySpace cites and . . .) are worth linking to and some are not. There is no reason to specify it-must-be-this-way rules in an area with so many exceptions. Better to recommend links to "high quality cites useful to most readers" and allow the editors expert in a give page to determine how best to apply that criteria. David.Kane 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me for not relating to the details of this discussion, but the current wording can have quite adverse effects then intended, I believe. One can understand that his or her own blog devoted in full to somebody or some issue is "directly related", while we are trying to avoid such links. I would say it would be better just to set it straight - blogs, myspace accounts and other webpages belonging to/ran by subjects are to be linked to. Others not. If we can think of other exceptions, we can list them in due course. BTW, the main reason why I believe linking to blogs, forums, fan sites etc. should be discouraged is they relative proliferation, and the inclusion of some of them in WP would appear as an endorsment of those over others, which should be avoided because 1) this is not Wikipedia's job to endorse any sites 2) it will be a great incentive for everybody to put their stuff here, start edit wars, flame wars etc. Bravada, talk - 03:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be stupid. Just because something is at a URL with "typepad" in it does not mean that it is always worthless. To cite just one example, consider the article on the Plame affair. Although its list of External links is too long, one of those links is to Tom Maguire's blog JustOneMinute. By your logic, this link should be deleted. But, as anyone who follows the scandal knows, Maquire is one of the very best sources of information available. Anyone wanting to know more about Plame should go there. Rules without exceptions, at least when it comes to websites, are stupid rules. There will always be exceptions. Better to leave the issue up to the editors involved in each article. They know better than us. This page should provide guidelines which they can use in discussing which links to include and which to exclude, guidelines like "a small number of high quality sites useful to most readers." David.Kane 10:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia is not "endors[ing] any sites". It, or rather the editors who are the resident experts on a given page, is making the empirical claim that readers who come to Wikipedia for information will find these cites to be both useful and of high quality. Now, one might make the case that Wikipedia should not be doing this, that there should not be an "External links" section of any article. That is a plausible claim. But if we are going to have such a section, then it should obviously be used to point people toward high quality cites which are likely to be useful to them. We are not saying that the cite is wrong or right, verified or not. We are claiming that readers will be glad that we told them that the cite exists, that readers won't find any other cites which are more useful. David.Kane 10:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless it is being used as a specific cite of someone's opinion, there is no reason to link to a general opinion blog for all the reasons already cited. I'd actualy count the Plame affair's external links section as it stands now to be an example of what an external links section *should not be*. And I've tagged it for clean up. --Barberio 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Directly related to the article" is far too open an interpretation. For a start, blogs can be related to the article, without there being any reasionable relation from the article to the blog. Here's an example, an Oxford Student writes in their blog about their time at the college. This blog is "directly related to the article". Interperation of this has caused problems in the past, with it being used as a reason to link to blogs if they share the same subject matter as the article. Unless a better wording is found, can we keep it as is, with the explanatory example. --Barberio 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the "directly related to" clause is too open. However "unless mandated" is also problematic. As discussed above, mandatory means "required". When would that ever be so? There will be some conflicts no matter what the wording. We could get very specific with several examples and exclusions, but that's wordy and time consuming to construct, plus could cause other unintended consequences. I think a simpler principal-based approach is best. Just state "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to". That encapsulates the general principal, yet allows exceptional cases. Why don't we try that and if major problems ensue, we can always change it later. Joema 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we just come out and say it?

From what I can gather of the above discussion there are two good reasons to link to a blog, myspace or forum:

The site is mentioned in the article (as a source of information or as a site directly related to the subject)
The site is an officially-sanctioned one

So why don't we just list those two criteria as the exceptions? Fagstein 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle, though such sites are in principle considered improper sources for the article. If the site is mentioned in a meaningful way (not like "Celine Dion once visited Aunt Mabel's Forum" or "Celine Dion is also a frequent subject of discussion at the Aunt Mabel's Forum" but like "Celine Dion is also one of the most active members of the Aunt Mabel's Forum and frequently posts about her future musical plans there"), it should be linked to. And of course official blogs and MySpace accounts too (somehow I cannot imagine an "official forum" which is not a part of a larger "official site"). Bravada, talk - 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding specifics like that often doesn't fix the problem yet can have unintended consequences. Re "directly related to", that excludes little, as most links are naturally directly related to the topic. E.g, link to a Harry Potter blog site is directly related to the Harry Potter article. Re "officially sanctioned", what does that mean? Sanctioned by what authority? There are MANY possible valid exceptions, much of which we probably can't even think of. If you list two narrowly-defined exceptions (because that's what we can think of right now), that automatically excludes many others. E.g, links to web logs of Hurricane Katrina survivors.

The bottom line is we want to discourage links to blogs, MySpace and discussion forums, yet not prohibit them. It's tempting to list specific exceptions, but this will often cause more problems than it solves. Joema 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of other reasons to link to a blog, maybe a few to link to a forum, but none that I can think of in linking to Myspace. We should simply have fairly strong language saying such links are seldom appropriate for the reasons that is true. 2005 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd ask me, I'd say linking to Hurricane Katrina survivors' blogs is not appropriate, because there are probably quite many such blogs and selecting some but not other is entirely subjective. I'd say linking to a list of such blogs or another meaningful document that would include such a list would make sense. I believe linking to blogs should be limited to blogs ran by the subject of the article provided there is ONE subject, in case of Hurrican Katrina, even if we would try to argue that survivors are somehow a subject of the article, the number of possible links is too large.
As concerns forums, I believe they should not be linked to expressly, although in some cases a site linked to can contain a forum, but that's another thing. And we seem to agree about MySpace. Bravada, talk - 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point -- Hurricane Katrina actually links to a list of "blogs" (more like letters) of Katrina survivors, plus links to other sites which in turn have discussion forums for Katrina survivors. However I don't see the argument about "many such blogs" requiring a subjective decision, so on this basis don't link to any. That same issue exists for many external links -- not just blogs and forums. There are often many available, and it's a subjective decision which to include. We don't prohibit links on that basis, else there would be few links anywhere. Re forums, it's a mistake to categorically prohibit links to all forums. There are useful forum links in many articles which peform a valuable reader service. We want to discourage forum links, not prohibit them. Also we shouldn't try to enumerate specific exclusions, as this often has unintended consequences. Joema 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You admit that inclusion of a forum, blog or something is a subjective decision, and we should avoid that absolutely (I mean, subjective decisions), as they can be contested ad infinitum and are still, well, subjective decisions. We could, for example, allow for POV statements to be included if there is a consensus among editors - let's say if we all agree that this or that is the best Britney Spears song (forgive me for not recalling any Brit's song at the moment, I'm not quite a fan of her), we put a statement "and Britney's Bla Bla Bla is her best song ever". This seems absurd, but this is actually what we are heading towards if we allow editors to make subjective decisions on this or that.

So, deciding whether a forum or a blog (which is not ran by the subject of the article) is providing "valuable reader service" is entirely subjective. I could disagree with you on that strongly and argue that another blog or forum is providing it, and how in the world would any of us convince the other that the other party is wrong or right? Again, Wikipedia is not a web directory. We do not have to link to EVERY site that might be "useful" or a "good reader service" or whatever. We just might link to some sites that somehow won't serve as references, and contain info beyond the scope of the article, the inclusion of which in WP would not be appropriate. That's it. I personally find articles with more than five links a bit off, except perhaps for articles on really broad topics. I am OK with most articles containing from no to three external links. Again, this is not a web directory. I am not that familiar with how this Open Directory thing works, but I guess you can start a directory on a topic there if you think there are many "valuable" sites worth linking to, and then link to the OD from the article! Bravada, talk - 13:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot absolutely avoid subjective decisions. Many Wikipedia additions (whether links or text) involve subjective decisions of taste and value. Those are sometimes debated, but that's how Wikipedia works. It will be counter productive to ban forum and blog links, accompanied by a detailed list of exclusions, as if you could meticulously legislate exactly what's OK, and thereby avoid any debate. As currently worded virtually all forum and blog links are prohibited, since almost no article "mandates" such. We've all seen cases (in school, work, or life) where a heavy handed legislative approach was taken because those in charge were "tired of dealing with it". I appreciate the hassle of dealing with editors bent on adding blog and forum links to fan sites. However there are also valid, beneficial links that will be exterminated by the current wording. To fix the situation is very simple. Just delete the "unless mandated" clause. That leaves blogs and forums as discouraged but not prohibited. Joema 19:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree more. This is NOT how WP works and certainly not how it should. Subjective decisions "of taste and value" should absolutely be avoided. We avoid weasel words, we avoid value statements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is based on objective, factual information, criteria etc. The fact that Wikipedia is open to otherwise "unencyclopedic" topics should not be the reason for it to work in an unencyclopedic work. A guideline should not be changed just because you want to include some blogs and forums you like. Bravada, talk - 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out some reasons you might want to link to a MySpace. A lot of signed (notable) bands use MySpace pages as their official websites, often supplementing a separate official website but sometimes standing alone. In these cases, the MySpace page may contain information that may be useful to the reader and not available elsewhere, including up-to-date news. In many cases, the official MySpace is also linked from the artist's official website, and I can see that as a possible grounds for not including the MySpace link (if we link the official site and the MySpace is linked from the official site, it's not necessary to link the MySpace directly) - but I think that argument would also apply for a lot of "official" blogs, as well. For example, the Anderson Cooper article externally links to both his "official site" and his "official blog", even though the blog is linked from the site, and isn't even hosted separately. The question may be how to distinguish different parts of an official site from different officially-sanctioned sites. As for "official sanction", it's generally as easy/difficult to determine whether or not a MySpace is "official" (sanctioned by the artist itself, the label, etc.) as it is to determine whether any website is official. Schi 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can possibly say this. Virtually all decisions about articles are subjective. In terms of external links we must make, and should make, subjective decisions all the time. The only exception is blatantly official sites. Editors are not robots. Almost everything they add (in good faith) is subjective. We have objective guidelines, but every editor must decide for themself if any content, including links, meets the criteria of the guidelines and is a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Let's move on from this. 2005 21:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are to break into philosophy, all decisions are subjective, and this is why an encyclopedia, which has to be as objective as it possibly can be, has to have very objective guidelines that will narrow down the possibility of subjectivity in decisions, and keep it objective. For example, we do not allow the insertion of any image under fair use, because some user believes it is OK to use it, there are quite strict rules governing this. The guideline that aloows the inclusion of "high quality" etc. sites is hardly objective and open to interpretation in anyway you want. Because the guidelines are ignored anyway (more because of sheer ignorance, not bad faith), and there are many editors using every possible loophole, we must make it clear that inclusion of fan sites per se is not allowed, only if they really contain additional information one would not find in the article. If they contain anything it is possible to include in the article, they should serve as references (provided they can be deemed reliable etc.) Bravada, talk - 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of links to appropriate discussion forums IS NOT to provide info that belongs in the article, rather to provide the interested reader additional information sources. That's why Encarta provides a link to a mathematics discussion forum in the mathematics article. The current wording of would not allow this same link in the Wikipedia mathematics article, because the article doesn't "mandate" it. It would short sighted if Wikipedia bans essentially all forum links because some editors are tired of dealing with links to fan sites. Joema 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't think you are getting the point. By linking to any forum you simply endorse it to all Wikipedia readers. I don't think Wikipedia should work as an endorsement service. Encarta editors can do whatever they want, they have their private encyclopedia and they are fully responsible for what they write, even if it is slanted this way or another. Coming back to the topic - if a reader wants more on the topic, or to discuss about the topic, they can easily google more websites or a forum to discuss that. There is no need to provide the reader with an "endorsement" here. Bravada, talk - 04:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to discussion forums no more endorse those than do links to any other external information source. The link to a stamp collecting community in the Postage stamp article doesn't endorse that. The external link to the full text of Mein Kampf in Adolph Hitler doesn't endorse his views. There are even external links to pedophile advocacy groups in Pedophile activism. None of those (whether forum links or any other type) signify an endorsement by Wikipedia. They are merely additional information to help the reader. Re just using a web search engine to find discussion forums, you could likewise eliminate ALL external links and say just use a web search engine to find them -- that will save us having to update dead links. Virtually ALL forum links will be outlawed by the current wording. That's unnecessary and simple to correct. Joema 14:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Now, of course all external links endorse external sites as good sources of additional information. I think it is fairly obvious that, put in context, they do not endorse the actual views presented there (like link to Mein Kampf is OK from the article on Hitler, his ideology or Mein Kampf itself, but would be pretty improper in an article on Jews). Now, by linking to a fan site or a forum you endorse it as a good source of additional information, and therefore put it higher than the others on that scale. Given the proliferation of fan sites, forums, blogs etc. and the nature of such sites (forums or fan sites as such do not have to abidy by any rules concerning factual accuracy, verifiability or even often civility) I believe they are hardly ever worthy of such "endorsement" (if you do not like the word "endorsement" and do not buy my explanation that endorsing as information source does not equal the endorsement of the author's POV, put "promotion" instead). Secondly, why I can imagine a substantial and objective discussion on whether to include things like "Mein Kampf" in external links to the Hitler article, I believe it would be hard to have one over a number of fan sites or forums competing for attention. Bravada, talk - 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to Fagstein's original claim --- "there are two good reasons to link to a blog, myspace or forum" --- I disagree. If, in the opinion of the community of editors which monitor a give article, a site is "high quality" and "useful to most readers", it may be included. Like almpst everything else in encyclopedia writing, this is a judgment call, a call which I trust them to make. Whether the cite in question happens to include the particular character string "blogspot" or "typepad" is largely irrelevant to that judgment. With regard to the fan-site versus Mein Kampf comparison above, I think that Bravada is missing the point. There many (dozens? hundreds?) copies of Mein Kampf available for linking to. Reasonable people will disagree over which one is best --- this one is better formatted, that one is easier to search, this other one makes linking to individual sections easier, and so on. It is up to the editors of the Hitler article to decide which one to link to, if any. In fact, it might be reasonable for them to link to 2. The situation with regard to fan-sites is the same. Reasonable people will disagree about which, if any, are worth linking to. They will discuss it. They will argue. But the nature of the decision-making process is the same. We should give editors broad guidelines and then let them decide. David.Kane 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the part about "judgement" - in most areas of editing an encyclopedia, there are pretty firm and objective guidelines/rules, that ensure the outcome of "judgement calls" is proper and predictable. Choosing fan sites by means of consensus on "high quality" does not ensure that at all. I believe I don't need to provide further examples or further explanation.

Concerning "Mein Kampf" - of course there might be more than one Mein Kampf copies online, but the discussion on which to include could boil down to such measurable criteria as you have mentioned. If the other copy proposed cannot be proved to be any better than the one that is already linked to, so be it. Fan sites, however, are far too complicated concepts to be discussed like that. You can compare a copy of Mein Kampf to a list of Britney Spears songs in this respect (this doesn't sound too well, but hopefully you get what I mean). You can compare a fan site to a site on Hitler or a site on Mein Kampf in general. Bravada, talk - 00:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in to this conversation at a late date, but it occurs to me that this entire discussion is headed in the wrong direction.

If a site is not a reliable source, we generally do not want to link to it. Blogs, if they are any good, are expressions of opinion, and are not unbiased. Fan sites, if they are any good, are expressions of opinion, and are not unbiased. We make an exception and will list Official Site, even though there is a presumption of bias, because we figure it's fair that someone/something being discussed should have a chance to present their own side of things. We have no obligation to bloggers and fansite, nor do they have any obligations to us; we are effectively peers and competitors.
If a site is such a comprehensive source of information, that it goes into far greater depth than is appropriate for the corresponding Wikipedia article, we currently allow that site, under certain circumstances, to be listed as an external link. However, if someone is looking for a source for greater in-depth information, it seems obvious that they are going to look at the References section. Since WP:V already requires that we cite sources for every fact we include in an article, it's going to be damnably obvious to anyone that reads the article a source that's been cited 20 times, might actually have a 21^st and 22^nd and 23^rd piece of information. Listing the same source again as an External Link is redundant and unnecessary. And if they haven't been listed as a cite multiple times, that suggests that they aren't really that good of a source.

If there's going to be any change, it occurs to me that the direction to go would be to list official sites only, no exceptions. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 03:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No. The test is if a site is "high quality" and "useful to many readers." We are not in the business of being "fair." We do not worry, in the context of External links, about be "unbiased." (If there are two, strong opposing POV on a topic, then the best approach is to link to both of them, even though they are biased.) Now, you could make a case for throwing away the External links section all together. After all, if you are only allowing official sites, then why have a separate section for something that will only have 1 or 2 entries? But, once you have that section, then you want to have some meat in it, which means more than 1 or 2 entries. And, as to which entries, the focus should be on assisting the reader. Your suggestion also ignores the fact that for many articles (a majority?), there is no official site. Where is the "official site" for Polar Bear or Pluto? David.Kane 03:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you and I like it, Wikipedia must be in the business of being fair; otherwise, we are very vulnerable to defamation lawsuits. That's the primary reason for WP:BLP. And since official sites are, except under very limited circumstances, not considered reliable sources, they aren't often going to be listed in the References section. But that's the only reason I find to list an official site.

But yeah, other than for that reason, I'd be in favor of throwing away External Links altogether. This is an encyclopedia; we should be concentrating on providing content. Pointing to content is Dmoz's job. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 04:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A better lead section

We currently have a rather sparse lead section. I think we may need some text along the lines of this -

In addition to a citation section, and in-line citations within the article, many articles benefit from a section listing a small amount of external links that suit a more general purpose than citation. It is important to note that the External Links section of any page is not the same thing as citation, and has a different purpose and guidelines. An external links section is not simply a 'dumping ground' for cites that do not meet the source citing guidelines, nor is it an indiscriminate list of links. The following guidelines offer assistance for the content of an external links section.

This should clarify the intent and goals of the guideline. --Barberio 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the previous version (before David's self-appointed split) did make that clear in an even more concise form, I am just waiting for David to revert his changes, but I guess he seems unwilling to acknowledge that there was no consensus regarding that, perhaps somebody might do that? Thanks, Bravada, talk - 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The previous version did not make this clear at all. It conflated the notion of external links generally and the External links section of an article in a way that was guaranteed to be confusing. (Bravada should feel free to address the issues which I raised on this topic above.) Barberio's suggestion seems like a fine one. I vote for using it. David.Kane 18:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Could use some tightening up of wording (things like "it is important to note that" are kind of excess verbiage), and we should explain what links are more than what they are not. But it's better than what we have now. Fagstein 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Fagstein said about wording. Many common phrases like "the fact that", "the question as to whether", etc. are needless and contribute to "fog in print". Removing them usually creates a clearer, more powerful document. For details see the "omit needless words" heading of Elements of Style. Joema 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I think that is very good, although I don't think we should only limit the external links section to sites that meet the source citing guidelines. If you just removed that bit, you'd have my full support. - Mike 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to address the above, adding in and changing what is aleady there. (If someone knows how to use the disambiguation template(s) appropriately, that would probably be better as well.)

See links for an overview of external links to sources outside of Wikipedia.

External links is a section of an article. It provides a small number of high quality links useful to most readers. In addition to in-line citations and a References section, many articles provide links which suit a more general purpose than citation. Note that the External links section of an article is not the same thing as citation, and has a different purpose and guidelines. An External links section is not simply a 'dumping ground' for cites that do not meet the source citing guidelines, nor is it an indiscriminate list of links. The following guidelines offer assistance for the content of an external links section.

Still not perfect but a bit better. David.Kane 11:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

David, you are still confusing so many things... Wikipedia:Links is about all links, Wiki or not. This page was and is specifically intended to be about external links in specific (I mean, links outside of Wikipedia), and I admit links in references somehow elude it, but they are governed by even more strict rules, so there's no harm done. I guess I need to create another version to show you what it's all about:

Apart from wikilinks to another Wikipedia articles and references, Wikipedia articles may include a small number of external links (i.e. links to webpages outside of Wikipedia) that include additional information on the subject that the article does not and cannot according to Wikipedia guidelines. External links are often put at the bottom of the article, in a section captioned "external links".

While inclusion of the external links can help the reader find out more about the subject of the article, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the inclusion of each external links should be carefully considered. Below are guidelines that can help decide whether a particular link is suitable for inclusion.

It's a bit clumsy, but it's more for David to understand what it's all about then for prospective use on the main page :D Bravada, talk - 13:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"This page was and is specifically intended to be about external links ..." This is precisely the point that is under dispute. Or rather, I think it is largely settled that the topic:

"the section of an article called 'External links'"

deserves an article of its own. Do we at least agree on that? If nothing else, the extensive discussion here proves that this is an important topic, worthy of its own article. Now, there will also be a different article which discusses external links in general and which will, in the natural course of events, link to this article. Reasonable people may argue that the title of the article on this topic should be something like "External links section" or whatever, but there can be no denying that the previous practice of talking about two things --- 1) external links in general and 2) the External links section of an article --- is the same article was confusing to all concerned. To repeat, the history of confusion in the Talk page demonstrates that Wikipedia needs a separate article on just the subject of "the section of an article called 'External links'". I am flexible about what is in that article but I just can't see the argument for not having it. David.Kane 00:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

David, you seem to be the only person confused here. I guess you were also the only one person confused about the references, but I guess this was valid in a way, as persons totally unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works might be reading this article and therefore I propose to include the reference to references ;) to make it more clear. But an "external links" section is just a way of presenting standalone external links. It is not a separate Wikipedia entity. All external links, used in templates or the body of the article (let me add again for the sake of David's piece of mind - that are not references) are and should be governed by the same rules. There's no point in making the "external links" section something separate. Bravada, talk - 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Trusting the community of editors

The point that I and several editors have tried to make here is that the External links section of an article should include "a small number of high quality links, useful to most readers." We have argued that prohibitions of most sorts (against blogs, forums, non verified information, information that could appear in a better article, et cetera) is, at best, useless (since it is ignored) and at worse destructive (since it provides ammunition, unfairly, for one side or the other in an edit dispute (which is how I become involved with the topic)). We have argued against other editors who think that such restrictions are useful.

Now, one way to expand the discussion is to see how the editors of the very best Wikipedia articles actually behave. If what they do is against guidelines, then either guidelines or their behavior should change. Consider the case of today's feature article, Rush (band). The External links section of this (excellent) article includes links to a forum and two fan sites. I think that the editors included these links because they believe that the sites are "high quality" and that readers are likely to find the sites "useful", or at least more useful than any other Rush-related cites that they are aware of.

Why not trust their judgment on this? Why not allow the editors of this article to include such links? Why hamstring them with absolute prohibitions (No forums ever!) or arbitrary quotas (Only one fan site allowed!)? I see no reason to do so. Wikipedia should provide general guidance on the issue of External links, not a laundry list of requirements and restrictions.

Any editor who disagrees should, obviously, go remove those three links from the Rush article right now. David.Kane 02:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness for the greatest policy on Wikipedia. However, despite that, the policy as it stands does cause some edit disputes, often with "my way or the highway" editors, some of them admins, who will not waver on their point regardless of whether or not the links improve the article or not. A policy change here would definately reduce those types of problems. Say you went to a great website about your favorite band. Now let's suppose that site had a great links page to other sites about the band you never would have known exsisted without the links page on that site. I can tell you, that this has happend for me many times on Wikipedia. I have discovered many useful sites that didn't rank highly on search engine, and that I had never seen before. Couple that with the wonderful content, and extensive information of an article, and you've just made the article that much better. - Mike 02:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of guidelines is to reduce redundant arguments. Instead of thousands of articles having thousands of different discussions about the same issue, we can have one discussion and apply the results of that to each article. If a Very Good Reason comes up in a specific case to ignore the policy, by all means do so, or even better, bring it up at the policy page and have it amended appropriately. Fagstein 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of guidelines is ultimately to produce a higher quality end product. Essentially banning all links to forums and blogs (except where "mandated") does not achieve that. It produces a lower quality product that lacks useful content that other encyclopedias (e.g. Encarta) have. The guideline is also retroactive, and empowers any motivated individual or group to wander across Wikipedia, removing links to forums and blogs. E.g, the above-mentioned feature article on Rush (band) has a direct forum link. Based on the current guideline wording, that link is not "mandatory" and should be deleted, along with every other similar link in every Wikipedia article. We want to discourage forum/blog links, not word a guideline so restrictively they are essentially banned. Joema 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see you three agreeing with each other again (where's 2005?), but I guess the quality of a Wikipedia article depends to a rather meagre extent on the external links. Secondly, you all seem to be pretty sure of the appropriateness your own judgement, not to mention all other editors'. You also seem to be convinced that Wikipedia's problem is that there are not enough external links - my observations are quite contrary.

David seem to have come here, and I think all the people pushing the changes might have similar background, after some debate when he learned that his desire to include some links basing on his own judgement of their "high quality" is quite not what the Wikipedia policy prescribes. So, rather than accept the policy, he decided the policy must be wrong then! How thoughtful! It does not "provide ammunition to one side of the dispute", it simply puts an end to any dispute, because it clearly states what is allowed and what is not! If you are on the "wrong" side, well, I am sorry then...

Again, the purpose of external links in Wikipedia is not to choose "the best sites on a given topic" according to the enlightened wisdom of Wikipedia editors (who are known to be the best reviewers of websites solely thanks to having registered a login with WP), but to provide additional information on the topic which it is not possible to include in the article! I don't remember with whom I just had the discussion when he or she tried to convince me that the inclusion of link does not "endorse" a site, and now you are trying to say that editors should select the "best quality links"... Bravada, talk - 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos, Bravada, that is the most convincing argument for your side I've heard yet. Everybody else seemed to just say "Wikipedia is not a web directory" and then strech that out into a paragraph. However, if you take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia you'll notice that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules", and this policy is directly contrary to that statement. It is very strict about linking to fan sites and blogs, placing specific "one site rules" on them, and that they should not be linked unless "specifically mandated". I'm not out to make the external links section a total free for all, but rather for Wikipedia to lighten up a bit and allow the contributors to articles to decide for themsleves what is best. I'm not saying get rid of the rules, I'm saying make them less binding. - Mike 01:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just done something nasty to my right arm and I am not able to concentrate enough to establish whether you are a bit serious or sarcastic, but I've been saying that in this way or another all the time. Now, the principle from the Five Pillars you quote is often used as an excuse or mouthwash far beyond its original meaning. For example, there is a firm rule that all images used in WP should be free or, in very special cases (according to strict guidelines and, in fact, law), fair use images. What if we just ignore that and upload any picture we like? People actually do that all the time, so why don't we just do away with it, as it is ignored anyway, and we could add so many nicey pictures then?

Obviously adding external links is not breaking the law in any way, but some rules are here to make enforcing some important things easier. If we ease this rule, it would make removing any external link very hard, as it would have to go through a debate, which could easily result in a gridlock. Again, haivng a link to your site on WP is the best way to bump up Google rankings (not to mention the WP effect itself - WP is among the 10 most visited websites worldwide), and everybody and their grandma would love to have their sites linked to from here. I guess we are not really losing much from the point of view of building a great encyclopedia when not linking to all those "absolutely great sites", but we are protecting ourselves from outright abuse. Bravada, talk - 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravada, you should read the guideline of WP:EL. You seem to be all flumoxed over an entirely different issue. The point of external links is not the point of this discussion. The point here is trying to make the guideline so the best possible links are included that provide additional information to the article. I suggest you take a step back and take a second look at these discussions. 2005 05:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am reading the guideline as of before David' changes and I don't really see how what you say is relevant to what I see - I mean, I am just discussing exactly what you said. Bravada, talk - 11:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Trust the entire community of editors

There seems to be a misconception here as to what the purpose of a wikipedia article is. It isn't to provide external links to fansites. It's to discuss the summarised opinions of other resources which meet our reliable sources guidance. Now we all seem to agree that links to fansites are a contentious issue. That's why they are listed in the links to be used occasionally. They aren't a requisite for an article. Whilst it is admirable to hear Mike say he has learnt stuff from fansites that we don't link to, that doesn't necessitate adding a link to the fansite in the external links section. What that means is that the information should be added to the article. There are many resources on any given topic, and if Wikipedia linked to them all the articles would become weighed down with links. I appreciate that the editors of a page can have input into what makes a good external link, but let's remind ourselves first of WP:OWN. It's also possible to be to close to a subject, and it's also possible for a group of editors to hijack a page and impose their will upon it.

Let's remember that WP:CONSENSUS guides that:

"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

So in respect of that point we need to work out where Wikipedia's best interests lie. Wikipedia is not a link repository, of that we are all agreed. I think we also all agree that fansites are to be linked to on occasion, and that all the What should not be linked to criteria have to be met by any fansite. So I don't really see where this dispute leaves us, beyond arguing over how many fansites we should link to. The consensus of many Wikipedians has been that it's probably best to keep it to a minimum.
Mike makes a great argument that Wikipedia has no hard rules. This is not true. This page is an enunciation of WP:NOT, a page notes as being part of the five pillars and thus one of the hard rules clearly discussed in the five pillars.
Mike has called Wikipedia arrogant on this issue, a charge I'm at a loss to understand. Whilst Wikipedia does aim to maintain high standards for its articles, something which would seem in keeping with its goal of providing encyclopedic knowledge to a general audience, arrogance implies an overbearing or haughty manner. I'm not sure the consensus of many editors can be overbearing, and I'm not sure I like the judgement here. It suggests a POV on Mike's part that shouldn't be there, that Wikipedia is authoritarian and dictatorial. Wikipedia is a consensus. Where there are issues with a particular link, the best method is to generate discussion of that particular link. There will always be exceptions to any policy or guidance, that's what WP:IAR is there to note. But amending this long standing policy to allow numerous links to fan sites to be allowed would have a detrimental effect upon Wikipedia.

Wikipedia already has issues with link spamming and gaming of the policy as it currently stands. As I have noted above, myself and Mike had a long argument over links to his websites, links which I removed not only because they were fansites, not only because he, as owner added them, but also because they violated, and still violate, copyright.

Rather than amend the policy to be cautious when adding links to "fan sites". If they do not have anything substantial to build on a reader's knowledge of the subject, do not link to them. we should remember Wikipedia's job is not to provide traffic for fansites, it's to provide information. Where fansites contain information, we should add the information, not a link to the fansite. Hiding Talk 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are the wisest words posted here since a quite some time. I think this just closes the "discussion". Bravada, talk - 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply adding information from fansites to articles without having the common courtesy to at least link back to them is rather arrogant IMHO. And simply doing it without credit is borderline plagiarism. - Mike 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of references? Bravada, talk - 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course! I think that my comment was a bit too vaugue, sorry. What I meant by it is that adding it to the references is all well and good, but when a site provides substantial content to an article it is common coutesy to link back. Most casual readers of Wikipedia go to the external links section for further reading, not to the references. Thus, if you got half your information for an article from a major fan site, put it in the external links. - Mike 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's common courtesy among fansites. Wikipedia does not participate in the cross-promotion "link back" cultural norm that has developed among fansites. Rather, it participates in the academic "link back" cultural norm of referencing. Among academics, referencing someone's work is a way of saying "thank you" and of promoting their work as a good thing to go read. Linking back as a "thank you" in another way would be unprofessional for an encyclopedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikitravel links

External links to the Wikitravel website (see the Wikipedia article on Hanoi for instance) do not have the little arrow at the end of the link (i.e the right side) indicating that it is an external link. This is because Wikitravel links have the "extiw" class assigned to them (for InterWikis or so I've found out) instead of the "external" class.

Is it possible to create a similar image for InterWiki links (i.e. links with the "extiw" class) and add this into Wikipedia's style sheet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reinthal (talk • contribs) .

You may need to contact Technical support to get that change implemented in the main stylesheet. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing books w/ links to promo pages

Whether listed as references or external links, I'm wondering if and when it's appropriate for a book citation to contain a url to a promotional website/page for the book (usually the author's or publisher's). What about a DOI that links to the publisher's page for the book? --Ronz 18:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason why the answer has to be the same for References and for External links. For References, anything besides the reference itself seems superfulous to me, but I am no expert on all the ISBN stuff. For External links, editors of individual pages should do as they like. There should be a small number of high quality links, useful to most readers. In some cases, a promotional web site would meet that standard (especially in the article is about the book itself) in (most?) other cases, it would not. David.Kane 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even commenting on the usual "judgement" stuff from David, I believe a book reference is a book reference, and not a reference to its promotional site. So I'd say the answer to the original question is no. Bravada, talk - 19:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. This is a question more appropriate for WP:CITE and related pages than for this page.

So, we agree that a promotional link is not a good idea in References. Great. Ronz also wants to know if such a link is reasonable in the External links section of an article. The_Early_Admissions_Game:_Joining_the_Elite provides a concrete example to comment on. David.Kane 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's quite obvious - this is more or less a book's "official homepage", so I'd say there are no doubts it should be featured. Well, unless it's something like "Pride and prejudice" that had hundreds of editions and listing only some websites would be promoting some over other. Bravada, talk - 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

This is a very important article that has taken a turn for the worse. Vandalism and linkspam are a major problem for the articles on wikipedia so policy instructing very specifically on how to handle the issue should not be taken lightly. I have seen more editors work out the details over a non-notable rapper's afd than what has made the change here. The first draft has issues (as seen by all the edit reverts) and needs to be cooked a little longer.--I already forgot 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the changes that I have seen in the recent past has provided ammunition for vandals (!) or linkspam. What specific changes are you referring to? David.Kane 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reinserted the what not to link to section, since the copyrighted section had been moved into the normally not linked to. Copyright violation sites should never be linked to. Not over fussed where the redirection site guidance goes. As to the how to section, it doesn't matter that this guidance is in a number of places; lots of guidance on Wikipedia is in a number of places. It's easier to direct people here than to a sub-section of a different page. Content of Wikipedia space pages are often decided by ease of use. Let's not be too rigid in what we allow our pages to describe. Hiding Talk 13:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I reverted the wholesale revert that you made because I think you did not allow time for comment from other editors and/or address the issues above, I have no objection to to you ensuring that the copyright section is in line with policy. Edit away. With regard to your other comments, I disagree. Wikipedia should not repeat the same information over and over again because then it becomes impossible to keep those versions in sync and, when one version changes, to know which is correct and which is wrong. Furthermore, the distinction between external links as a general category and external links as an article section caused endless confusion. Now, it might be better to split this out by making an "External_links_section" page that would address that specifically while this page is reserved for external links in general. I am open-minded on that and would be curious about others' views. David.Kane 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

David, you seem to be putting the onus on me to find a consensus for a section that has existed in this article a long time and has been reinserted by other editors besides myself. I find no consensus on this page for removing it, so I'm not sure why you keep removing it. You may be correct, that it might be better to split it out, but that needs discussing first. I happen to think that it is better represented here. We should try and keep our guideline pages to a minimum, and try and keep related information together. Please don't keep reverting people's changes because you disagree with them. If people keep reinserting a section, and only you are removing it, then you aren't acting with consensus. Hiding Talk 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the change involved in splitting the article in two parts requires "discussing first." That's why we discussed it. Was that discussion not long enough for you? Again, splitting up the article is not among the main changes that I am interested in. (Those changes are here.) But I do not like it when the changes discussed and agreed by the editors involved here are trampled without due discussion. David.Kane 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to Move Back to Previous Version

I would like to request that one of the regular editors on this page (Bravada, ReyBrujo, 2005, Fagstein, Barberio, et al) revert this page to the version of September 19. As you can see from the history, I can't do so myself without violating WP:3RR.

My reason for this request is that I think that User:I_already_forgot, User:Hiding and User:Kilo-Lima have not done enough to seek the views of the editors associated with this page before making such major changes. I do not know (or care) if they are acting in concert, but it seems rude to do so. I like to think that, in my few weeks associated with this page, I have acted in good faith, but others can judge the history of the Talk page for themselves. David.Kane 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

David, you are the one who made major changes before seeking community consensus, and continued to ignore all of the voices that clearly said they do not support your change. If anything is rude, is behaving like that now. Bravada, talk - 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of not "seeking community consensus" when this is the history of my edit to split the article in two parts? Now, perhaps I am revealing my ignorance as a new Wikipedian, but precisely what should I have done differently? David.Kane 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus means general agreement, not lack of opposition. There was just one voice in support. If you get no answers to your proposal, it does no constitue "silent support". And, as you see now, it was probably that people either did not notice your proposal or did not find it appropriate to even comment, as there is a quite strong opposition to your changes. Bravada, talk - 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale changes made September 22 without consensus

Several wildy inappropriate edits were done today, particularly by User:Hiding. I've reverted them to what I think was the last version where discussions took place for. Perhaps it needs to go back further, but there are SEVERAL discussions going on here, and editors just rudely ignoring them and making wholesale changes is not acceptable. Perhaps what we need to do is arhive everything and start fresh with discussion, but what is not going to happen here is the rudest person making changes without consensus just because they are rude. Just to be clear... I'm not trying to make any change here. My intention was to revert back to "the old version that has been around for months". Again, perhaps I didn't revert back far enough, but adding new stuff not discussed is not nice so please behave. 2005 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank 2005 for making this change and agree with his assessment. It does not appear to me that the recent arrivals to the dispute have bothered to read the extensive discussions over the last month or so. If they have bothered to read it, they have not responded to it. Perhaps that conversation can start now. David.Kane 11:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Glad the page has been protected from editing so that we will be forced to come to agreement instead of engaging in an endless edit war. - Mike 14:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-write this guideline from the ground up.

Okay, I'm fed up with all of you arguing ad nausium over changes. Wheel waring. Being impolite. And basicaly acting like beurocratic jerks.

Everyone seems to have some kind of problem with the page as is. This means that the current page does not reflect consensus guidelines, and that is a very bad thing. I'm going to tag this with {{Disputedpolicy}}, don't remove this until after we've resolved all the issues to get a guideline that does reflect consensus.

I'm going to suggest that we do a total re-write using a 'workshop' copy. First working out how the document should be structured. Then taking each item currently on the page, reviewing it, and making sure it does reflect actual consensus not beurocratic inertia. --Barberio 21:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"You" does not equal "everyone". I have no major problems with the policy as it was before David's self-appointed shuffle. And I guess there are quite many people here who said clearly that they do not approve of those changes, so I believe trying to revert reverting to the last version created by consensus (there WAS consensus before you started discussing your proposed changes, otherwise it wouldn't have been there as a guideline) is completely improper. Please do not try to push your goals in ways that are both desperate and disruptive. Bravada, talk - 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict... Woohoo, I get to agree with Bravada)You seem to not understand both consensus and guideline policy. This is the guideline. We all have ways we don't like it, but just because someone will not like it six months from now does not mean that "there is no consensus". You need to get consensus to CHANGE this guideline. Consensus is not something any jerk or troll can destroy if he/she just shows up a month from now. This guideline exists. I suspect that changing it will take close to an act of Congress, but that is the way it works. People can't just change it because they are the biggest asshole.

An attempt to rewrite this from the ground up sounds good, but will probably just be futile. That does not mean we should not try though. Till then though, THIS IS THE GUIDELINE. Changes to it need to be discussed and accepted via consensus, not bullying or trickery. This guideline evolved via consensus, and the fact of that matters not at all to the fact that many of disagree with parts of it. Editors need to convince the rest of us that a change is good, or live with the guideline. If you can't live with it, seek out an encyclopedia with different decisionmaking policies. 2005 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to belive that the guideline can stand, even if it does not reflect consensus, when changes to it can not pass consensus either. And let's make this clear. I AM DISPUTING THE STATUS OF THIS GUIDELINE. Provide me evidence that this guideline as is represents the consensus of Wikipedia on how to handle external links. If it doesn't, then it is not a Wikipedia Guideline. --Barberio 22:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently has over one million registered users. I guess most of them who are aware of this guideline do not keep this page on their watchlist, so they do not know of this discussion, but if they did not express their disagreement with it here, it means they accept it as it is and that constitutes overwhelming consensus. Secondly, even if we can find quite many people who are not satisfied with it in this way or another, it does not mean they would all want the same changes. The last time a group of users found a version that they could agree on, the last stable version of the policy was reached. And it stands until there is another broad consensus on a given change - and, currently, there isn't any. Bravada, talk - 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

When it's clear that consensus does not support particular sections of the guideline, then those sections should be edited or removed. --Barberio 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said - as soon as there will be a consensus regarding a change or removal of a particular section, this section should be changed. There is no consensus at the moment. Bravada, talk - 22:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the original version of the policy to be concise. Hundreds, if not thousands of editors are currently enforcing the policy (completely unaware that a few desire to rewrite WP:EL) indicating they have no issues with the policy. If a re-write is needed, I think more of an effort should be made to invite other editors into the discussion or at least make them aware of potential changes. I had no idea the discussion was going on and only found out about the changes after referencing EL page to help decide on a link removal I was unsure about. After looking at the page it was obvious some recent changes had been made. I understand that an attempt had been made to discuss the issue, but a better attempt of informing the community should be conducted. Again, having small discussions with little input on changes are fine for basic articles, but in situations on edits effecting almost all the articles on wikipedia, more of an effort should be made to come to a general consensus of editors on all the pages and not just that of the current page the discussion resides. It would also benefit the community to have as much tact as possible during the discussion to keep the order of discussion organized and with clear direction. --I already forgot 01:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Iaf taking the time to write the above. Let me respond to each bit in turn.

"I find the original version of the policy to be concise."

It may have been concise but it was endlessly confusing, as the Talk page makes clear because it did not distinguish between external links in general and the External links section of an article. Do the rules for the former apply to the latter? In my view, obviously not. But much confusions resulted from our lack of clarity on this. Also, I (and others) think that the page is 5 times longer than it ought to be. It is not nearly concise enough. It should be principal-based rather than rules-based. Others disagree, but the above (and archived) Talk gives a sense of the discussion.

"Hundreds, if not thousands of editors are currently enforcing the policy (completely unaware that a few desire to rewrite WP:EL) indicating they have no issues with the policy."

Really? Then why are half the featured articles in conflict with it? See the examples cited previously. The editors of those articles are either unaware of the guidelines or, more likely, in disagreement with them. Either the guidelines or their behavior should change. See Rush (band) and Dog Day Afternoon for recent examples.

"a better attempt of informing the community should be conducted."

Forgive my ignorance, but how does one do so? I assumed (mistakenly) that people who cared about the issue monitored the page. In any event, please inform everyone you think might care.

"It would also benefit the community to have as much tact as possible during the discussion to keep the order of discussion organized and with clear direction."

I agree. Feel free to point out examples of rudeness by me or anyone else. I am new to Wikipedia and still getting used to the customs. David.Kane 12:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

David, you are still among the very small, elite group of people in the world who somehow seem to believe that external links gain special magical status when put inside a section called "External links" (I wonder whether the magic works also when the section is called "Buggaloo" or something). You do not have to distingusih between two things when they are the same!

Secondly, you might not like the fact that the section is so long, but it takes that long to list everything that the guideline currently consists of. And all of this is now presented in the most concise manner possible. Bravada, talk - 11:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know what you mean. Are you saying that the exact same rules apply to links listed in the External links section as to links used elsewhere? If so, I disagree and can provide counterexamples from almost any featured article you would like to name. Are you saying that different rules apply but that this should be obvious to everyone? If so, I disagree and can site disputes here and elsewhere. Are you saying that different rules apply and that this is currently confusing and needs to be clarified? If so, we agree! David.Kane 12:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this already - if you mean the fact that you cannot distinguish between external links and references, we already know that. Bravada, talk - 12:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We may have been through this but I am still not certain what your position is. Perhaps I am just an idiot. In any event, there are new editors reading this discussion, so please make it clear to them. My quess: you think that these guidelines apply to the External links section but that it is obvious that they don't apply to the References section. I honestly do not know if you think these guidelines apply to other parts of an article. Since the guidelines themselves do not make this clear, I doubt that I am the only one confused. David.Kane 13:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that we all need to take a quick look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and remember that none of us are out to destroy the integrety of this guide, we are just out to do what we believe will help the project as a whole. - Mike 14:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I read the guideline carefully again, I think that the confusion might stem from the fact that the "how to link" section seems both incomplete and depreciated, with the part on embedded citations belonging more to WP:CITE then here, while not mentioning some other examples of external links outside of the "External links" section (besides, the fifth-level section heading recommended there for external links seems not to be in accordance with widespread practice, which is using top-level section headings, so either of them is wrong). Bravada, talk - 14:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

David.Kane: for guidance on what and how links may be used as references (note: all links used as references are necessarily external), see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This page is about non-reference external links, called by some "Further reading". (Granted, maybe that should be said explicitly in the first line.) Also note that external links that are not used as references do not appear in the body of the article except for a few, very very rare exceptions (such as a main-site link in an infobox), which might be why this is sometimes said to only apply to the External links section of articles. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#External links: paraphrasing, if a link is in the body, it can only be used as a source and must be a numbered link with no description.) There's a very sharp demarcation between external links and references (though perhaps it is not explicitly communicated: everything I read in policy seems to just treat it as so obvious it doesn't need saying). — Saxifrage ✎ 18:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I've just come to this debate. (Thank you for posting to the village pump and letting the community know that an important guideline was being discussed). And having read through this discussion page I'm not entirely clear on exactly what is being proposed or why. It seems like some big assumptions are being made but it may be just that I missed the context. Is it possible for someone to step outside of the conflict and summarize suggested changes in an NPOV way? --Siobhan Hansa 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been throwing a lot of ideas around, but the most specific one is in the second straw poll above, regarding changing the wording to the line about fan sites in the article. As of now it's 6/3/0 in favor of the change. - Mike 14:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the most important part is the push by some users to allow more widespread linking to fan sites, blogs, forums and such by means of effectively nullifying rules governing those here. Several attempts were made to push for those, including the questioning of the entire guideline. Bravada, talk - 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. On the other ideas currently being thrown around, it would be helpful for people like myself who have recently joined in, if editors could try and make their remarks address a more general audience again. Restating the obvious and all that - so we can understand where the debate is at. Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

My points:

More often than not, there are multiple fan sites/blogs/forums on a given topic, so linking to some of them rather than all requires a POV decision which are "better", while linking to all would make the article work more like a directory - why not create some Open Directory listing then and link to it?
Many fan sites and most blogs and forums outright fail to comply with the general guidelines for external links, so allowing linking to them explicitly could create conflict within the guideline itself.
If a fan site or another site contains information that are important, but are not in the article, the solution is to use it as a source (provided it meets guidelines for sources, otherwise it is meaningless anyway). If the inclusion of some information would be improper, such as lenghty tables of sports results and such, they pages containing them should be linked to directly, in accordance to point 5 of "What should be linked to".
A user interested in a forum or blog on a given topic can use Google, there is no need to "endorse" some links over the other in a Wikipedia article.
A link from Wikipedia dramatically boosts Google ratings of a site, not to mention that it generates traffic itself, so there is an obvious incentive for spamlinking in WP (which can be seen all around here), and therefore the guideline should give the editors a clear basis for fighting it.

I also raised some other points in reponse to some statements made by other users here, but they are irrelevant in the general context. Bravada, talk - 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to "summarize suggested changes in an NPOV way".

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

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

Some fan sites are better than others

Above, Bravada stated "More often than not, there are multiple fan sites/blogs/forums on a given topic, so linking to some of them rather than all requires a POV decision which are "better", while linking to all would make the article work more like a directory - why not create some Open Directory listing then and link to it?"

Providing some broad, general guidance for determining which fan sites are better than others is probably exactly what this guideline should try to do, even if we know the advice will not work in all situations. WP:RS is an entire guideline about determining which sources are better than others - making such decisions does not make the article POV, as you aren't saying "this site is great" and "this site sucks", just linking to them.

However, the standards for using a fan site as a source, and merely including it as an external link cannot be the same. When using it as a source, it must be reliable for the statement you are using it to support. (That is, the fan site in question may reliably represent a particular point of view, but may not reliably make factual statements on X.) When including it as an external link, there is no statement to determine if it is a sufficiently reliable source to back up that statement. (Besides, editors may add something as an external link when they are unsure whether or not it is reliable enough to be used as a source.)

I guess, in general, larger fan sites, run by multiple fan, are better than smaller fan sites, run by very few fans or just one. In addition, the more editorial oversight, the better. (Forums should not normally be linked to, although it is alright if a fan site including other material happens to include a forum as well.) Although fan sites are POV, they are probably less POV than official sites trying to sell the material. Having good relations with the producers/recorders/actors/singers/whoever is also a plus (e.g. if they get their own interviews). Of course, then there is the question of the usefulness of the content of the fan site, relative to the article.

Just my two cents,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are the best words I've seen about this topic yet! We all need to remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that we are encouraged to use common sense. - Mike 23:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't really get what you mean. There are clear criteria as to what pages to include as external links. We could actually limit the whole guideline to those five bullets, but I guess there is a need to explicitly deal with some issues to arm people cleaning up linkspam with more convincing arguments. That said, there is no need to create a lenghty document as to what fan sites are better than others - simply if you really really really think there is a fan site that complies with any of the 5 "scared" bullets, then inser it, ans perhaps provide an explanation in the talk page for anybody that would want to delete it. Bravada, talk - 00:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article (Elin Nordegren) related to the discussion. She has recently become number two of the yahoo top ten searches on the internet following an internet scandal of pornographic pictures (of someone else). Follow the inclusion of links to the wikipedia page (sept 11th) and relate it to the controversy timeline. What is most interesting is the link is now listed as a "fansite" on wikipedia. I will leave it up to the editors to form their own opinions. --I already forgot 04:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess there are two issues. First, should the link be included at all in the article and, second, should it be labelled a fansite. I think that it is obvious that the link should be there since it is "high quality" --- or at least high quality than other available links --- and because it is precisely the sort of link that is "useful to most readers" of the article. It also seems fair to label the link as a fan site, or at least as unofficial and/or unaffiliated. I would like to hear arguments from those editors who think Wikipedia should not link to such sites. David.Kane 11:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Elin Nordegren article, I don't personally think that the link should be there. It may be higher quality than other sites (I haven't ooked around), but I don't think it meets a suitable level for inclusion - The content doesn't seem to be encyclopedic, it appears to be about only one aspect of the subject's life, and there's no information on the origin of the site - which makes it very unclear what it's purpose is, how one should judge the reliability of the content, and what might happen to the content in the future. I'm concerned by the phrase I see repeated on this talk page a lot as justification for including a link - "useful to most readers". While including a link that is not useful is a bad idea, I don't think usefulness is a sufficient reason. This is still supposed to be an encyclopedia, if a link doesn't support an encylopedic purpose, it shouldn't be there, regardless of how "useful" it might be to readers. --Siobhan Hansa 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

More questions: Here [1] is a site with exactly the same bio info (word for word). Which one do you include and is one possibly in copyvio of the other? Also, what about the issue that the original inclusion of the site on sept 11th may have possibly contained the controversial photos (user deleted citing a porno site)?

The link section of the site leads to other models with nude photos and porn links, so in my opinion this is where "meaningful" comes into play. This is not a meaningful site and is merely a teaser page. If a site is judge off the quality of the presentation and not the intention of its creation (and the quality of information amongst others reasons), we will loose valuable links by others who's only desire is to share information, however, if the information is valuable it should be included in the main wikipedia article so there would be no reason for the link anyway. An example of a link to include would be a link in the PHP article. There is no way to include all the factual info on its pages in one wikipedia article so a link to the php.net page should be included. The quality of the presentation of the php.net site is moot as the same valuable information could be (and is in some cases [php.ini]) presented in text pages.

Its obvious that Wikipedia is a great way to increase huge volume to a site or to pump up its search rating and many web entrepreneurs are fully aware of this. The fact that you would consider this a high quality fan site leads me to question your intentions so I must ask (with a smile), what is your true motivation for the changes and what is the driving force for your eagerness? If your intentions are sincere, maybe wikipedians need to look at the controversial link edits (that you say are the reason for needing the change) by creating a project page to break down the problems of the controversial edits in an effort to analyze why they are controversial and what the ultimate solution was for each edit. Users can also discuss the motivations for web developers to include links and how to combat the problem as more user become savy on inclusion (such as the teaser page). Once it’s clear of why links are added and what the solution was, you can define a well written and comprehensive WP:EL page. --I already forgot 13:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well,the link doesn't seem to be libelous, so I don't think it's a WP:BLP concern (unless it contains more personal info about her than easily available to the public). It does seem to contain a good overview of information in a relatively neutral tone (compared to what you'd expect from a lot of sites talking about a celebrity). What concerns me is the trustworthiness of the site. It doesn't link to its sources, although I have no idea if any reliable sites link to it. It doesn't state the authorship, and a whois reveals that the registrant's name is "Domain Admin", the registrant's organisation is "Genuine Web" and the registrant's address is "4155 9th Ave New York, NY, 10034". The company at that address (ppcpool.com) apparently sells a domain parking service. In other words, the publisher is probably completely unreliable as a secondary source (unless a reliable source somewhere links to it), although it may be used as a primary source (e.g. for its own opinions) if relevant. As for use as an external link (not a source), I'm not sure, but I would hope that there are better options. It might be alright if you could confirm, using reliable sources, that most of the information at the site is correct, but hopefully at that point you'd have a better link anyways. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, elinnordegren.org is only the 1,946,378th busiest site on the web. I've built sites that achieved that small amount of traffic in 24 hours. The only sites that link to it have the same owner, and the exact same page design. If I wasn't committed to WP:AGF, I might wonder if the poor quality of that article means the page was created just so that owner would have someplace to put his linkspam. Of course, nobody would do something like that, would they?

OTOH, the fact that two pages contain the same information doesn't necessarily mean that there's a copyright violation. It may well be that the site is using an official biography furnished by Mrs. Woods or her agents.

In reading the article about Mrs. Woods, I wanted to know whether the pictures of someone else were mild cheesecake nudity, or hard core raunch. Ideally, there'd be a citation showing the pictures in context. The author of the article, however, doesn't follow the WP:V official policy, and thinks there's only one fact in the entire article that needs to be sourced, so the only picture of Mrs. Woods available in a citation shows her from the chin up, not even the neck, and there's no image at all of the nude woman. The external link, though it showed Mrs. Woods in a swimsuit, didn't show the bogus pictures. An image search at Google was far more useful.

If the site provided reliable content in far more detail than would be appropriate for Wikipedia - for a model/nanny who has married a pro golfer, details such as her complete modeling portfolio, a list of every modeling jobs she's done and what she earned doing it, a transcript showing whether she took golf as a physical education course or took child psychology, and what grades she earned in each - then it would be reasonable to include it. A site so complete, though, would inevitably show up multiple times in the <references/> listing, if people would simply follow the WP:V policy and back up their statements with citations.

With one exception, that is. An official site shouldn't show up in the footnotes, because Wikipedia:Reliable sources says it can't be expected to be NPOV. Official sites are the only external links I've ever seen that added to the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Until someone can point to a fansite that adds to the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I still argue that rules for external links need to be tightened, not liberalized. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming an already well-referenced article (which the example isn't), I think external links, with lower standards for trustworthiness than sources, may also be useful for articles where all or almost all of the reliable sources are offline/require a subscription. This doesn't apply to Elin Nordegren, which is not well-referenced. Rather than worry about one problematic link, why not either look for reliable sources, or start getting rid of unverified material? The external link might in fact be a source which the author knew was unreliable, and thus listed as an external link, hoping to eventually verify the material from a reliable source. (Or maybe not. But in any case, if you are going to use an unreliable source, you may as well be honest about it.) The link isn't great, but it's the least of the article's problems. Also, WP:RS#Company_and_organization_websites says that company and organization websites can be used as sources, with caution. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the definition of "fan site"? Any site where fans of any topic congregate? The Encarta article on mathematics has a direct link to the Drexel's math discussion forum [2]. That's where math fans meet to discuss and ask questions. The current wording of this guideline would prohibit that link in Wikipedia, because it's not "mandatory" to the article. This illustrates there are valuable links to certain "fan sites" or discussion forums that improve the article value, yet which are not allowed under the current wording. I understand the problem with pop culture-oriented fan sites, but the current wording is too broad and is "throwing out the baby with the bath water". Joema 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Blowfish writes "I think external links, with lower standards for trustworthiness than sources, may also be useful for articles."

“

Welcome to the Wikipedia Restaurant. I'm anonymous; I'll be waiting on you today. Our special today is Kobe beef, which is quite expensive, but if you don't have the money for that, we can offer our diet plate, which consists of raw bacon, and rancid tuna atop fresh bagged spinach, with a dressing of mayonaisse we keep forgetting to refrigerate.

”

In what way would you consider incorrect or misleading information to be preferable to zero information?

Joema, a fan is an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity. Drexel University is an established and respected information provider, charging by the semester hour, and qualifies as a reliable source under WP:V. Wikipedia policy says it's quite proper to offer a direct link to the site, as a citation, backing up encyclopedic content. Just not as an external link. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess Clair gave an illustrous explanation of one reason why questionable sistes should not be linked to in the guideline, and I would like to add to it explaining why I find this (Blowfish's) reasoning flawed - I believe what he meant is that some articles might list sources that are unaccessible for any reader, either because they are offline (you cannot click ont the "link" to a book :D) or require subscription or access is restricted in another way. Then, I believe, Blowfish argues we should give the reader a link to click on. Well, writing an encyclopedic article means making important and reliable information available all in one place, so actually a good article should create no need for the reader to click anywhere more (I hope you get what I mean, I am tired...)

As concerns what Joema said about Drexler et al., it all boils down to whether Wikipedia should provide links to "valuable" sites on the topic. Well, "valuable" is a POV qualifier, we would then need to make POV judgements, which is against the spirit of an encyclopedia, and not really needed to fulfill Wikipedia's basic goals. Bravada, talk - 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) You cut out the "where all or almost all of the reliable sources are offline/require a subscription" part of what I said. That is, a circumstance where all of the information is indeed cited with reliable sources, and thus meeting WP:V and WP:RS. However, these reliable sources are offline/require a subscription, and thus not available for everyone who can read Wikipedia to check. (Of course, then there's the Chinese, but there's only so much we can do to help them.) In such a circumstance, it might be helpful to include online external links of less trustworthiness than the sources, so long as such untrustworthy external links were not used as sources. This is similiar to the convenience link issue we've been arguing about on WT:RS for quite awhile now. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was referring to. There is no need for anybody to check sources if the article is well written. The only instance when sources need to be checked is when the article is reviewed, and then you need to check the original sources anyway. If the article is written basing on good, reliable sources, what is the purpose of linking to an inferior information source? Bravada, talk - 22:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I was replying to ClairSamoht, before you added your comment (double edit conflict). But as for linking to the inferior sources of information when the reliable ones may be hard to access, I think it is useful for those who can't easily check the reliable sources for themselves. Perhaps they don't trust us, and would feel better if they had two unreliable sources (Wikipedia and something else) telling them the same thing. Perhaps they want a greater depth of information than is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, even if it is from an unreliable source. Perhaps the link isn't even particularly unreliable, it's just contains objectionable amounts of advertising or something. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrgh the edit conflict swallowed my "brilliant prose", so here is a shorter verion -- "'valuable' is a POV qualifier, we would then need to make POV judgements, which is against the spirit of an encyclopedia". Your position is mindboggling. Every single thing we do is value judgment. If someone is not using value as the reason for doing anything, stop editing, because creating a great, valuable, useful encyclopedia is what we do here. Every single section, sentence, source, punctuation and external link should be added or not added based on the judgment of editors in terms of value and complying with guidelines an policies. "Is this sentence needed" is a value judgment. "Does this section need more detail" is a value judgment. "Should this sentence be more clear" is a value judgment. "Does this external link meet the guideline and serve the purpose of an external link" is a value judgment. THAT is the spirit of an encyclopedia. We don't promote anything, but we within established guidelines and policies we make judgments to choose the best encyclopedic content and presentation for users. 2005 23:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)Armedblowfish - this is getting absurd! If you'd check something up in the Britannica, would you expect the editors to provide you with a few telephone numbers you could call to make sure the article is correct? I mean, if you don't trust Wikipedia, don't use it (or, actually, simply don't trust it - I have no problem with using Wikipedia while not trusting it). I believe it would really be totally crazy to provide "lower quality backup references" or something...

2005 - then forget about the "value judgement" if it is to create problems, but the issue is that most decision in WP are made based on policies, guidelines, principles and such, and are therefore to a small extent dependent on user's own POV. The goal is to make the decisions replicable, i.e. make it so that the decision would be the same in a given case regardless of who would be making it. Of course, there are situations when this proves not to be the case, and then we have disputes, which are resolved based on the abovementioned guidelines, rules, policies etc. Of course some decisions as to the style or, in general, language of the article are up to the sole "value judgement" of editors, but I guess it is not that important for the encyclopedic status of Wikipedia whether some info is put that way or another (provided they mean the same, do not violate NPOV and a host of other policies and guidelines...)
But linking to external sites is far too important to leave it solely up to "editor's judgement", especially when it is one of the areas that can possibly generate quite many conflicts that could go on for ages if there were no clear guidelines helping to solve them. Bravada, talk - 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But again you go for a strawman that isn't being discussed here: "But linking to external sites is far too important to leave it solely up to 'editor's judgement'"... no one has suggested. Linking externally is important and it will always (except to obvious official sites) involve an editor's value judgment. But that judgment is guided by guidelines and policies. Ideally guidelines will lead to two similarly competent editors arriving at the same conclusion, but a side note of that is an editor much more knowledgable about a topic could make a different value judgment than a less knowledgable one. I run into this all the time when I edit in the broad area of my interest. I can't judge if certain tables are accurate if I don't know the rules of something. I would not add a link I was clueless about, but another editor more knowledgable about that specific thing and the value of the resource should add the link. At the same time, I can judge pure garbage or no-brainer official site things. Guidelines are here to guide both the mildly able and very knowledgable editors, not just in terms of links but content and appropriate sourcing and so on. This guideline is a guideline... it does not answer all questions. Editors must use their judgment to implement the guideline fairly and sensibly and in a way friendly to the encyclopedia and users. Clear guidelines are good, and so is good editor judgment. They work together. Our mission is to make this guideline help editors use their judgment as best we can. And in that way we should not have unthinking, non-value "stuff" in the guideline. 2005 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I got lost - what is your point? There are general guidelines as to what sites to include and what not to, so you can use your knowledge on the topic to compile a concise list of sites that would fall under either of the five main points of the guideline. Bravada, talk - 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what I've been laboriously trying to get you to agree with from the beginning. All of the guidelines take judgment. All of these value quality, so I'm looking forward to you changing your vote in the straw poll, and agreeing with strengthening the quality aspects of the guidelines while dimishing or removing the no-brain arbritrary aspects. 2005 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if Wikipedia is imperfect because it is still tainted by some subjective decisions made by users in some places, the solution is of course to allow for more subjective decisions.... Bravada, talk - 13:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, could you give an example? It sorta sounds like a list of fellows you'd give your daughter to date only if nobody else was available, because they developed AIDS while in prison for domestic violence crimes. Specify an article and a proposed external link, where the external link should be a site which is not a Reliable Source, nor an official website, yet it provides valuable and relevant information that the article should not contain if it were developed to FA quality. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, one of the two best-referenced featured articles I've ever seen? See Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal#Books. In addition to the ISBN, online views of selections of the book from Amazon are also linked to, where available. (In this case, the problem is not that Amazon is unreliable, but that it is a bookstore site, dedicated to selling the item.) For the record, I made the reccomendation in the FAC that these links be added before I learned that convenience links were controversial. (After I realised that convenience links were controversial, I sort of stopped voting in FACs.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, those links are questionable on a few accounts (complicated copyrights issue, commercial links), and quite frankly redundant - why would a reader need some portions of the book for? I am really surprised this FA passed with those. Bravada, talk - 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No copyright issues, actually: Amazon only provides the Online Reader with the permission of the copyright holder. As for being commercial, I'm don't think that makes it unreliable (does the desire to sell the book mean that they will innacurately reproduce it?) As for what they would be useful for, suppose I want to check a fact within the article, quickly, without going to my local library and asking them to order the book for me, or spending money to buy the book somewhere. Perhaps I don't even want to bother looking for online book searches every time I want to verify a book-referened fact. So I click on the Amazon link, and start searching for terms I hope will lead me to the material of the book that verifies the material of the article. This makes fact-checking easier for me, enhancing my ability to ensure that Wikipedia is well-verified. (This doesn't apply to convenience links that are not from reliable sources.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What fact are you going to check by using the Amazon links from Calhoun, Generous, Grace, McGee, Morison? They are so worthless that they aren't cited as sources, not even once. The only cite for Kurzman is footnote 72. Sorry, no page number on that cite. Hammel and Hara don't have Amazon links. You've just given an example of Amazon links that are totally worthless.

But this was about external links. There are seven of them. Chen, Tully, and Wright are not a valuable information; they have questionable information. Jameson is already cited multiple times in the footnotes, so that wouldn't need to be listed as an external link.

Lippman is a 404 error. It can be found in the WayBack Machine (which suggests that if we can check out the Wayback Machine, why can't we check out Amazon?) But though it qualifies as a reliable source, it wasn't used as a source. Why? I can only conclude that it's not that valuable.

Miller is an official site. Mohl has a lot of pictures, but they get all that from the DOD. Why not use the DOD - an official site - as an external link, instead of introducing the risk of man in the middle?

I'm really disappointed that you couldn't come up with a good example. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the books are listed in the References section. (Both the "Books" and "External links" sections of this article are subsections of the "References" section.) This implies that even if there are no specific citations saying that X portion of the text was verified by said book, some of the material somewhere in the article is verified by said book. Granted, without specific citations, it might be hard to figure out where, and thus check the material using the source, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a source.

I wasn't talking about Chen, Tully, and Wright, or Lippman, or Miller or Mohl. I was talking about the Amazon links following the book references, especially the Amazon link for Frank, who is specifically cited a number of times. (The Amazon links are basically external links, for although they follow the citations, the editor did verify the material using the actual books, so Amazon is not the source.)

I'll see if I can find the DOD site original pictures, and take a look at Chen, Tully, and Wright, but I'm not an expert on the topic, so your concerns might be better handled if you brought them up on the article's talk page.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add interwiki

Please add this interwiki to the article:

[[ru:Википедия:Внешние ссылки]]

--Yms 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Done/wangi 17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts - ignore all rules and don't split

My thoughts on the issues are quite simple. On the fan-site issue, I don't agree that we need to amend the criterion. The proposed change may open a can of worms we don't need to address. This is already addressed through ignore all rules. If there are good fansites which meet all inclusion criteria, and editors feel they should be added, add them, and build the broadest consensus to support their being added. That's the simple nub of the issue. That's the way Wikipedia works. We shouldn't guide that any more than one is needed, because otherwise we risk ending up with 20 or 30 or 100, which we don't need. I haven't seen much discussion of this issue at WP:NOT, so I assume the consensus is still that Wikipedia is not a link repositry. What we are protecting here is man things, not least that Wikipedia not be gamed to increase traffic to external sites and also Wikipedia's position as an encyclopedia rather than a link directory. And I still stand by the fact that if a fansite is informative, add the information and cite the site as source.

On splitting the page, I don't see the point. The page isn't long enough to require it and splitting will actually confuse the issue rather than help.

On removing the section "Things that shouldn't be linked to", I disagree entirely. Wikipedia should never link to anything which violates copyright.

Those are my thoughts on what I see as the issues. Hiding Talk 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Note. The current guideline does not ban linking to copyvio sites. It should, and that was the original intent, but the guuideline's been cruft ridden, and now does'nt. I did try to put through a change that made it clear that we never allow copyvio sites, but it was almost instantly RVd despite having been up for discussion for over a week. This is one of the reasons I've been asking for a comprehensive review of the guideline from scratch.

At the moment, the 'ban' on copyright sits under 'Links to be used occasionally', which is confusing. It is also a diminished language of "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem...", but never actualy says not to link to copyvio sites. This wording seems to have been coppied over from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, but edited in such a way that it was weakened. This leaves us with a guideline that seems to be poorly reflecting policy.

There is really only one issue here. The guideline has not really been maintained, and needs to be gone over as a whole, not just taking stabs at individual lines. --Barberio 10:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

I could have sworn that we explicitly discouraged linking to commercial sites, i.e. sites selling the product or service described in the article. Is this a brainfart or has it been removed by consensus along the way? Guy 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is currently covered by the "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming" guideline, though it could perhaps be expressed more clearly. --Muchness 18:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is good and clear. We link to sites that are commercial when they they happen to meet the linking criteria. If they happen to just be primarily selling a product, we don't link to them (unless it is an official site). 2005 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:::This is sort of irrelevant, but I wanted to notify everbody here that I am on indefinite leave from Wikipedia due to Wikiholism :-). I will be back, but there is not timetable. - Mike 21:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) I'm back. That was quick, huh? - Mike 03:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)