Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 16

; Archives
	Sorted by subject /workshop: Discussion of 2006 rewrite; Sorted by date Archive 1: 2003 - 2005; Archive 2: January 2005 - March 2006; Archive 3: April - July 2006; Archive 4: July - August 2006; Archive 5: August 2006; Archive 6: August - September 2006; Archive 7: September - October 2006; Archive 8: October 2006; Archive 9: October - November 2006; Archive 10: November 2006 – not yet full;

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the External links/Archive 16 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Lyrics sites

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

It's been my understanding for a while that we don't link to websites of song lyrics because they keep those lyrics posted in violation of copyright. I don't see anything in this guideline that directly addresses this question, so I thought I'd ask here. Is it legit to link to lyrics sites, such as Beatles Music Lyrics? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly not all lyrics sites violate copyright; some may have very old songs or may be official provided or with permission. But in other cases, it is covered by Restrictions on linking, item 2. Notinasnaid 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

lyricsdir.com currently has 662 links. These sites are usually in copyright violation because the lyrics are copyrighted by their authors, who don't permit redistribution unless granted permission. I suggest removing all these links, as well as any other site with lyrics. -- ReyBrujo 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is not our task to prove these links don't break copyright, it is the task of the editor linking to the site. Thus, I suggest removing them unless the editor informs that the site is not breaking copyright. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the strong language "prove". It is certainly not the task of editors adding links to "prove" anything, copyright or not. It is only our task to have a certain level of belief that the material is not in violation of copyright. That belief only has to extend as far as : "It appears to be the work of the author". Any more harsh position would disasterously affect wikipedia's ability to link to anything. Wjhonson 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unluckily, linking to sites that breach copyright without doing anything to prevent it is considered breaking copyright, as stated in the Fair use pages. Thus, someone linking to a lyrics site is effectively working against Wikipedia, making us as guilty as himself. It is not different from linking to YouTube, a PDF version of a book, or a mp3 file. While pointing to lyrics in the official site of the singer or band is fine, linking to these generic sites is not. Note that some sites have agreements with determined record companies to upload certain lyrics, but most don't. -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely incorrect representation of case law on this subject. Scare tactics will not stop me and other editors from continuing to link to sites that make Fair use of copyrighted materials and sites which have material whose copyright is suspect or stated for use. YouTube is a medium for exchange of material that may be in the public ___domain, and may be copyrighted by the person posting to it. Any links reverted on presumption, are subject to edit-warring. Editors are not responsible, under case law, for items they felt were fair use. Don't wikilawyer me on the subject. Wjhonson 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have already stated (maybe you decided to bypass that part), some lyrics site have agreements with record companies or with bands to post the lyrics, while others do not. Extensive copy of copyrighted text (commonly, 100% in these sites, as they post lyrics for the full album) cannot be justified under Fair use. Trying to think you can justify anything under Fair use is faulty. While I am saying "Let's clarify that a site posting the full contents of an album cannot claim fair use and should not be linked because it is breaking copyright unless explicitly stating they have an agreement with record companies", you are basically saying "No, let's not mention it, so that the editors of Wikipedia can claim ignorance and thus not being held responsible". I will point you to www.azlyrics.com/copyright.html, a site that posts lyrics. This site clarifies that Unless you have received permission from the copyright owner or their representative to distribute the lyrics from their songs, you are in violation of the law. and that a certain Publisher demand us to cease and desist from offering these unauthorized lyrics for distribution via our website. In other words, even these sites know posting determined lyrics can violate the law, they do not invoke Fair use to continue posting the lyrics, and that they would remove lyrics when asked to. They are not claiming "ignorance" as a safeguard like you, but instead "let's hope nobody realizes about this", which is the same approach torrent sites use ("If something you are copyright owner is here, please tell us so that we remove it"). The editor inserting the link must get sure the link he is adding is not breaking copyright. Or, as with images, we will have to have a team checking every link to see whether the link is breaking copyright or not. And since we get 15-20 new external links per minute, that is pretty impossible. -- ReyBrujo 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

But Rey, no one, not me, not any living person whatsoever... is stating that we should use sites which can be shown to be in violation. The objection is the assumption that a site is in violation, simply because they are silent on the issue. Your example is not this case, it's a red herring to misdirect the argument. If web content does not explicitely mention, or hyper-mention that there's a copyright issue, then assuming there is one, is not the position that wikieditors should take. Rather we should assume there isn't one, until there is evidence that there is one. Wjhonson 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, a C&D order would need to be dealt with by our lawyer... and he costs a lot of mula. I prefer to see donations be spent on servers and bandwidth. ---J.S (t|c) 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The recent change to the EL guideline re YouTube is in conflict with copyright policy. Barberio's Nov 3 statement:copyvio links are already forbidden, and it isn't a specific problem with Youtube but with all publicly contributed sites is correct. The means already exist to delete copyvio ELs, per copyright policy. YouTube is not a prohibited source, and claiming on EL that YouTube should not be added is confusing and incorrect--the current EL policy has merely created a fraudulent technicality for the deletion of YT links on a grounds other than cr violation--simply because they are external links. The wording should be changed back so that it's in alignment with V and C, which do not strictly prohibit YouTube. Any YouTube link which is a cr violation can already be dealt with under C--deleting them under EL and referring editors to the EL page does nothing to educate people about how to judiciously use YouTube--it just erroneously informs them that YouTube should not be linked; it doesn't explain under what terms YouTube can be linked. Explanations of the terms under which YouTube can be linked are explained at C, V, NOR (and RS). Cindery 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed specific mention of YouTube to address the concern that YouTube might specifically be targeted for removal even when properly copyrighted. --Barberio 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all specifity to brandnames of sites, and clarified that licensing is the issue. I agree with Cindery that this change was targeted to Youtube and that that sort of thing (targeting a type of site) must never be done. It goes against the very core of wikipedia. Any content which gives a clear license, including Youtube, Flickr or any other is fair game. And even sites which do NOT should be handled under copyright, NOT as an exception here. Wjhonson 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Jossi does not want to discuss, I've gone further, and completely removed all reference to the copyvio issue, which does not belong on this page whatsoever. Wjhonson 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If licensing is the issue, then that needs to be made more clear and cannot have a blanket negative view of YouTube or any other site. Licensing is an issue not specifically reserved for YouTube, it affects all webpages without exception. YouTube must not be treated as a special case. Wjhonson 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

restrictions on linking viz COI

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

There is no absolute prohibition in linking to sites you maintain, etc.--WP:V clearly delineates the self-publishing exceptions. WP:EL is a guideline, and as a guideline should not contradict policy. If you want to go into detail on discouraging self-publishing external links, that should go in "links normally to avoid." Cindery 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a guideline about external links, not sources. Also, what do you think in WP:V even comments on adding external links to a site a person owns or maintains? 2005 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an absolute prohibition in this guideline, primarly because people have generaly agreed that there should be. It it rooted in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is rooted in WP:NPOV not WP:V. This issue has been a pretty clearly established aspect of NPOV. --Barberio 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that self-published links should almost always be avoided, and that strong encouragement to avoid them should be in EL guideline. But, they aren't actually prohibited, and there are some very good exceptions--and stating that they are affects...YouTube. For example, the primary way for a YT self-publisher to affirm GDFL and copyright permission is to publish the link him or herself on Wiki. Instead of going into detail re YouTube, it would be better to move self-published links from restrictions to "links normally to be avoided." Any self-published link of any variety can be objected to by any editor under WP:AUTO and COI, as well as all other policies and guidelines. If you want to spearhead an initiative to outright ban commercial self-published links not already covered by spam, I will be your vice-president. :-) What I'm concerned about is the possibility of the technicality being used to wrongfully exclude/delete YouTube in general on a technicality. Cindery 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, I see your intention, but "agent of" and/or "maintains" can mean someone who publishes and maintains a link at YouTube. Cindery 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no absolute prohibition on self-published sources; external links is a subset of sources. Blogs and websites maintained by the subject of an article are usually included in external links of articles about subjects (and who put them there is largely irrelevant). It's not a restriction; it should go under links normally to be avoided. The point should be to help people to understand the useful exceptions for the benefit of Wikipedia; not to compound existing confusion about what to link and what not to link (by failing to make any distinction between useful and unuseful self-published links in favor of erroneously stating that they are prohibited).

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Cindery 23:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Help sought at VoiceXML

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

User:Calltech and I clearly have quite different interpretations of this guideline, as is becoming evident at VoiceXML. As far as I can tell, we are both being calm about the disagreement—no danger of an edit war—but it is clear that we will not reach consensus, so I thought it would be useful to bring this here.

The external link in question is the link to the home page of the working group within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that maintains the VoiceXML standard. I'm linking the working group rather than the standard itself, because there have been several versions of the standard, at least two of them widely used, plus two more that will probably be important within the next year, and I think a link to the group conforms to our intent of providing a relatively high-level link that will lead to other relevant links. I think that this is, for all intents and purposes, the official site of VoiceXML and should be linked. (One of the draft standards is externally linked within the article text; I'm neutral on that, but that is not the dispute we are having.)

CallTech, however, says that the only thing in the external links section the article should be the DMOZ page, and that as for finding the group and other relevant documents "W3C has its own article which is prominently linked (internally) in the first sentence" and, presumably, the W3C article links to the W3C site, in which you could presumably then look up the Voice Browser Working Group. My feeling is that is awfully far removed (navigate an internal link, on that page find an external link, then within that outside site, navigate to the relevant working group) from what I think (from having used this technology) is the single most useful URL for further information.

I am bringing this here because he tells me that there have been recent changes in this guideline and, if I read him correctly, tells me that what I want to do goes against the guideline. Since I don't think it does—in fact, I think that this being, effectively, an official site, the guideline actually encourages linking it—I figured I'd bring the matter here, because if he is right, I am obviously quite out of touch with how this guideline has evolved.

CallTech, if you think I've at all misrepresented your position, my apologies, and please restate it yourself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel, and I agree that this has been a calm discussion and that there is simply a difference of opinion here.

First, I did not state "that the only thing in the external links section the article should be the DMOZ page". I replaced the list of links on this article with the DMOZ directory listing and also added a message on the link section warning against undiscussed links. This comes right from the recommendations here Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Additional links can be added but should be discussed first on the Talk page. In fact, after you re-added w3c to the external links section, I stated "Prefer you remove this link and get consensus first which is WP guideline".

WP:EL: "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." W3c is already linked here VoiceXML#Future Versions of the standard and you've acknowledged that.

It really boils down to getting consensus within WP guidelines. The arguments you've made here are strong for keeping this link and I now wouldn't be opposed to keeping it. I do think it was important to discuss this first before adding it because this article was becoming a magnet for external links. Calltech 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional note - I went ahead and softened the notice under External Links. Both came from Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Both messages request users submit new links first to Talk page, but the second one is not so harsh. Calltech 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a W3C member and I was trying to have the W3C spec pages more informative. I added the two links in the VoiceXML page external links. They were removed. Can you clarify why they were deleted? The VoiceXML Forum is good source. Do I need to find consensus before adding a link to a page? I'm a novice and I need to understand the rules first. Paolo Baggia

Thanks for your comments here, Paolo. This was discussed on Talk:VoiceXML a few days ago. My observation on voicexml forum was that it requires registration (and payment) which is against guidelines WP:EL#Sites requiring registration. There are always exceptions, but these should be addressed in the Talk page rather than simply adding them. There are lots of really good VoiceXML websites out there, but WP is not a directory. If you follow the DMOZ Open Directory Listing - VoiceXML external link within the article, you'll effectively see all of these sites including voicexml forum. Calltech 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I brought this here hoping to get comment from people who routinely work on external links issues on Calltech's and my disagreement and whether one or the other of us is misunderstanding the guideline. That Paolo would like to go farther away from Calltech's understanding than I would in this case is only barely on topic. I am still hoping to get comment from people who work routinely in this area (external links). - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Use "further reading" instead of "external links" sections

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Just a thought: in broad agreement with what WP:EL already advocates in spirit and letter, we should discourage the use of "external links" sections in articles altogether. We should instead use a term such as "further reading" or "further information", since this is what external links are supposed to provide anyway. The use of "further reading/info" would immediately conscientise the editor into considering whether or not an external link genuinely provides more information for the reader or is just linkspam. Another advantage is that if there is no "external links" section (there being a "further reading" section instead) there is no place to dump drive-by spam. I edit the occasional geographic article where accommodation links are often posted, as well as car articles that attract a proliferation of forum/car modification website links. If the section was titled "further reading" instead it would cut down on well-intentioned but inappropriate external links at the source.

In reality the external links section is actually just further reading/info where said info happens to be web-based. External links are the means, further reading is the end. As I said, the letter and spirit of the EL guideline already makes it clear that this is how external links are to be used, so why not make it clear in the articles themselves? Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Further reading / further information as any more discouraging of barely on-topic links. If anything, it is even more open-ended: "But the person who looked up this war may want to know all about the Avalon-Hill game that simulates it". - Jmabel 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, my initial instinct upon hearing/reading "further reading" is that it would be a bunch of wikilinks, not external links. Like Jmabel said, changing the wording won't do anything to prevent people from putting improper links there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Further reading can also include items that are not links at all. Such as a book, whose contents are not on the internet. Or a magazine article reference. I don't think anyone is suggesting that changing the title will add or detract from whether people misuse it. Just that "Further reading" is a better title than "External links" since it's more comprehensive and also more standard in other reference works. Wjhonson 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious that it would make it more likely to be abused, since other editors can look at an external link, while a we all can't just grab a copy of some obscure book whose title sounds interesting. External links is proper in that they are just that, links. Non-linked items should almost never be outside of sources. Also, the point of external links are for users, not anybody else. Links can be seen immediately. Almost any other "further reading" type thing requires payment/registration or something like that, and thus fail in the same way as "Sites requiring registration". Again obviously the sites requiring registration section of the guideline would need to be removed completely if external links were changed to a broader further reading criteria. There is no value to users in making the change, and a half dozen reasons not to. 2005 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Almost any other "further reading" type thing requires payment/registration or something like that" There are things called libraries which one can borrow published works for free. "External links" is a limiting title, it excludes published works. Published works, which are a better recognised authoritative source than websites, are an important resource for wikipedia articles. There's no way wikipedia can be considered a serious encyclopedia by reliying on websites as source material. Some readers wont have the need to visit real paper, but others may be interested enough to take out a book from their local library. Even WP:CITE which is the parent policy to this page uses the term "Further reading". --Monotonehell 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"'External links" is a limiting title, it excludes published works.'" Yes, that is by design. They are things that can be seen via a click. You seem to want to put a round peg in a square hole. The external links section is for links that are freely accessible. That's it. "Published works, which are a better recognised authoritative source than websites..." That is just patent nonsense. Silly generalizations like that won't get you anywhere. 2005 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I've started doing the same thing on the subset of articles I edit. In response to some points raised above: I don't get the Avalon-Hill example. Further reading means "further reading on the article's subject/topic" so I don't see how anyone can justify putting such a link in, and vigilant editors will be justified in removing it. In response to the obscure books concern, at least the title and existence of the book, if not the contents, can be confirmed online, and even if it can't I don't foresee it as a major problem.. I don't think you'll get much "non-link spam" as compared to linkspam, because what's the point if it doesn't give your site a good pagerank?

The problem with "external links" is that it can be taken to mean "list of somewhat-topic-related external links". IMHO "topic-related" is not a strong criterion, and there are well-intentioned editors who add inappropriate links in good faith thinking they are okay. The info has to "add value" to the reader's knowledge of the subject by extending the article, as this guideline already explains in quite some detail. The term "further reading/info" means just that, "find further information on this subject that is not covered (or is not appropriate to cover) in this encyclopedia article" and IMHO is less open to interpretation than "external links". We should discourage the reasoning of "external links for external links' sake", and the first small step to doing so is to name the section appropriately. You won't stop intentional linkspam, but you may stop well-intentioned addition of links to a "list of external links". The term "external links" IMHO is more open-ended than "further reading" as the latter directly indicates that the link has to extend the article, and empowers editors to remove links that are not. And as mentioned above, it is more consistent with what is used in other reference works. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Video and photo sharing sites

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Links to video and photo sharing sites should be avoided, due to lack of verifiability, reliability, and possible copyvios. This is exactly the same case as per blogs and personal pages: do not link. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

All of which issues are best handled on their appropriate pages, not here. There should be no special consideration here, of issues that are policy or not. WP:V in particular is irrelevant. V can be checked by simply watching the production. Bringing up V over and over is a red herring meant to distract from your real issue which is apparently RS. Copyvio again is irrelevant. Obviously a YouTube of a music video is a copyvio, anyone can tell that. However a YouTube that is an original production has no copyright issue since the author loaded it themselves, and has their own copyright. The act of posting it, is a grant to the public to link to it. A link is not a copy, therefore there is no copyright issue involved. We *can* link to copyrighted work. A blanket identification of all YouTube as a copyright issue is ungrounded in fact or practice. Wjhonson 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

EL is a guideline, not a policy. Per V and C, which are policy, YouTube is not prohibited; there are ::exceptions. Due to the disruptive mass deletions of YouTube links immediately following a created EL ::technicality which is in conflict with policy, the YouTube-specific wording is being reverted back to the ::original, in order to prevent abuse of the EL guideline to advance a specific source bias being advanced ::by two people. All blatant YT copyvios are covered under C. Please see YouTube discussion involving jossi ::and I at NOR. Jossi, you're up to 3RR.

Cindery 20:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is absolutely relevant: there is no way that anyone can vouch for the video content uploaded to a site with no editorial control. Such content cannot be verified by "watching it". Same way that we cannot verify the content of a scanned document posted on a personal home page. Note that WP:RS is a disputed guideline. A new formulation is being worked out at WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you refrain from deleting the examples given for video and photo sharing sites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not refrain from deleting a list of specific sites whose only purpose is to push a particular POV. A list of specific sites has no purpose in a general discussion, when that list itself is disputed. One side does not win in a dispute. The most appropriate action is to not list the sites whatsoever. Wjhonson 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a silly attitude. At least you could have kept the explanation, if you do not like to have the examples there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you both please refrain from editing/reverting each others changes, and instead continue discussion here. Thanks/wangi 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Both User:Jossi and User:Wjhonson have attempted to make significant changes to the guideline today without discussion. This page is here for a reason, and almost everything in the guideline has been discussed in-depth and with CONSIDERABLE difficulty. Just slashing through and adding or removing things is inappropriate and uncourteous to the rest of us. If you want to add or remove something (other than typos/copyedit kind of stuff) then discuss it here first. 2005 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Video sharing sites should not be linked to for the reasons widely discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#YouTube_art_as_primary_source and here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_amendment ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be directly naming specific sites in the guideline. There are lots of good reasons to link to original content on YouTube or Flickr or other sites and a blanket interdiction is plain wrong. There is no basis for user: Jossi's position. --JJay 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not my position, just check the comments ,made by other editors in the links provided. As for the "lots of good reasons", I would appreciate it if you list them, as I do not see any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is your position since you have been inserting a list of supposedly banned photo and video sites into this guideline. Leaving that aside, let's take a closer look at one of these sites: YouTube. Besides the masses of home videos and the like, YouTube also hosts an enormous amount of authorized content for major media companies as part of negotiated agreements or other types of partnership deals. NBC is an example [1], but there are many, many more. YouTube is not violating copyright by hosting material placed on its site by the publisher and we would not violate copyright by linking as specifically authorized under wikipedia policy [2]. Given this context, your concerns regarding WP:V are not relevant. Considering that we do articles on many of the TV shows, stars or other media phenomena that may be covered by the authorized content, an external link to YouTube may be warranted in certain situations. That is just one small example of when a YouTube EL may be necessary. Another is when YouTube content itself gains enough prominence to justify an article at wikipedia. For example, Lonelygirl15 can not be treated in any serious way without linking to the YouTube content. In short, given the many, many valid exceptions and the rapidly shifting nature of the internet, blanket bans on specific sites are always a bad idea and should never be included in policy. --JJay 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Videos and photo-sharing sites are no better than blogs; the contents of them cannot be considered reliable, nor copyright honoring. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. --JJay 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Both User:Jossi and User:Wjhonson have attempted to make significant changes to the guideline today without discussion. This page is here for a reason, and almost everything in the guideline has been discussed in-depth and with CONSIDERABLE difficulty

--mmm, that's not really true. Wjohnson is supporting a consensus edit back to the original state EL guideline was in before two weeks ago, and the reversions he made are to my edit/Barberio's--both Barberio and I posted discussion, which jossi ignored: jossi just kept reverting until he was up to 3RR, then he was forced into joining the ongoing discussion.

Also, there wasn't really a lot of discussion about the YouTube-specific language that was added two weeks ago--it was actually railroaded in while the page was protected, on a dubious claim of consensus involving three editors. The fact that it was put there and immediately used by the people who put it there to enforce EL guideline against a specific site should be disturbing to all EL guideline editors. There is no ban on YT; the EL guidleine was just hijacked wrongfully for that purpose. The purpose of EL guideline is to help editors evaluate external links, and when to link; not to enforce a phony ban on a medium a handful of people don't like. Cindery 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anything to do with YouTube, which again is the problem with a flurry of multiple content edits to this guideline. 2005 23:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I take exception with your assessment and your lack of assumption of good faith. This is not a " phony ban on a medium a handful of people don't like". If you want to engage on a discussion, do not use straw man arguments as these do not help. Fact is that you have yet to provide a solid argument on how linking to video sharing sites is any different than linking to a personal website or blog. What applies to one appies to the other, so if yo want to change policy, go ahead and make a proposal. But do not go around asserting that adding a limitation on linking to video sharing sites is a change. It isn't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitary Section Break because this is such a long thread

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

(I haven't taken part in this discussion before, but came here after people started mass-deleting links, regardless of the copyright status of the linked-to content.) Jossi, you ask "how linking to video sharing sites is any different than linking to a personal website or blog". While both can involve personally-created non-authoritative content, a site such as youtube has a large amount of authoritative content, provided by major WP:RS sources like NBC. Blog content is mostly POV and non-authoritative, but it can be linked to in some cases. Ditto for personal websites. An image or a video can have the same issues (for example, a video of the uploader talking to the camera about something) - but often it does not; it's a recording of an event or an item. Also, while a bigfoot video on youtube would probably not meet WP:RS and WP:NOR, a video of a major event that gains notability might. For example, if youtube had existed, the Rodney King video might have ended up there instead of at broadcasters, and might have been appropriate to link to from an article on Rodney King.) Someone might upload a video specifically for linking to from Wikipedia the same way they upload images to Wikipedia, and as the copyright owner give explicit permission as owners often do for images here.
My feeling is that video-sharing links and photo-sharing links need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and right now they're not - some editors are trolling for links and mass-deleting them (using the "linking to content of unknown copyright is a US violation" argument) when obviously there's considerable disagreement. jesup 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletions are not welcomed. The use of video material uploaded by a studio, news outlet, record label, etc., may meet the threshold for inclusion on El sections. That is not disputed. As for the Rodney King example, it is not applicable: if such a video was ever posted in YouTube, Wikipedia will need to wait until a major news organization refers to it and confirms the content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletions without reference to the content or its status are happening, and at high speed. See Spartaz for an example (deleting 2-4 per minute it looks like), and he's not the only one. As for Rodney King, I said it would need to meet notability guidelines, which would almost certainly mean that it had been referenced elsewhere - but once it did it would probably have been linkable. My point was just that it's different than blogs. jesup 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried actually looking at what's being deleted? I just looked at half a dozen of Spartaz's deletions, and I didn't see one that I would miss. Actually looking at this stuff also raises the issue of how one determines that copyright isn't being violated. With images, it's pretty much up to the uploader to state and demonstrate that copyright is not an issue. On these links, there's nothing at all to go on, not even a claim on the part of the editor adding the link that they ever even considered the issue of copyright. And one of the links was already "withdrawn by the uploader". I for one am not all that worried about losing this stuff. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand that your argument applies to ALL web pages ? Not just video, all of them. Ninety-eight percent of all web pages say nothing about copyright whatsoever. Are we to assume they are all in violation simply because they don't address it? That logic fails. Wjhonson 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The contents of 98% of all web pages is not uploaded by random users. Have you tried looking at the images our users submit to Wikipedia in a given week? Take a look at one day's worth. That's the kind of content you're dealing with at YouTube. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And you're not addressing my point. All web content, per that view, comes from "random users". How do you propose, finding the copyright status, of *any* web content? You want to assume that all web content, of any type, is in violation of copyright first? Our policy is not to remove images immediately but rather to ask for copyright status of the image. So are you proposing that wikipedia needs to allow video uploading? Cuz if you're not I really have no idea what you are proposing. A blanket prohibition on links to video is simply not going to stand. So you should come up with some alternative. A link to video doesn't normally start off by saying "here's the copyright data wikipedia needs". I would propose that we act in good-faith by assuming copyright is in the hands of the uploader UNTIL we have evidence otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty? I think that works well with all other web content. Wjhonson 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was kinda leaning in that direction, but the servers here run pretty slow sometimes already. Still there's a major difference between sites that solicit user input for content and sites that don't, in terms of the likelihood of encountering copyright infringement. And yes, you're right I suppose, an outright ban on the site won't cut it, at least until Wikipedia is ready to accept video uploads. Thinking out loud, though, it would be possible to say that links to YouTube and the like would be permitted only via, say, a template that tied in a page on which the linker was required to make a statement similar to what we do on image pages: indicate the source and the copyright status. Too clumsy, perhaps? Might be worth thinking about. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

At a site such as Flikr, or other photo-sharing sites, almost all photos uploaded are taken by the uploader. At youtube it's different, but at a guess from looking over the "recent additions" I'd say around 75% are taken by the uploader. Now, the links in wikipedia to youtube probably skew the other way, I agree, and probably many youtube links in wikipedia are inappropriate for various reasons. Warnings are appropriate, reviewing is appropriate, banning or mass-deletion are not, IMHO. jesup 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

No I took the discussion on AN/I as reason to review these links and I see no reason at all why we should keep obvious copyvios or videos whose copyright status is unclear. I asked you to give me a diff for an incorrectly deleted file and the one you gave me was of a file that did not have any evidence that it was free and where you made assumptions about its copyright status. I'm afraid that this isn't good enough. If the file is not clearly free than we can't link to it in case its a copyvio. I also reviewed the file you objected to before I deleted it. In future, I would prefer you to address objections with me before making public allegations of misconduct. On a more cheerful note, I'll be very happy to review any other deletion that you disagree with. I'm sure that we all want the best but lets concentrate on the issue - copyvios and vidoes whose status is unclear. If you can think of a better way to handle this problem please let me know. I'd be delighted to find a simpler way forward. Thanks --Spartaz 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is suggesting keeping obvious copyvios. The problem comes when assumptions of copyvio are used as a reason for mass-deletions without comment. That's a problem and has to stop. If you claim other are assuming copy, you are assuming copyvio. You don't have the high ground here. Wjhonson 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the articles I deleted links from yesterday had already been tagged to highlight concerns about the free status of the videos. The vast majority (95% of the links at least) were either copies of TV programmes (copy vios) or links to commericial music videos (copy vios). In the case of Katana the vid had a link to a website where the vid wasn't available and there was no evidence that permission to upload the video had been granted (likely copy vio and deletable in the same way as an equivilent image). I'm still waiting for someone to show me a video I deleted incorrectly so I can understand where the consensus of the line should be. If you could review my deletions and show me any that were incorrect it would be exceedingly helpful. --Spartaz 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't mean to accuse you here without discussion, but others here asked for an example of apparent mass-deletion, and that was the one I knew of. I didn't see how someone could review 4+ pages and videos per minute and remove them; that looked like mass-removal without review, especially given the comment that implies that no review for copyvio is needed.
The Katana link hadn't been flagged that I know of. The video appears to be an amateur video with title added, done by a student of that dojo and the person giving the demo. The comments there from the uploader imply (but do not state) so. The site mentioned (apparently his sensei's site) has some professional-quality videos, but not the one linked to, and not with the title on the one linked to. I agree, there is no absolute certainty it's not a copyvio - but it's not obviously a copyvio either.
But the real issue I have is that the summary for all these edits appears to be misleading, and implies they were not removed for copyvio, but instead were removed due to a blanket mass-deletion policy which is at best a controversial opinion held by some of the editors. Even jossi here doesn't support a mass-deletion. If they're copyvio and the editor has reviewed them and decided they're obvious copyvio, then remove it and summarize as such (including that it was reviewed). This will make future editors much less likely to undo the edit. If it's possible copyvio, ask a question and get one of the page editors to investigate. As I stated in response to spartaz, "not clearly no copyvio" != "copyvio". jesup 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Whatev, jossi! :-) And remember, "accusations of failure to assume good faith are themselves failures to assume good faith." (I have taken note already at NOR that you appear to switch to ad hom/pretending not to have heard arguments you have heard repeatedly when you're losing on logic, and I won't be sidetracked here, either.) but Warm wishes and Happy Thanksgiving!, Cindery 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I suppose that if you can't accept that your edits didn't meet consensus, you could try to recruit people to adjust the numbers to your side--but because reason and logic should ultimately be used to establish the guideline, I have the feeling they will. Wikipedia is not a democracy, etc. There's no logical reason for EL on C to differ from C (but there is an illogical reason, and now that we know what it is, that makes things a lot clearer). Cindery 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Absolute restrictions

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The absolute restrictions section was added to clear up a problem with the old format guideline. These absolute restrictions were not created as part of this guidelines, but are parts of and results of other policies.

The copyright issue is absolute, it is an almost direct copy of the language in Wikipedia:Copyrights. The blacklist issue is absolute, the blacklist is a technical restriction on certain lists, maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation. The issue of adding links in a conflict of interest is absolute, there have been issues recently where Public Relations companies have attempted to abuse this, and the conclusion was clear that WP:NPOV means you must not edit with this kind of conflict of interests.

All of these are the results of decisions and policy made outside of this guideline, and simply being repeated here. Please do not remove them, or 'merge' them into the rest of the guideline. There are kept separate and noted as absolute restrictions for a good reason. --Barberio 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are some absolute restrictions, and that those include spam and copyright. But, copyright should be shortened to exclude licensing info--C clearly states that if an author has published their work elsewhere under other terms (say, public ___domain on YouTube) that does not affect their right to publish it here under GDFL. It's not accurate to include licensing info as an absolute, because it implies that under C, any link may be deleted without discussion if there's a question about GDFL. That's not actually the case--C specifies that a note be made in talkpage of article, with url etc., if there's a cr doubt. When the cr "doubt" is GDFL, it's not really a legitimate doubt, and certainly not deletion-worthy, as the vast majority of YT work is published without copyright under public ___domain. (There should be some cr issue with the material other than GDFL, which is being used as technicality.)

RE site you are an agent for or maintain--that's strongly discouraged, but not actually an absolute restriction. Cindery 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cindery, definitely not an absolute restriction. Also please do not shout by repeatedly bolding your comments. --JJay 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A guideline cannot prescribe absolute restrictions on anything. You can refer to existing policies, if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Again. The guideline is not prescribing these restrictions, but repeating them clearly. These restrictions will be in place if they are in the guideline here or not. It's plain silly to claim that we shouldn't say they are absolute restrictions just because we're reporting them in a guideline.

Specifically, the Blacklist is a very absolute restriction. The Wikimedia software will not accept edits including links that match the blacklist. This is not a 'guideline' that can be overridden by editor consensus, and should not be reported as such. --Barberio 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

Latest comment: 18 years ago70 comments12 people in discussion

As per discussions in WP:ANI:

The source and legitimacy of the videos on YouTube are almost or totally impossible to determine, hence they are not reliable sources and are not verifiable (A key requirement).
Many videos on YouTube are of questionable copyright legitimacy, which should not be linked from Wikipedia
Since many videos are personally made, they represent original research, which Wikipedia is not in the buissiness of publishing. They may also be biased in their presentation of material.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you chose not to respond to my comments on the matter, I'm copying it here to your new thread. Let's take a closer look at one of these sites: YouTube. Besides the masses of home videos and the like, YouTube also hosts an enormous amount of authorized content for major media companies as part of negotiated agreements or other types of partnership deals. NBC is an example [3], but there are many, many more. YouTube is not violating copyright by hosting material placed on its site by the publisher and we would not violate copyright by linking as specifically authorized under wikipedia policy [4]. Given this context, your concerns regarding WP:V are not relevant. Considering that we do articles on many of the TV shows, stars or other media phenomena that may be covered by the authorized content, an external link to YouTube may be warranted in certain situations. That is just one small example of when a YouTube EL may be necessary. Another is when YouTube content itself gains enough prominence to justify an article at wikipedia. For example, Lonelygirl15 can not be treated in any serious way without linking to the YouTube content. In short, given the many, many valid exceptions and the rapidly shifting nature of the internet, blanket bans on specific sites are always a bad idea and should never be included in policy. --JJay 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow editors to add original research, but external links certainly do. If Madonna and George Bush do a music video and place a copy on Madonna's official site, we can and should link to it. The criteria for editors working on the Wikipedia itself certainly are not the same as the criteria for linking to other websites. External links can have original research, or point of view, or other things that our edits here can not. 2005 01:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:2005, except that in the example given we would not be dealing with original research, but rather with primary source material roughly in the context of Point 2 of "What should be linked to" of this guideline. The entire discussion here on "original research" is off base. --JJay 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Creating original work is original research, but I should have said the video was placed on YouTube, but was linked to from both from Madonna's official site and whitehouse.gov. This valid external link would be original research and a Youtube link that would be clearly a non-copyvio one. 2005 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is not about authorized content uploaded you YouTube, such as those videos uploaded by movie studios, record labels, and news organizations, but about all other content (that makes the bulk of YouTube) that is uploaded by individuals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The discussion is most definitely about authorized content (and thanks for finally recognizing that authorized content exists, after the mispresentation in your point 1 above). Non-authorized content, i.e. copyvio clips (which YouTube actively removes), and insignificant home videos are already fully covered by the EL guideline. Given that YouTube (and other sites) acts as official host for a full range of authorized content, it can not be listed as a site that "should not be used". As I have explained, there are definite times when it should be used to link to material released by publishers.--JJay 02:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You could have avoided the use of "wrong". If it is wrong explain why and leave it at that, OK? So, If there is agreement, then the guideline needs to spell out when it is permissible to link to video sharing sites rather than be ambigous about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears you were misunderstanding a combination of things. Authorized content is allowed by the guideline; content with no clear copyright clearance is not. You were adding text that prevents any YouTube stuff from being linked, and that is plainly wrong even give your own comment, so maybe we just need to move on here. Authorized content can be linked, something with no clear rights can not. Okay? 2005 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree again with User:2005. The guideline and other policies fully cover the issue. We don't need another line that says don't link to copyvio videos, don't link to stupid home movies and don't link to someone's partisan video. --JJay 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You can look at this is way: If a person uploads a video to a blog or a personal home page, that is not an acceptable page to link to as per guidelines. So, my argument is that the fact that is in YouTube or Google Video, does not make it more linkable. On the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has argued that a personal video becomes "more linkable" due to YouTube hosting relative to a blog. The situation is identical and is already covered by the EL guideline. However, your argument in no way justifies a complete ban of named video hosting sites as you have tried to impose. --JJay 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

More straw man arguments? I never discussed a complete ban of video hosting sites. Mybe the wording was not perfect, but the intention was to make it clear that linking to content that is not verifiable and that the copyright status is questionable should be avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than strawmen, your edits speak for themselves- "should not be used" etc. [5]. I would also remind you that verifiability and copyright issues are already extensively covered in the guideline. --JJay 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have already explained in the long NOR thread, at ANI,and at the J.Smith YouTube deletion project page here are examples of exceptions:

Imelda Marcos--a short fair use clip of a political documentary
Barrington Hall--a 1988 8mm film digitized and uploaded to YT for accessibility/storage--only known film of no-longer existing murals
Joshua Clover--YT video of the poet reading at the Bowery Poetry Club
International Fair Trade Association--short fair use clips of a nonprofit org
Brent Corrigan--original art/trailer of film featuring the subject

There are also the hypothetical examples of the many films which are legally in the public ___domain due to expired copyright, and which could be YouTubed for stable storage and easy access--Krazy Kat, all the Max Fleischer cartoons, Alexander Nevsky--and hundreds more... Cindery 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(ed conf)Another example that relates to WP:NOR: An editor wants to add OR to an article, as that is not permissible, the editors creates a blog on Blogger.com in which he places the OR. That link will probably survive for a short time before being deleted, if at all. The editor then, creates a slideshow or home video, ripping videos from air TV broadcasts and creates a pieces of OR designed to advance a specific viewpoint, and uploads it to YouTube. Would a link to that video be permissible? Of course not. So, unless video material (or any other material for that matter, is placed online by a reliable/reputable source, link to to that material is not permissible as per WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The examples above may be very well exceptions. The vast majority (I would not exaggerate if I say 99% of the links) are not in that category. So, the burden to argue for the addition of a link should be on editors adding that link. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

99% is a gross exaggeration, per the mass-deleters highest (and biased/unscientific estimate it's 90%); the big copyvio prob is music vids, and if music vid copyvios are a huge problem C should be updated to expedite their removal. "Burden to argue" depends--delete pre-emptively by bot with prejudice and under EL and leave editors confused about what, where, or how to argue? No. Discussion by editors on talkpage with respect for editorial process? Yes. As Jodyw pointed out, even if 90% of the links in general are problemmatic at present, no one link is 90% in particular problemmatic. Editors do contest any and all questionable info in articles--there is no need to pre-emptively delete YT links by AWB without clear evidence of copyvio. In stubs or little-edited articles, perhaps a note could be placed requesting GDFL verification (but again, unless there's a material copyvio issue, GDFL extremely unlikely to be an issue, as self-published YT largely public ___domain or fair use). Banning YT or going overboard on deletionism is censorship and a gross disrespect for the editorial process (which is the only way to determine which self-published YT links are legit/useful links or sources).

Cindery 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

...some problems with your problems, below: 1. Imelda Marcos likely and arguably fair use per substantiality; fails nothing prima facie. Obscure political doc for which the author may very well be happy to get exposure. Not a justifiable deletion--something to query on talkpage and submit to editorial process, in absence of any complaint. Same for "POV"--could be POV insufficient. Anything could be POV. And then of course, NPOV is not the elimination of viewpoints. Per EL, it would have to tip over the balance of the links egregiously to one POV, and then it still wouldn't be a prob inherent to the video. 2. Good luck contesting Barrington Hall! (you don't seem to have examined it closely, watched the film, or seen the original link, included in article and mentioned on talkpage. Credit for Clark at the end of the film. Location verifiable per all the sources in the article, including matching photos, and all the editors. Year part of the title.) Cindery 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some problems with the some of the examples:

Imelda Marcos documentary -- (a) Selective selection of a documentary to assert a POV; (b) lacks description of source, author and who owns the copyright so it fails fair use doctrine. Could be removed as violation of WP:COPY.
Barrington Hall unverified OR. The statement "A film my brother Clark (now a video editor in Albuquerque) and I made in 1988 about the murals, graffiti, and general ambiance of the late great Barrington Hall co-op at UC Berkeley" is not verifiable (who is Clark?), the date is not verifiable, and the ___location is not verifiable. Could be removed as violation of WP:V

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And you seem to be proving my point that video ELs are not a special case, but are instead adequately covered by existing policies and guidelines. There is a really strange policy creep going on here where people are copying entire sections of policy into the EL guideline, or want every single specific site on the internet to be named and have a full list of what can and can't be done. The guideline is not meant to be a directory of good sites and bad sites. A certain degree of common sense is required from editors --JJay 03:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any violence. Stubborn agreement maybe. --JJay 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a figurative form of speech. Yes, we are in agreement, common sense and the good judgement of editors is always needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

---

YouTube2 - another arbitary section break to facilitate discussion

Comment: As the person who started this mess, I appreciate contribution stalking. I make an attempt to judge what is a clear copyright-vio and what is not and I don't mind it if someone points out when/if I'm wrong. (As far as I know, I haven't been wrong yet)

Comment on policy: I'm the one who originally added YouTube as an example. I did it because YouTube was a particularly large problem. (4000+ links, with the overwhelming majority copyvio) Should YouTube be singled out? No. I don't mean that it shouldn't be used as an example, but the policy shouldn't be built around preventing YouTube. Ideally, the policy/guideline can be written in a way that there is no doubt when a link is acceptable or not with out needing to make a list of the dozen or so classifications of websites.

Comment on YouTube acceptability: Well, YouTube is particularly a bad source in most cases. In a political article I was editing someone linked to copies of a debate that was hosted on YT, and was using it as a source. At first glance that seems like a useful external link... and it really is. It's quite useful to be able to talk about a debate and then SHOW them the debate. But usefulness isn't the only concern. How could I know if the video was accurate? If I can't be sure it's accurate then how I can ever use it to verify anything? The answer is... I can't. Now, there are some cases where the up-loader is known and is reliable, but that is the exception and not the rule. ---J.S (t|c) 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All your points are pretty reasonable, but the guideline already covers in great depth the issue of not linking to copyvio material. Even you agree that YouTube and other sites should not have been singled out. That was a mistake that raised tension on this sensitive and frequently protected page. We should not be naming specific sites in the guideline because it leads to acrimony and edit wars between anal-minded link patrollers, rather than careful consideration of the link in question by editors directly involved in editing specific articles.
YouTube can be a great source in some cases - in fact, the best source for authorized video (NBC, CBS, Sony, Universal, Warner, NHL, etc)- and is actively working to prevent copyvio material [6]. In addition, many of the content deals allow any user to upload intellectual material from the partner, with the partner company responsible for authorizing or removing the content. The situation is rapidly evolving, but there is still very deep misunderstanding among a certain group of wikipedia editors concerning YouTube. With Wikipedia lacking video capabilities, links to video and other media can greatly enrich the utility of articles for readers.
Your point about verifiability is noted, but that is a different issue. As with any reference, the validity and suitability of references need to be worked out by editors of a given article. When we link to referenced articles located on third-party sites, how can we really know those articles are fully accurate? Editors need to remember that external links are not references. We are merely pointing readers to sources of additional information (within the strict parameters of this guideline), not vouching for the integrity of the content, which we can not control. -JJay 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube, as is the case with all other similar sites, is subject to the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act - YouTube deletes videos that are found to be in copyright violation, and increased dilligence thereto is occuring as a result of the Google acquisition. Individual videos on YouTube should be regarded, as is evidenced above by the assertion provided by the uploader, as not being in violation of copyright until otherwise deleted. Wikipedia should not serve as an arbitrary decision maker on the issue of YouTube copyright - as many artists, including some I know personally, are using YouTube to distribute their own content. Such content is completely appropriate. The result of this discussion is that some editors are bascially running amok deleting every YouTube link, which is wholly inappropriate. Especially in the area of music, YouTube can be an excellent illustrative resource which is miles better than Wikiepdia's 30 second ogg clip. Tvccs 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now the vast majority of content was uploaded before YT became more careful about copyvios and two concerns come to mind. A) we need to follow Wikipedia policy not YT policy on copyright and they are not necesserily going to be the same and b)how can we be confident that all the existing content we are linking to is legal and compliant with the DMCA? Spartaz 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Even you agree that YouTube and other sites should not have been singled out." - Not true. Thats not what I said. We had a massive number of copy-vio links and at the time awareness needed to be raised to the issue.

"The result of this discussion is that some editors are bascially running amok deleting every YouTube link" - You clearly don't understand what we are doing. We are not deleting every YT link. We are reviewing each befor deleting and deleteing those that are clearly copy-vio links. "as many artists, including some I know personally, are using YouTube to distribute their own content" - Thats why I skip over those links. ---J.S (t|c) 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Should YouTube be singled out? No." Your words, not mine. I have no problem with raising awareness of the issue. I do have a problem with the attempt to change this guideline without talkpage discussion or consensus. I also object to the confrontational approach that seems to be the rule among those who see themselves as self-annointed link removers, rather than collaborative editors. --JJay 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"and deleteing those that are clearly copy-vio links" - The discussion I'm having with spartaz implies otherwise. The Katana link is not obviously copyvio. It might be, but I'd guess not. His edit summaries strongly imply that there's a blanket "delete all youtube links" policy, which even you're saying there is not. (The summary is the worst part; an occasional mis-guess of copyright status is one thing, easily corrected - but asserting in thousands of pages via summary that all youtube links should be banned, even if he didn't mean to, is another. And the summary implies there's no need to review the links, and therefore that they haven't been reviewed.) jesup 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am looking at at least two pages I have added YouTube links to and EVERY YT link is being deleted - the assumption is that the material violates copyright, and editors here are assuming the role of copyright holders, which is inappropriate. YouTube and the DMCA have a legal mechanism for dealing with this issue and that is the mechanism that should hold, not arbitrary self-appointed copyright protection by Wikipedia editors, no matter how well-intentioned. If the editors here think YouTube content violates copyright, they should be contacting the copyright holders and alerting them as such, instead of deleting material based on their own judgements and assuming material is guilty until proven innocent, especially in the arbitrary means done here. It is also specifically NOT required that copyright holders posting to YouTube post a specific legal copyright disclaimer on their posts, that need is covered in the posting agreement, and no Wikipedia editor can know the actual copyright status of any given video, they can only assume, and ASSUME is a well-known acronym for making mistakes. It should NOT be a policy for Wikipedia editors to assume the role of copyright holders and make arbitrary judgments, period, there are so many better things to spend time on that need work. Tvccs 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And here's a direct example of exactly what I am talking about - Derek Sherinian. This is the most grotesque example yet of a YouTube removal I've found. A link was removed for a video that was shot specifically for YouTube and was announced as such at the head of the video in front of the interviewees. Permission was granted by the interviewees for the interview to appear on YouTube, and yet the link [7]was removed per the new "policy". Furthermore, the artist in question is personally known to me and wanted said link to appear. As I have indicated on the discussion page, this new "policy" on YouTube is ridiculous, and allows editors, as I exactly indicated prior, to indeed run amok. Tvccs 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

<deindent> I just reviewed the deletion. The loss of that link does not really affect the article - how many interviews do you want linked to there? There are far too many links on that article. Your comments imply that the subject of the article wants to control the content. That's not how we do things here and I don't think thats a valid argument. I didn't delete the link but I'm guessing that the admin who deleted it properly reviewed it. Instead of making accusations here, have you actually raised it with him and sought his commments? --Spartaz 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the last comments by Tvccs (NB: the similarity in our usernames is total coincidence - we do not know one another). Articles are being distorted by perhaps well-meaning editors' wholesale removal of YouTube links, even when they are central to the text in an article, in the reference section, used as citations for facts. I just saw an instance where a You Tube link that provided objective verifiability was replaced with a {{fact}} tag - well, the YouTUbe video was the citation, so now the article is tainted with an "unsourced" tag, for no reason because the source exists and is clear. This has gotten out of hand, and needs to be reined in. We should let You Tube monitor itself - as they do - they are quite aware of copyright issues and constantly take steps to maintain the integrity of their site. We need Wikipedia editors to stop zealously, arbirtrarily and somewhat mindlessly, cleansing Wikipedia of all such links as if they were poison, throwing "WP:EL" into edit summary after edit summary clearly without any reason other than the "you tube" URL. You say this is a "guideline", yet editors are treating it as a sixth pillar. There is indeed much more important work to be done here. Tvoz 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we can simply leave YT to monitor this. If a link is an obvious copyvio it has to go. What would be much more useful would be showing us examples of links that are acceptable so that we can understand where we need to draw the line. At the moment we seem to be generating more heat than clarity with this discussion and I'd like to more forward constructively. Instead of complaining, please can you provide examples of incorrectly deleted links with an explanation of the reasons why. This would be extremely helpful and constructive. Spartaz 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And I would argue that you are positing yourself as a self-appointed guardian, and ultimate judicial arbitrator of copyright, which you and others of like mind should refrain from, when the Digital Millenium Copyright Act exists specifically to deal with this issue. You do NOT have infinite knowledge of what is and isn't a copyright violation, you simply assume you know, and making those assumptions leads to exactly the kind of deletions I cited above, which were and are simply absurd. The amount of deleting going on by editors on Wikipedia is getting totally out of hand, denigrates the project as a whole, and discourages legitmate contributors who find their considerable efforts flushed by people who seem far more interested in removing content than improving it - this is yet another example, as I stated earlier, of editing run amok, and is wasting hundreds, if not thousands of hours of Wikipedians time and energy trying to revert, or deciding to revert, this type of content attack. Tvccs 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And I just found your prior comments - the artist in question specifically does not control the content, I simply have the luxury of making sure items such as the one in question are legitimate and useful, as well as access to images and other material he has chosen to provide - and although you are entitled to your opinion as to how many links are "appropriate", it shouldn't be done under the premise provided - you asked for an example of an incorrectly deleted link, and I had already provided it - and as to the person who removed the link (it wasn't an admin), if you'd checked my user contributions, you'd have seen I did indeed address the issue on his discussion page. Again, I totally disagree with those users who want to assume the role of copyright judge for YouTube content, time and effort would be far better spent on constructive additions rather than arbitrary deletions. Tvccs 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After having read much of the ongoing discussions here and on the userpages of the mass-deleters Dmcdevit, J.smith, Spartaz, and Rory096, I would like to hear their answers to the following questions:

There is a list of youtube links on the user subpage User:Dmcdevit/YouTube_links that is automatically created as explained on User:Dmcdevit/YouTube. This seems to be the list has been used in their AutoWikiBrowser assisted mass deletions. Who is checking the individual links for copyright violations. The mass deletions were at such a fast pace that one has to wonder if they were checked at all. Checking means at least watching the clip and trying to find out about the licensing status.
If they were indeed checked individually, what is the qualification of the checkers to determine if a clip is a copyright violation. As it is now clear from the ongoing discussion, many TV and music clips might be correctly licensed.
The edit summary the mass deleters used was "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL using AWB". However, this reason is clearly not covered by WP:EL. J.smith has told me that he will change that summary in the future. What are the exact guidelines you are following and were can they be found.
Youtube clearly differs from anonymous copyvio content somewhere else on the web in that youtube actively checks its content for copyright violations and deletes them. What are the legal implications of that related to linking to such content and which legal experts or sources support your view.

Cacycle 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last point is incorrect. YouTube does not actively checks for copyvios. They only respond to request by content owners. See http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

J.smith's response...

1. We are checking the links as we go along. We are making a good faith effort to clean up a mess on wikipedia.
2. We are wikipedia editors in good standing and it doesnt take a degree in rock science to tell that a full copy of of a music video is a copy-vio. We might make mistakes and I don't mind if you let me know if I removed one I shouldn't have.... thankfully wikipedia has a nice little revert feature for those cases, so not much is lost.
3. Edit summary reflected the guidelines of WP:EL when we started. People have been tinkering with the policy and that section was removed without any discussion. *shrug* I've updated the Edit Summary to be more vague until WP:EL settles down. The exact guidelines are in WP:C and previously in WP:EL/WP:RS.
4. YouTube has a policy of requiring the copyright owner to complain. (That may have changed with the Google takeover, I hope so, but I'm not sure.) Here is the legal justification, verbatim from WP:C: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." ---J.S (t|c) 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Youtube 3 - questions/issues

Thanks for finding the source of the mass-deletion - I never would have thought to look for the "list of links to be deleted" and the justification for a major change to large parts of Wikipedia on a 'random' user-page.

Reading the justification there: Wikipedia cannot link to sites which contain copyright infringements, which much of YouTube does, or sites which fail to provide licensing information, which even most of the possibly free content on YouTube is. The reasoning is obviously that we have no way of knowing whether it is free or not, and without licensing information we must assume it is a copyright infringement. I see some problems, which makes me wonder why the terms and justifications for the mass-delete were not worked out here first, and then a publicly-visible project created to enact the consensus.

Wikipedia can link to sites which contain copyright infringements. You can make arguments over whether we can legally link directly to a copyright infringement, but guidelines are (correctly) that we should not knowingly do so.
Can't link to sites that fail to provide licensing information — in addition to that not being in WP:EL and definitely not consensus, that would exclude large portions of the web as link targets.
Without licensing information we must assume it's copyright infringement — why? Where does that come from? Especially since most of the sites in question (youtube, flickr, etc) explicitly require their uploaders to do the same thing we do here, and youtube in particular does scan for and remove copyrighted material. This isn't j. random pirate storage site.
Where was this debated, discussed? Where was warning given? Notification? Since one of them mentioned this in spartaz's talk page or mine, I'll note that I don't feel WP:AN (whenever something was mentioned there; not sure what was mentioned or when - the comment was unclear) was enough - it should have been debated here, and once consensus was reached a project created. I'm not saying it was hidden, but was it publicized? It is a significant change to large sections of WP.

Yes, many of the youtube links in Wikipedia probably do fail WP:C - but even for material (images) uploaded to wikipedia's own servers without copyright info there is often a grace period and the item is flagged first. Also, note that ALL external links are to copyrighted material, unless there's an explicit "this is public ___domain" statement, and most external links are to pages/sites without explicit licensing information. And there is licensing information for all of youtube (and flickr, etc). Users of it may violate that, and have, and we should remove links to known copyvios. Which brings us to Cacycle's point: who is determining the copyright status of these, and how are they doing it, and where are the criteria? Is it "I looked at it and it's too professional", or "it looks like what I'd see on MTV" or "I saw it on NBC" (but NBC and others have deals with youtube)? As witnessed by the link that was in Katana (link) - User:Spartaz's comment when re-removing it was Remove youtube link because the video is not demonstratively not a copyvio, which is a direct example that the operating assumption is guilty until proven innocent. As per my discussion with him on his and my talk pages, it might be a copyvio, but I'd bet against it pretty strongly, and it certainly isn't an obvious copyvio, and given the youtube license requirements, it should get the benefit of the doubt. To repeat myself, "not obviously not copyvio" != copyvio.

jesup 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia should not link to copyvios
If there is no licensing info, copyvio can and should be assumed. WP is licensed as GFDL and should not be tainted by copvios
The deletions were made on the basis of current understanding. Note that this is a guideline and not policy. Guidelines are there to assist editors, and not to designed to act as rules

As for your description of a "random user-page" where a list of YouTube linked articles was placed, note that is the user page of a respected member of the community and a member of the ArbCom, that created a page by using a database dump for the purpose of exploring these links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that jessup meant that if a site has copyright violations we can still link to pages on that site that do not violate copyright. I.e. http://mypage.com/MPG_of_NBC_news_telecast.htm - can't be linked; however, http://mypage.com/NBC_news analysis.htm, which contained an analysis of the telecast could be linked if it complied with other provisions even though elsewhere on the site their are copyvios. To me this is a close call. If the site was a bunch of videos of NBC news, with a navigation page that indexed them and provided brief descriptions - then NO! If the site is mostly commentary and without a license included a recording of a few videos of NBC news, then maybe - but if Yes only link to commentary not to copyright vio - and probably not to page that prominently displays a link to the copyright vio.
agree with jossi - as applied to youtube - since the uploader certifies it is theirs I would say we can link since there is no copyvio ONLY IF it is obviously not a copyvio OR the description provides a license. We shouldn't link to youtube haphazardly as they have no enforcement mechanism until a copyright holder objects.
I don't think we should assume it is a copyvio, but we should be conservative in assuming the uploader understands and complies with the directions in youtube's terms of use.
Notification is not required to enforce the current policies. The increase in the links to youtube have made this issue more visible.

Thoughts? --Trödel 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say we should link to copyvios; I said Wikipedia can link to sites which contain copyright infringements.. I agree we should not link to known copyright violations. Note the word "known"; I did not use "possible".

No licensing info on the link target is, again, not the same as failure to provide licensing info when adding content to Wikipedia. Probably most of the sites we link to have images. All (or almost all) of those are covered by copyright, and many of them were not created by the page owner. Few (very few) of those sites provide licensing info for the images on their sites, the assumption is that they are not violating copyright. Ditto for the text on those pages we link to - we assume (barring a claim or evidence otherwise) that the text is not a copyright violation. Please be careful to make a distinction between content on Wikipedia, and content linked to by Wikipedia.

I have no idea if that user is a respected user, etc, but I'll happily take your word for it - great! That doesn't explain why this apparent project wasn't discussed publicly here, where the notifications were, where the consensus was obtained, why it wasn't made into a formal project, etc. I'm afraid most editors not only don't have time to monitor all admin's pages, why should they expect they need to?

I'm sure there is a lot of angst over all the links to truely blatant copyvios. I agree strongly that a project to weed them out is appropriate. I think said project should have been public, discussed, and with known and reference-able criteria for evaluating targets of links. That would have avoided huge amounts of wasted time and contention here. Also, the project as it is currently does not seem to have been careful to review links ahead of time. I don't think someone could objectively review 4+ links per minute and change the pages, and the link I mentioned is an example. There was a jump to conclusion based on an assumption of violation.

jesup 16:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Dmcdevit: everybody can make mistakes, even members of Arbcom. I think we just hope Arbcom members will be the first to diplomatically own up/move on/come up with a better solution. Putting the whole project on his own page was indeed a "random user page" --under community radar. I don't think editing the EL guideline while it was protected, and refusing to revert/discuss was very cool either. And his actions at Guy Goma--deleting a YT link and then putting a fact tag in the empty spot and threatening the editor with a block?--totally unnecessary.

Re If there is no licensing info, copyvio can and should be assumed--as per below, there is licensing information for YT. Hence, the original claim of mass deleters was grossly incorrect. Without evidence of a copyvio to contest that each and every link is a copyvio, they're all licensed properly. I would suggest, jossi--if you're concerned about the problem of a high number of music vid copyvios on YT--that you cease unproductive arguing about the 5-30% of the links which are fine/should be judged by editorial process, and initiate a discussion at C regarding the possibility of an expedited process for removing blatant music vid copyvios. Endlessly bickering here for an outright ban on YT --via EL--on the basis of a high number of those sorts of copyvios is really a pointless waste of time. YT exceptions exist, hence no ban is possible; EL is not the place anyway. Give it up and go to C to address the real problem, which is that some people feel the need for quicker removal process of some blatant copyvios at YT. Cindery 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, after checking a few links, I find the list User:Dmcdevit/YouTube_links definitely has a bunch of clear non-copyvio cases in it, starting with YouTube and another random example geriatric1927. Not surprising, given the comment that it was created from a database dump, but that shows that the list was not reviewed before deletions began; any reviewing must be happening as the deletion is done. When looking at random examples, I noticed removed were links to a user account on YouTube, in particular 'genocideintervention', removed from Genocide Intervention Network (as well as links to the organization's account on Flickr, etc). This also directly speaks to removal without review, or removal with an strong assumption of guilt, given that these were links to accounts, and the accounts were those of the subject of the Wikipedia page. (There may be other reasons for removing those links - but they were removed under the same summary as all the other removals. Perhaps the organization uploads copyvio videos to it's own user account, but it would seem odd to assume an real organization would do so.) Note: being at work I can't review the youtube links directly right now. jesup 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"And his actions at Guy Goma--deleting a YT link and then putting a fact tag in the empty spot and threatening the editor with a block?--totally unnecessary."

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what happened? I find that highly dubious. The link was clearly copyvio. The link was being used as a citation. Replacing with a {{fact}} tag was appropriate. The user who added it originally kept re-adding it and was using highly in-civil edit summaries. The user was blocked for edit waring, incivil edit summaries and continuing to add a copy-vio link against policy. ---J.S (t|c) 17:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

...I think it was very poorly handled--there was no assumption of good faith towards a regular editor at the article, who clearly added the link in a sincere attempt to improve the article. He was obviously a newcomer, and he was treated with contempt and hostility. A cooperative and friendly explanation of how to cite the link should have been provided at the outset, not a fact tag added on after he was already upset about the total lack of AGF and civility that accompanied the removal of the link in the first place. That's what I meant about the hostile "spirit" of the project. He was treated as though he deliberately added a copyvio link, and was deliberately trying to re-add a copyvio link when he restored it--he was not; he was trying to add what he thought was a useful source to an article he cared about and edited regularly--that was obvious. Apologies were in order--not baiting and threatening him, making things worse. It's more than possible to be civil and assume good faith while removing copyvios; removing links is not a higher value than or justification for ignoring other policies and guidelines. The "project" has taken itself a little too seriously. Cindery 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Three points to add to this discussion - the citation of (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry) above is not the applicable precedent when the U.S. Federal government specifcally created the DMCA to deal with this exact issue, and a specific mechanism exists which is in fact, and is regularly applied as such, legally enforceable. It should not matter what any individual Wikipedia editor believes to be true when they are in fact unable to truly factually determine actual copyright status and are not the copyright holder - again, the DMCA is the applicable law in this area, and third, it is dead wrong to ASSUME a full music video is an automatic copyright violation - I have loaded numerous full music videos onto various Web sites worldwide with the direct consent of the artist(s) in question, who are in fact extremely grateful to have people that know how to properly do same, and realize the value of such distribution, including via Wikipedia. Once again, the blanket assumption editors are making here of copyright violations is in FACT dead wrong. Tvccs 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is so much lack of clarity on this issue. WP:EL is a guideline, it does not enforce a specific ban on anything, just provides guidance to editors on how to apply our content policies. YouTube, Flicker and other media sharing sites are wonderful sites to explore, but for an encyclopedia that is based on the principles of NPOV, V and NOR, most if not all user-uploaded videos are not suitable: These videos are not verifiable (possible WP:V violation), the text included with the video usually carries the commentary of the user (possible WP:NOR or WP:NPOV violation), as well as all other issues related to WP:C. YouTube does not enforce a policy of checking content for any of these criteria and only responds to requests filed via their DMCA process. Give all this, saying in the guideline "Links normally to be avoided" means that unless there is a significant reason to include such material on external links section, editors should not. If anyone here has an issue with this, then bring your dicussions at the policy pages as this guideline can only support these policies and not bypass them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

YT and similar links for music provide excellent examples of what's actually being discussed that are a huge asset to a printed page and should be added whenever possible, IMHO. The application of the standard of linking you advocate means pratically no Web page would meet the suggested criteria of being totally crystal clear - bascially every Web page and entry without a GFDL license couldn't be linked to, especially if it had any media content - and that is patently overreaching. Tvccs 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

External links need to be kept to the minimum and only when the link provides verifiable and good quality material that is verifiable and does not bypass other policies. We are building an encyclopedia, not a web directory or link farm. We spend considerable time editing articles with the intention to make them excellent and complinat with NPOV, V, RS, NOR, etc. only to add crappy stuff to the EL section? That is not a happening thing, I am afraid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate YouTube deletion example

Spartaz and some of the others (J.Smith?) had asked for an example of an inappropriate deletion of links. I have a very good example to add to the previous one (the multiply-mentioned link on Katana, which I cannot agree is an obvious copyvio, and Spartaz feels since it's not obviously not a copyvio, the link must go).

J.Smith removed[8] these links from Genocide Intervention Network:

MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube)

Note that a) these links are to a user, not a video or image directly. b) If you go to Flickr, you'll see that their images are directly licensed under the CC license, and so tagged, obviously. c) If you go to YouTube, you'll see that the two videos under that account are apparently ads produced by that organization, which uploaded them itself.

So, there's your example, and that's an excellent example. I don't see how someone could look at the Flickr page and miss the creative-comments license. Which backs up the point that we shouldn't be doing mass-deletes, which we apparently have. Maybe some have been more careful about vetting the links from that master list than others, or maybe some assumed that others already vetted them - it doesn't matter.

That page should be restored. But I don't have time to go through every page where this was done. The editors doing these deletes need to be responsible for not making these sorts of mistakes in the first place, especially since the edit summaries used until the last day or so (i.e. over several weeks) have told/implied/etc to other editors "this is policy and is not open to debate; no link to that site will be allowed". Which means editors of those pages, even if the link shouldn't have been removed, will be unlikely to challenge it. I almost didn't challenge the removal of the Katana link; I saw the summary and said to myself "oh, ok, I guess there's a policy about that. Oh well.", but then I decided to look it up so I'd understand better - and couldn't find the policy/guideline quoted - and came across this huge hornets nest.

So where do we go from here? There are lots of links to blatant copyvios still - but as shown here, there are incorrect deletions that have happened. Who will go an recheck the deletions already done? And how can we continue to deal with links to youtube without making more of these mistakes?
jesup 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube and Flickr are found at www.genocideintervention.net/educate/multimedia/. Also, the license has nothing to do, as they are nc (non commercial). -- ReyBrujo 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make — non-commercial doesn't really matter. It appears that they own the copyrights; they license them under CC (certainly the photos), and that they uploaded the photos and videos to Flickr and YouTube. jesup 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask how many deletions you reviewed to find this example? --Spartaz 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I had bowed out here as I wanted to do something constructive but Jesup left a message on my talk drawing my attention here. I don't want to appear difficult, but how many links to different GIN sites do we want here? The main site links all the content given in the links. I would argue that this is a clear tidy up. No doubt we will continue a sterile argument about edit summaries but I don't see that any relevent links were removed. They are all still there, just via the GIN site - which is the appropriate place to lead off to sub-site from anyway.

Sorry Jesup but I'm not really persuded by this one. I deleted links on 53 articles tonight if you fancy another trawl - you will see that we discussed a borderline case and left the link alone. I also had a couple of other articles where the links were valid and correct. So you see, this is not a mass deletion campaign - its an exercise to review a bunch of suspect links where the vast majority are blatant copyvios. Interesting that of the hours spent arguing this only two suspect deletions have been identified and neither of these is a cast iron "wrong" but more a case of different judgements. I submit that were we acting as reprehensibly as some would have us believe there would be much more direct evidence than this that we are acting incorrectly.

I'm off to bed. I may review this tomorrow - or I may just go and do some constructive editing. You know where my talk is if you want to raise any problems with my edits with me. Spartaz 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesup - I have notified J.smith of this section. Do you not think that you should have done this yourself before posting this? This is the second time I have had to raise on this page the question of making public allegations of misconduct against users before the poster has raised the issue with the editor concerned. This is hardly colleagiate and does nothing to control the temperature on a debate that can easily become heated. Spartaz 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to, but once I finished the post I forgot to. I was (as Cindry mentioned) responding to repeated requests for an example. There's no allegation of misconduct, just of a mistake. Everyone makes those. jesup 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesup, I do appreciate you "stalking" to find mistakes. It looks like I did make a mistake in that case. I usually skip-over profile links like that, but apparently I didn't look at that one close enough. Let me know if you find any more so I can modify my methods.

Sure, no problem. BTW I wasn't stalking; I just clicked about 4 links from the huge page of youtube links of dcmartin's. I really only checked a few (though I'll admit I chose links that didn't look like band-name links). jesup 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

since the edit summaries used until the last day or so (i.e. over several weeks) have told/implied/etc to other editors "this is policy and is not open to debate; no link to that site will be allowed". - If that was your impression, then I'm sorry. It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that no YouTube links were allowed. That's why I didn't specifically mention YouTube in the edit summary. (I did use a template on talk pages requesting users review the YouTube links in the article, but I saw almost zero response from that... that's why I shifted to an active active response.) ---J.S (t|c) 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted; I definitely got that impression from the comment, and from other comments here others did too. It may be too late, but I (personally) would have advocated that after review the link in the page (not the talk page) be tagged with a possible/probably copyvio tag, asking people if they remove it to put justification on (some page) for the removal of the tag. Those justifications for tag removals could be reviewed, and links where the tag wasn't removed could be deleted after a week, say. That's a lot more in keeping with how we handle most other items - speedy deletion, AfD, regular copyvios, all sorts of other good-faith problems. But that's just my opinion; I haven't thought it through. jesup 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

...It's a public project; discussing it--including mistakes and what's wrong with it--in public is good. And repeatedly examples have been requested. You should stop deleting while discussion is ongoing. Cindery 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic, I appreciate stalking of my Link deleting and I encurage anyone else who wants to help out.

I'm not going to stop removing YouTube links until either the project is finished, a RFC shows consensus that I shouldn't, or I see a convincing argument that I should leave copy-vio links on the pedia. ---J.S (t|c) 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all the discussion above, but I reviewed these 4 links, and they duplicate information already on the linked website without providing meaningful additional content. Additionally, as this page clearly shows, these links are for promotion and recruitment and thus are not really appropriate for Wikipedia as it is an encyclopedia not a platform for promoting any specific group, agenda or idea see WP:NOT. --Trödel 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I put 'em back. Feel free to revert me on that Trodel. ---J.S (t|c) 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Are you challenging me to a revert war? Why? The links are unnecessarily duplicative and should be removed - that is my view - regardless of the whether or not there is any copyright issue.~~ Nevermind - I had a Dooohhh moment (picture Homer). I don't think they should be there - I'll consider removing after I take a look at the talk page etc. --Trödel 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's moved out of the scope of what I'm concerned about, so feel free to remove. It's a content issue at this point. ---J.S (t|c)

"And how can we continue to deal with links to youtube without making more of these mistakes?"

We continue exactly as before. I started this project knowing we'd occasional make mistakes. I even expected discussions like this one. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you know you're making mistakes I'm sure you won't mind if I undo everything you do without looking at it, to make sure the mistakes are undone. :-) Cindery 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Be clear on copyright issues

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I read the new wording and wasn't sure what it said. Thus I restored it closer to what it was before - dont' link to sites that either fail to provide licensing information or fail to respond to requests to obtain licensing information. --Trödel 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The "new" wording is the exact text of the Copyright policy on external linking--I will be reverting. There is a big issue with the "licensing" hooey lanaguage that was subbed in recently to ban YouTube on a technicality--please see discussions above.

Cindery 07:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If the video in question violates copyright and the poster refused to provide license information then it shouldn't be linked. We shouldn't have any specific rules to ban or allow links from YouTube. Providing evidence that copyrighted material is properly licensed isn't "hooey" but the duty of any responsible content provider (website, or individual in the case of a content aggregator like youtube). --Trödel 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

...you're missing the point--for original videos not under copyright, but merely released into public ___domain, there is no license--that's the vast majority of YT links. The absence of copyright on a work is not a copyvio. "No licensing info" is a technicality that has been recently added just to exclude YT public ___domain links. Any copyvios like pirated music vids are covered under C; there is no need for additonal confusing language/licensing caveats in order to delete them. Cindery 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not having license info was not recently added to exclude YT - it has been there for some time. Additionally, what is the license (contribution) criteria of youtube. It probably provides protection. The key is that we should not be determining fair use/license requirements etc. We should be relying on the claim made by those others (except where it is obviously a lie: "I swear NBC licensed this to me in an email, well I deleted, I didn't think I needed it..."). The lack of license info has long been a reason to exclude external links to sites that flaunt the copyrights of others, even if it was not spelled out. I'll review youtubes terms of use. Basically, the language re licensing of info allows ADDITIONAL websites to be linked (rather than only the source of the work) since both the original publisher and anyone licensed both can be linked. If we strictly enforce links to exclude copyvios then we exclude sites which have posted information but for which we don't know if they have the right to do so - a quick email will often resolve the confusion and provide additional sources, especially where the orginal publisher has not put them online. --Trödel 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I expected the Terms of use provides a proper license:

B. ...In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: (i) you own or have the necessary licenses...to use and authorize YouTube to use...all User Submissions...in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service; and (ii) you have the written consent...of each...person in the User Submission... For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions... The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website...

C. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (i) submit material that is copyrighted... YouTube does not permit copyright infringing...on its Website, and YouTube will remove all Content and User Submissions...that...infringes on another's intellectual property rights.YouTube.com Terms of use

|} Thus user submissions are licensed to youtube for proper use and can be linked to. If it is an obvious copyright violation then we won't link to it obviously (as youtube seems to be infested with people who steal). But requiring that the material on youtube be licensed properly does not prevent linking to it since: it is licensed properly. --Trödel 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask whether we should simply rely on the honesty of those uploading videos? Our image files are stuffed full of copyvios where the uploader has either incorrectly certified the status of the image or fails to properly document the copyright. I would be very reluctant to just accept that a video is safe for use unless there are clear indications that they are free to use. --Spartaz 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed "If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine." This is too broad - in that all sites which violate copyright claim fair use (even Napster did). We should not state that linking to fair use is fine as it invites linking to fair use; however, when the only link available is on a site claiming fair use, one can then make the argument that the external site does not violte Wikipedia:Copyrights. Finally, a reference that has no link, but provides verifiable information for the source is much better than one that violates copyright. --Trödel 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

	Reference/Link	Comment
Best	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11.	link to source which publishes on the internet
Good	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11. Full text (fee required).	link to site which requires fee to view
Ok	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11.	No link
Bad	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11.	link to site has article but not legally

Foreign language links

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

I'll give some examples. - Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Scifiscripts.com

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

To promote a site

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

All links promote a site. Links to the Library of Congree promote their site, links to IMDb promote their site, links to Google books promote their site. "To promote a site" is ridiculously vague and was never the intention. The language must be clarified otherwise all links are in danger of violating "promotion". Wjhonson 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Summaries like nonsensical revertion won't help you. -- ReyBrujo 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially when the reversion is to wording that makes clear sense and has been understood and agreed to by many editors. The change trying to be made insisting all links are promotional doesn't make sense in this context. Links added to promote a site are prohibited. The fact that links may benefit a site is not the issue. The text is clear and easy to understand. Don't add a link because you want to promote a site. 2005 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Benefit" and "Promote" are synonyms. Wjhonson 03:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this prohibition is in here just for commercial sites (as indicated in your edit summary). And I think the recent change to emphasize the commercial aspect is not an improvement.

I do a fair amount of editing on nonprofit/charity articles and we get a lot of editors who add links to sites they are connected with (either as an employee, volunteer or supporter) with the intention of promoting the organization and/or its point of view. These are generally good faith additions, but nevertheless inappropriate. In the same way we see people adding fan sites (some of which may have no commercial aspect at all) to many popular culture articles. I believe these types of additions are no more appropriate than links added to promote commercial sites. Although the profit motive is a strong one, a simple belief in a particular point of view can be just as powerful, and is just as bad for Wikipedia in terms of diluting the value of an article for readers. --Siobhan Hansa 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Links added in order to promote a site is very much the intention. That is why editors are discouraged from adding links to their own sites. Links should be added to inform our readers, not to promote sites. It is not at all vague when one looks at a user's contributions-- when a user adds a link to the same site to a dozen articles in a row, especially when they are the user's only edits, it is patently clear that one is dealing with "links added to promote a site". -- Mwanner | Talk 02:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The way its worded it does not address owner-placed, or employee-placed links. ALL links are promotional. Every single link, in all articles, ever, is "promotional". "To promote" is too vague to stand. Wjhonson 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"To inform" and "to promote" are synonymous. Wjhonson 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of the intent issue don't you understand? -- Mwanner | Talk 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The part where its clear and not vague. "Promote" merely means "to encourage the use of". All links encourage the use of the link. Therefore all links are "promotional" and serve to "promote the site". Wjhonson 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Intent matters. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the word "intent" must be present. As I've now done. Wjhonson 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to: For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 3. A website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for; even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines. If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, mention it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

~~I thought this was an excellent guideline which very clearly outlines a good practice to establish a consensus about new links. Why was it removed?~~ - Rainwarrior 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the new section that covers it. - Rainwarrior 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First I reverted edits by User:Satori Son because I think he made his changes in good faith thinking these were grammatical errors when in fact these are items that have been vetted here ad nauseum. His changes effectively stated that only commercial websites were included in the "promotion" clause. My personal opinion is the clause in the article as originally posted was sufficient. Adding "intent" and "main intent" are impossible to determine. If I want to spam WP, I'll argue that 51% of my intention was to provide good content and 49% was to promote a website. I haven't seen any abuse of this clause and its something that can be explained to a new user who gets caught promoting a website. If all links are promotion, then every link woould be challenged and removed which is just not the case. Calltech 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I did believe that first sentence was written with a grammatical error and should actually read, "Links that are added with the main intent of promoting a site that primarily exists to sell products or services, that has objectionable amounts of advertising, or that requires payment to view the relevant content." (I have no opinion on the "main intent" versus "intent" issue.) Now I see the purpose of the sentence, but by leaving it the way it is, we are trying to cover too may issues (four) in one confusing, run-on sentence. I apologize for not reading the above discussion and suggesting my correction here first, but maybe a little WP:BRD will suffice. How about making my change, then adding a new sentence that covers promotion of non-commercial websites? This is obviously a very hot topic right now, and we need to try and make this policy as clear as possible for everyone. -- Satori Son 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea - how about taking it one step further since all 4 topics are separate:

Links mainly intended to promote a website
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services
Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content.

Calltech 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's even better as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, I see more Wikilawyering in our future as spammers and other special interests continue to parse that sentence in different ways. Clarity is paramount. -- Satori Son 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites of non-notables, and anonymous websites

Latest comment: 18 years ago58 comments11 people in discussion

As these are almost literally a dime a dozen, and in no way verifiable as accurate, true, non-libellous, etc., and in no practical way different from blogs, is there any reason why we should link to them? Would any serious encyclopedia link to them? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, unless it fits this policy. Did you have a specific link in mind? Fagstein 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they would. Obviously they are different than blogs so why mention that non-sequitor? The prohibition against blogs relates to their changeability, not any sense that anything written on a blog has to be useless. This guideline lays out what is valuable to link to. Many non-corporate websites present very valuable content, even if most websites of every kind would never merit a link. Brainless, blanket prohibitions show contempt for users and that is not what an encyclopedia should do. We link on merit, accesibility and appropriateness. 2005 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The problem with blogs is not that their content can change, because that is true of all websites. Rather, the problem with them is with the nature of their authorship, and their complete lack of editorial oversight. Personal websites of notable people are, of course, encyclopedic, but personal websites of non-notable people don't have any particular value, and anonymous websites could say anything at all, without any possibility of knowing whether or not they are true. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that personal websites, including blogs, shouldn't be linked to. The only exception I can think of is a blog belonging to the subject of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Blogs have been in the guideline for some time. The "personal websites" part is a recent addition that was made without discusion. There are numerous exceptions to both, notably when the blog/personal website qualifies as the "official site" - one of the prime criteria for linking. Furthermore, there is no real, underlying consensus on blog ELs: even wikipedia currently links to blogs and to video hosted on blogs (another topic much discussed here of late). I'm reverting your addition, as the issue requires more discussion. --JJay 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't articulated the difference between a "personal website" and a "blog"; in fact, they are essentially identical, though they have some minor differences in terms of the editing tools available. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is too bizarre. Are you honestly going to insist that this http://googleblog.blogspot.com/ is a personal website? My goodness, you really need to give some thought to your assertions here. 2005 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep making assertions without meaningful content; please make a coherent argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

JJay, I can't see why you're reverting exactly, and what is a "recognized authority"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

- Also, the definition of the exceptions for blogs has completely changed from a "recognized authority" to a news publisher or pofessional researcher. That is significant change in meaning and I don't see any discussion or logical basis for the change. --JJay 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to User:Slim Virgin, the types of blogs that we might want to link to, tend not to be news organizations or professional researchers. They do tend to be closer to the definition of a "recognized authority", which granted is vague, but is vague for a reason. It applies to people like Andrew Sullivan or some of the hundreds or articles in our category:blogs. These may not qualify as article references, but may be suitable in certain situations for ELs. I see no reason to make the exception definition more exclusionary, unless we are going to list further exceptions to the exceptions. And that is a never-ending process that should be avoided--JJay 03:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan is a professional researcher/journalist (we can add journalist if that will make it clearer), and newspapers' blogs are the kind of blogs we want to link to. Can you show me an example of an acceptable blog that would not be covered by the current wording? The problem with the "recognized authority" thing is that it isn't just vague, but meaningless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sullivan in a journalist and his blog consists of his personal writings. If you are going to add journalist to your definition, then you now need to add diplomat, government official, politician, judge, author, artist, performer, actor, political candidate, rabbi, imam, union leader, pro athlete, museum director, board member, CEO, nobel peace prize recipient, etc - none of whom are necessarily "professional researchers" or "news organizations", but all of whom may be "recognized authorities". Recognized authority is not meaningless. It is vague. Vagueness has its virtues, because the road you are heading down is a never ending street, where exceptions invite more exceptions, etc. It is a zero sum game.--JJay 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but this guideline has to take into account the wording of the relevant policy, which is WP:V, and the words I used here reflect that. It's true that the bar for external links is lower than the bar for sources, but it should not be wildly different. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

People may be "recognized authorities" in one field, but not in others. In fact, that's the typical case. Most of the people you refer do not write professionally about their fields. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

First, I have no clue what you mean by "anonymous website". You'll have to elaborate on that. Second, if you want to add blog/personal website to the definition, then do so - you have already said they were essentially the same - but I personally think it adds nothing. And I would appreciate an explanation of what you mean by "personal website". Millions of websites are owned by individuals. Are you saying that any site not owned by a corporation (or to be more restrictive, a news source) should not be linked? I have already addressed your point about "non-notable blogs"- if they are "non-notable" than they are not recogized authorities, are they? In short, the guideline already covered this, succinctly. But taking out the phrase "recognized authority" overly restricts the exception clause. --JJay 03:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, all of which is already covered by numerous clauses in the guidelines - i.e. the ones that relate to the reliability of the material. However, I will point out that the guideline now excludes Jossi's "notable/recognized experts" (which is pretty damn similar to the previous definition of "recognized authority" that should be retained). Instead, it makes an exception for professional researchers and news organizations. That is way too exclusionary. It is not supported by Jossi's statement, nor is it even supported by User:Jayjg, who writes: "Personal websites of notable people are, of course, encyclopedic". The approach shown here, by adding a new definition after a 24 hour discussion, ignoring objections and then edit warring to impose the change is counterproductive. It won't stick as written. That's not the way this page is edited, but is the way that has led to numerous page protections in the last few months. --JJay 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that people differ strongly on how "reliable" material is; it's essentially a personal view. On the other hand, "anonymous" and "personal" are quite specific, and deal with 95% of the crap currently linked to that contains "unreliable" information. As for the guideline, it has been held hostage for the past couple of months by people who resist both change and logic; that is not the way the page should edited, and that methodology "won't stick". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The more clear wording of policy has been explained, but I haven't seen any logical responses yet. Perhaps you can try that, rather than focusing on other editors and hurt feelings. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an issue with the wording of the guideline. In Timpani, I have including a number of links to websites of professional timpanists that offer material that enhances the article (e.g. video clips, especially good FAQs outside the scope of the article, etc.) These are "personal websites", however they are by professional performers. I think it should be noted that links to personal websites are okay if they are reputable and they offer content that enhances the article. (Links to personal websites that offer no educational content should be discouraged.) Many editors have a rather narrow interpretation of these guidelines, and I can see links like these being deleted citing WP:EL. – flamurai (t) 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The current guideline would not exclude those links at all, since they are by non-anonymous professionals. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Under the current wording, those links could be easily removed, since they are not by professional researchers or news organizations. --JJay 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

JJay, which part of your version of EL would disallow http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ as a link in George W. Bush? Please unequivocally prove that the source is "unreliable". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See "Links normally to be avoided": #2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Which points directly to WP:RS, which bans extremeist and partisan sources. See also the sentence that requires links to be: proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.). And it's not "my version", it's everyone's version, built through consensus. Just like with articles, where editors are more than competent to remove that type of link, without the ongoing laundry list approach of this guideline --JJay 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring specifically to that; please prove, using undeniably objective standards, that the source contains "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", or that it is "extremist and partisan". Clearly the author feels that the information is accurate, useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. and not extremist or partisan. Who is to say that he is wrong and you are correct? And if you rely on WP:RS, then why not just scrap WP:EL and insist that external links meet WP:RS instead? Finally, the consensus version is, of course, the current version, which also appears to have a consensus of the current editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline points to WP:RS. And your link would be gone immediately, without much protest. Furthermore, your interpretation of what the author "feels" has no bearing on editing articles. Instead, point me to the edit war over this link and the failure to remove the link due to the previous inadequacy of the guideline. --JJay 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep making assertions, but you have not been able to actually answer the questions. Please prove, using undeniably objective standards, that the source contains "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", or that it is "extremist and partisan". If you want to convince others of your position, you'll have to make an argument for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

A blog is a personal website; a personal website may or may not be a blog. The standard practice on Wikipedia seems to be to avoid linking to such sites, unless, of course, they're by the subject of the article (see for example here). I know that from my own experience, because when I arrived at Wikipedia, the article I spent most of my time on was one where a lot of private websites would have bolstered the side I was on (which I felt was not adequately represented); but I accepted that personal websites were not considered reliable, encyclopaedic sources. Like Jayjg, I can't imagine any serious encyclopaedia linking to them. AnnH ♫ 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to understand the reverting here. Is someone saying that anonymous websites should be linked to? Who is saying that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Obviously anonymous websites sometimes merit links. I'm at a loss as to why you insist on trying to cra this addition in, especially without offering the slightest reason for it. Anonymous websites will seldom meet the criteria to link, but sometimes they obviously will, like an example of hundreds of photographs of Peoria from 1900 to 1940. Such a site would not become infinitely more valuable if the title "photos by John Smith" was on it. This is guideline to help linking to help readers. It isn't some thoughtless, arbritrary thing that throws logic to the wind for no reason. Linking is primarily based on merit. Anonymity adds no merit so anonymous websites have a much higher road to climb to deserve linking, but that is all it is, a much harder road. It's blatantly silly to say an anonymous website can NEVER have value to our readers. C'mon, you have to understand that. 2005 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what we mean by "verifiable"? We mean "with reference to a reliable source." There seem to be editors on this page who have never read the content policies. This page, and all other pages, must be consistent with the content policies. "Verifiable" does not mean we can check whether it's true (how could we?) It means we can check that it was published by a reliable source. The bar is lower for external links than for sources, but the words as used by Wikipedia don't suddenly change their meaning. Your opinion of the merits of a link is likely to differ from other people's, so the criterion is only this: has the thing been published by someone reliable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know what it means, you can lay off the ad hominem attacks. An anonymous page can be verifiable if all the information on it is cited. It can also be verifiable if it's something like a TV episode synopsis, where the primary source is a work of pop culture (which is what can be used to verify it). In both cases, the info "has already been published by a reliable source" and meets WP:V so it's consistent with the content policies - a linked site doesn't necessarily have to be an original source. Don't forget, wikipedia isn't all scientific topics. Anonynimity really has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable, just as a source having a name to it doesn't automatically make it reliable. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, which is policy. WP:RS is NOT policy. And it's not an ad hominem attack to point out that a lot of the people on this page seem to be unfamilar with the content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So point me to the part in WP:V where it says it applies to external links. Should be easy, assuming you're familiar with the content policies. :) --Milo H Minderbinder 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But if we have to look to other reliable sources to properly verify the information on an anonymous website, wouldn't it be best to cite to those sources, and skip the middleman link to the anonymous site? I'm not being rhetorical, I really am trying to understand your position. Thanks, Satori Son 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. [[[User:Milo H Minderbinder]] may need to re-read our core policies and understand these well before contributing to a guideline that cannot be writen in a way as to contradict policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Quit telling me to read the policies, you're just using that as an excuse to avoid addressing what I have to say. Satori - one example would be a list of quotes from a work of fiction. Citing the original would require many citations (and lists of quotes are specifically discouraged on wikipedia), while citing the list would be much more convenient. Assuming this hypothetical list was sourced to the original material, allowing it to be verified, how would it violate WP:V or WP:RS? How would it being anonymous make it any less verifiable? And would it somehow become more verifiable just by slapping the name of the author on it? Quoting from V: ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." How would this hypothetical page not meet the standard set by that policy? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For log or numerous quotes, you can use Wikiquote and use the {{Wikiquote}} template. As for your last question, the only way a reader can verify the information is if it is published by a reliable source. An anonymous website or any other personal website is not a reliable source: It can be changed, selectively quoted, placed alongside POV commentary and editorializing, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote is an alternative way to do it, not a reason an anonymous site can't be linked. You didn't answer my questions above. And any online source can be changed, selectively quoted, placed alongside POV commentary and editorializing, etc. Anonymous or not, and "personal website" or not. If a site does those, that's a valid reason not to link to it. But none of those have anything to do with anonymity. And I completely agree that info is verified from reliable sources. You just seem to be missing the fact that a linked site doens't have to be the reliable source itself (particularly if the site provides sourcing). I'd recommend reading WP:RS#Popular culture and fiction: "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." So this policy says that they should not be used as secondary sources, but says they are acceptable otherwise. Since external links aren't held to the same standard as sources, it certainly seems that personal websites and even anonymous content may be acceptable assuming it meets the rest of EL. I don't think EL should even mention anonymous content or "personal websites". --Milo H Minderbinder 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think we verify external links. Where does that come from? We most certainly do not. There seems an awful lot of confusion here. The content of Wikipedia articles have different policies governing them than external links. Most obviously external links very commonly have POV and are unencyclopedic. External links are not sources, so lets not pretend they are. 2005 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course we verify ELs. And if you do not, I would advise you start. All external links that are hosted on sites that are not considered reliable sources, that push a POV, that are un-encyclopedic, that do not add value to the article for these reasosn should be removed at sight. The EL section is not the dumping ground for what could not be added to an article because it fails to meet WP content policies ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You have caused a lot of problems with this page due to now four misunderstandings of yours about wording or policies (two of which you seem to have relented on once you recognized you misunderstood the wording). The idea that an editor verifies that John Smith batted .231 in 1964 before a link from baseballreference.com can be added is counter to policies, and just plain absurd. You need to ask more questions instead of insisting your very mistaken assumptions are the only valid concepts for anything. 2005 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2005, can you please make coherent arguments, rather than borderline personal attacks? You have yet to articulate how we assure that anonymous websites contain verifiable material. Note, not "verified", but "verifiable". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And "please make coherent arguments" isn't a borderline personal attack? Assuring that anonymous websites contain verifiable material has already been addressed (and I guess ignored?). Could we all please address the actual content of the guideline instead of complaining about the other editors? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Please make coherent arguments" is a request regarding Talk: page comments, not a personal attack. What coherent argument did you see in 2005's statement, and in what way do you think that the issue of ensuring that sites contain verifiable information is addressed? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed this multiple times, you'll find my comments if you search the page for "fiction". And how does "Please make coherent arguments" actually respond to what he said or help make this guideline better? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

...I'm very disturbed by what appears the be the implication that anything not published by NBC is "anonymous" and therefore "unreliable." Notability varies a great deal. Very often--if not always-- one must know or learn something about a subject before one can make judgements about whom is notable/reliable regarding a subject or field of study. To use the Joshua Clover example again, you would have to know something about postmodern American poetry, and about Joshua, to know that Jordan Davis is also a postmodern American poet and a friend/colleague of Joshua's, and therefore a reliable source about postmodern American poetry and Joshua. If you were completely ignorant, you could look at that YT link and say, "not NBC. never heard of the guy, therefore he's anonymous." This is a problem that comes up in AFD a lot, and when people who are ignorant assume that everything which is not on Google is OR (or that everything that's not in the first 100 Google hits is OR. See under: "research is not original research.") It's not humanly possible for an 18 year old (Dmcdevit) and a 20-something guy (JSmith) or for any two people for that matter, to know enough about every article on Wikipedia to judge whom is notable enough on every subject to be sufficiently "un-anonymous." Deleting all the links, putting "anonymous" in the guideline fosters an editorial policy of ignorance; doesn't foster respect for the editorial process, whereby, collectively, with collective knowledge, Wikipedia editors are capable of determining whom is reliable/notable and whom is unreliable/anonymous. Cindery 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a guideline

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

WP:EL is a guideline dealing with one of the most difficult and contentious aspects of the encyclopedia. Please do not just attempt to add pet peeves and personal opinions into the guideline. If you feel the guideline should be changed in a substantive way (that is, new new concepts, not just wording clarifications or grammar), please start a discussion here with your reasoning. Please treat your fellow editors and their views with respect, even if you disagree. Please do not just try to arrogantly ram your favored changes into the guideline just because it seems like you can. 2005 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. This guideline is one of many. Editors are expressing their opinions based on their understanding of current policy, which this guideline cannot bypass, but only support; and you can start treating fellow editors with respect by not calling them arrogant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's rather odd that you would insist that we "treat your fellow editors and their views with respect" when your edit summaries say things such as "behave" and "act like an adult". Perhaps you should try modelling the behavior you demand of others. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please don't do this. If you want to discuss an issue, do so. If you want to see a change made, propose it. Repeatedly trying to force a change that has no consensus to a page that says it was developed by consensus is rude and arrogant, in my opinion. If you don't agree, fine, but I hope you will begin to adopt tone and behavior of a cooperative nature. Force and ignoring others is neither fun nor nice. 2005 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition...

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

"Links to websites that allow self-publishing, except when the copyright status and ownership is clear."

Anyone have a problem with this guideline? ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain where you would add that. What do you mean exactly by self publishing? --JJay 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This should maybe be held off on until the conversation about "anonymous"/non-notable "personal" websites above is resolved? I haven't had time to wade through all the points in that conversation, but it seems like it would overlap with your addition. Schi 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume he means in "Links to be normally avoided". "self-publishing" isn't perfect, but may be a step in the right direction, and may be possible to tie into guidance on links to forums. I'd be careful with "copyright status and ownership is clear" - it seems like that could be interpreted too strongly in both directions (one side saying that should exclude all or most of youtube, the other side saying that means that all youtube links are ok because youtube requires uploaders to clearly assert status/ownership - even if they lie). But maybe this is a step. Also "allow" gets tricky - if a website has a forum or section with a wiki, but has other controlled content, can one link to the controlled content? I'd assume yes, but the wording above would imply no. But perhaps again this it too much "Rules lawyering". Maybe we could discuss the intended implications? That might also help (if this is adopted) by clarifying intent. jesup 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

JJay, Oh sorry: "Sites to normally avoid"

Websites that allow it's users to publish material without a vetting/verification process. Wikis, image sharing sites, video sharing sites, HotOrNot type sites, MySpace type sites, etc. I know those are all covered, but I think this guideline summarises all those issues in one descriptive statement, (descriptive instead of prescriptive).

Schi, I Was kinda thinking this would be a good solution to that debate. ---J.S (t|c) 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone gets hot under the collar (on either side): lets discuss this before we insert anything into the page or remove anything, please. Civility thanks you. :-) This may be a way to unify some of the current requirements, with some thought and perhaps some examples or sub-cases. jesup 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It could be, possibly, I don't know exactly. But it's redundant at present with some of the other aspects of the guideline. Also "websites that allow self-publishing" seems very broad to me. A large portion of websites have rolled-out some type of blogging feature that allow reader comments or uploads. The sentence might cover too wide a cross-section of sites. I also don't understand the obsession with adding something about copyright to every line in the guideline. The very first restriction in this guidleine states: Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. What could be clearer than that? --JJay 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My intent with "websites that allow self publishing" was actually to only include the material that was self-uploaded. It was a bit too broad. I'll think of a different way to state what I was trying to get at... Give me a few minutes to brainstorm. ---J.S (t|c) 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"Links to amateur websites, except when the owner/author is known to be an expert in the field."

or...

"Links to material whose author is unknown within the scope of the field."

---J.S (t|c) 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

..that is completely unacceptable because, as I pointed out, thousands of films like Alexander Nevsky are legally in the public ___domain, and one need not be any kind of authority to upload them to a website or to YT and external link them to Wiki. Cindery 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If the author is an unknown person (either anonymous or simply non-notable) then we have no way to evaluate how trustworthy the uploader is. If YT user "IHateJews" uploads clips from a PD holocaust documentary... then we probably don't want to link to it. However, if a notable holocaust historian uploads the documentary then we can be reasonably sure it's accurate. Unknown person = no assurance of accuracy. ~~Oh, Cindery, start indenting your comments. I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.~~ (rewording for civility) Cindery, please start indenting your comments, otherwise I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. ---J.S (t|c) 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you take him more seriously if he indented? :)--Spartaz 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was getting at... I just didn't say it well.---J.S (t|c) 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded. ---J.S (t|c) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

...I am a she. If J would like to re-do the indenting for the entire page here and then on to the rest of Wikipedia, I could care less--it seems a less destructive control-freak project than deleting all the YT links without looking at them.:-) Cindery 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also: you completely don't seem to get it that thouands of films are in the public ___domain, and the Wiki uploader can be completely anonymous, and that is fine. Cindery 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines cannot bypass established policies

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

The lead had this wording: Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. That sentence, added circa Oct 22nd 2006, is in direct contradiction with Wikipedia content policies. Material that could not or should not be added to an article, should not be linked to either. The EL section is part of our encyclopedia and not the dumping ground for material that is not considered valid, useful, or compliant. I have removed the last portion of the sentence to read only ''Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the removal. There are cases where copyright laws would prohibit adding content on wikipedia pages but could provide a source of information by following the link. This would also apply to long list of historical data and other archives. --I already forgot 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Jossi is missing the point of the phrase he removed. It relates to the "What should be linked to" section...

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. [Note: this does not mean that the linked site violates copyright, it means that if we moved content from the site into our article, that would violate copyright.]
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Granted, it might be put better. Maybe we should go back to another workshop version: there's getting to be an awful lot of off-the-hip editing on what really ought to be a pretty stable document. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the intent of "information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article." relates to things like articles in peer review journals. The minute detail of how a experiment was performed it helpful for those who want more information, but is likely too much detail for an article aiming for a broad scope. Likewise, an author might release the first chapter of his new book on his website... the first chapter cannot be included because it would be a violation of his copyrights, but it could be of great value to someone who wanted to know more about the book. ---J.S (t|c) 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mwanner and J.S' points. External links are provided to offer further and useful information that is outside the scope of the encyclopedia, and I think that has been the spirit of the guideline (and usage) since before the addition of the sentence. How is it in violation of Wikipedia content policies? Or maybe the broader question is: how do content policies apply to external links? I inquired about this during workshop editing and only 2005 responded, saying that they (or at least WP:V) don't apply. It seems that there is disagreement about this, so maybe we should hash that out? Personally, I find it a little difficult to apply Wikipedia content policies to external links (except for those policies that address external links specifically, e.g. WP:NPOV#Undue weight), because all the language in the policies is formulated to discuss text/images in the article. SlimVirgin made the point above that, in terms of verifiability, the bar for external links is lower than for sources, which I think most of us would agree with (right?) So where do we place that bar (if we place it at all)? Schi 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead is worded in a way that is inappropriate. The explanation needs to be kept at the "What should be linked to" section and the lead kept simple and formulated in a manner that does not create confusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but if you have a better wording, I'm open to discussing it. ---J.S (t|c) 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the wording could possibly be less open to interpretation, but it certainly doesn't violate policy at all. There certainly is worthwhile content that can't be included in a WP article but could be linked. Not to mention that the policies discussed are all about WP content and sources, they don't even apply to EL. Some people seem to think that content on external sites that WP links to must meet all WP policies, and that's certainly not the case. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The concerns are valid and need to be addressed

The concerns raised are valid and should be addressed. While EL section can be a useful addition to an article, it cannot be a dumping ground for ~~crappy stuff~~ unsuitable material that could not make it to the article for being in violation of policy. So, this guideline needs to be worded in such a way that encourages useful links, while discourages ~~crap~~ unsuitable ones. The tension between these two aspects, what to link and what to avoid, needs to be carefully worded as to provide a good understanding that can be easily applied by editors. The guideline's lead in its current state does not reflect the spirit of the guideline and needs to be reworded. As the page is now protected, we could move forward by discussing a new lead. This is my attempt:

Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia. A good selection of external links is welcome, but keep it concise: Wikipedia is not a web directory. These links belong in an "External links" section near the bottom of the article, as per our Manual of Style. If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, and that website is a reliable source, consider using it as a source first.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Crap," is a) uncivil b) utterly and uselessly subjective. (Or perhaps we should throw out the whole EL page and just write "don't put any 'crap' on Wikipedia"?) Not everything in a blog-published-by-an-authority or YT link published by NBC is de facto relevant as an external link: your ideas of "what is not 'crap'" are not necessarily good ELs either, hence the editorial process, by which ELs are vetted by collective judgement viz all policies and guidelines. "Careful wording" should not be so specific that it replaces the editorial process.

Cindery 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. I have changed the offending words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Careful wording is needed to avoid misinterpretation as well as making this guideline compatible and not competing with established policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

...I said "Careful wording should not be so specific that it replaces the editorial process"--which seems to be the crux of the matter. Some people would like to make the guideline so specific that it excludes specific problemmatic sites, which have exceptions. Other people--the majority--are saying because there are exceptions, the wording can't specifically exclude them, they should be vetted by editors. A better solution to the problemmatic sites is faster removal under C; not erroneously specific language at EL. Re the lead, I don't think it needs to be changed; "unsuitable" is too vague/extra verbiage; links should be evaluated as "further reading," not as sources. Cindery 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I have full protected the guideline. Please discuss before modifying the guideline. This page is visited by thousands of new and established users, and we can't just modify it every other hour. I also ask administrators not to modify the article other than correcting spellings. I thought we had already learned in the last edit war. -- ReyBrujo 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What template? Shouldn't this go on the template's talk page? ---J.S (t|c) 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ehem... sorry, I was multitasking with a template and got the heading mixed. -- ReyBrujo 02:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm glad this is protected, I have to say that it's currently locked into a pretty bad state that doesn't reflect consensus. I particularly disagree with the inclusion of anonymous content and personal websites, both of which are only in the guideline because they happened to be in at this particular point in the revert war. So how do we go about getting the guideline back into stable shape? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion of the inclusion of anonymous websites aside, I do agree with Milo H Minderbinder that the current wording is more indicative of where the music stopped in the game of edit-revert-revert than it is of demonstrated consensus. Let's please keep discussing this to ensure the guideline reflects current community opinion. Or maybe it's time for a strawpoll to get a quick read? -- Satori Son 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, no, let's not do that. It's generally better to make a good list of pro and con arguments. A poll tends to focus everything on a binary issue and tends to give the result that "some people disagree with one another" which we're already aware of. The issue seems to be once more whether we can link to wikis and blogs? I believe the answer to that was "in most cases, no". (Radiant) 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A locked page is always the wrong version: this is an established principle. The way to get the right version is to discuss and reach a consensus, which is what should have happened before every single recent change instead of this appalling edit warring. Please don't try to take shortcuts to "the right version" which should be "immediately obvious". Notinasnaid 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is an egregious case of the "wrong version," and that noting that is relevant--there was no consensus for the changes made, and there was consensus to leave them out. Cindery 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus, Cindery. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact their was. The page should be reverted back to where it was stable and previously protected, here , as a result of several months of discussions. It should then be protected, (semi)permanently, with any changes to be discussed here first. There is a very clear previous version to revert to, the same version that was protected previously. 2005 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about that probably does call for a poll, then, Jossi. Cindery 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus, changes shouldn't have been made. I hope the current version doesn't give anyone an excuse to go on a massive editing spree. I agree with Radiant that a poll probably isn't the best way to go, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what ends up happening. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No polls, please. The issues need to be argued and agreed upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I started whit a proposal for the lead, above at #The_concerns_are_valid_and_need_to_be_addressed. You are welcome to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating links to other wikis

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam about linking to a non-Wikimedia wiki. Looking at the criteria for links to wikis, here's what the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL says:

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

Any comments on what constitutes "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? Any other pages on Wikipedia where I might find information on this issue? Thanks, --A. B. 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed not that long ago, in a now-archived talk page, found here. Generally, folks were concerned about weeding out links to wikis with factual inaccuracy/instability/unverified original research, and keeping links to wikis with WP:WEB-like authority. Schi 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the "substantial number of editors" question, the low end is pretty easy to recognise: I see lots of wikis added that appear (from the Recent Changes page) to have one to three contributors, and only a handful of edits in the last 30 days. My read is that this is too few (and too inactive) editors to ensure reliability. Of course, there is no easy way to draw a line on larger, but still small, numbers of editors. Is 12 enough? 25? You really have to start looking at the articles-- not a determination that can be made quickly or easily. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Video links

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For viewing the film M, this edit replaced this link on tesla.liketelevision.com with this one on video.google.com. I'm wondering: do we favor one of these? Or is this link theft, pure and simple? I'm totally outside of my area here. (Certainly, it is appropriate to provide a link from an article on a film to somewhere you can watch the film for free.) - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deja Vu time. If its a link to a blatant copyvio its not appropriate to link to it via WP:C. That's said, perhaps we should let the bickering over YouTube die down before we even begin to think about other videolinks providers. --Spartaz 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is either official? I don't know anything about liketelevision.com. ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to Myspace

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm not sure if this is where I should be bringing up this issue. But I would like to make a written exception under Links Normally To Be Avoided-#10 to allow external links of a musical band's official Myspace. These sites are usually managed by the group themselves or someone close appointed by the group. Of course, the site must be official, and not a fan-made (unless it were maybe a verified official fanclub). I feel a band's Myspace can be just as important as their own official website, as news regarding the band, tourdates, and etc can be updated through them (causing many on the 'net to use a band's Myspace over their official dot-com to get the same, or even different, information). Additionally, bands put their songs up on their Myspace by their own will, so it is a link to quickly allows Wiki readers to gain access to hearing officially released material of the band as well. Again, I don't know if this is where I should be brining up this issue, so if it isn't, could someone lead me to where I should be? Thanks a lot! -- Shadowolf 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's already covered: "Links normally to be avoided" starts with "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid..." -- Mwanner | Talk 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new opening

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Current version:"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article."

Proposed version: "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below." Text is the same after that. I don't think this changes the intent of the text, but just makes it more clear. Comments? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good. It might, though, be worth including something along the lines of Jossi's "A good selection of external links is welcome, but keep it concise: Wikipedia is not a web directory" (above). The "keep it concise" is a bit off: perhaps make it "should be kept to a minimum". So taken together, it would read:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below. A good selection of external links is welcome, but should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory." -- Mwanner | Talk 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below. A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory." — jesup 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That wording is misleading and can be wrongly interpreted as encouraging links to unsuitable material. I propose this wording:Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory. and leaving the detail of what to link and what not to link to the more elaborate sections below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What is misleading about "which contain information that is accurate and on-topic, but can't or shouldn't be added to the article because of copyright, level of detail, or other reasons listed below" or would encourage people to add inappropriate links? I don't like this last wording - my response to reading it is, if information is accurate and on-topic, why not just add it to the article instead of linking to it? The previous suggestions (and the current revision) address that. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your proposed wording is that the "reasons listed below" do not address what cannot/should not be added to the article: What is listed below is what can and cannot be linked. See the difference? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that some of the criteria for what can be linked is based on what cannot/should not be added to the article. For example, #3 and #4 in "What should be linked to". I would change Jesup's wording from "reasons listed below" to "as discussed below", or something like that. schi ^talk 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider this wording: Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that is accurate and on-topic that can add value to an article. A small selection of well-chosen external links is welcome, but the number should be kept to a minimum: Wikipedia is not a web directory. The only reason for having an external link is that is augments the article's quality, not that diminishes it by linking to sites that do not add value. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)