This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alecmconroy (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 22 November 2007 (→Excellent summary by Steve Summit on wikien-l). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:45, 22 November 2007 by Alecmconroy (talk | contribs) (→Excellent summary by Steve Summit on wikien-l)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) ShortcutLinks that improve the encyclopedia must not be removed.
My principal objection is to the sentence in the nutshell: " Links that improve the encyclopedia must not be removed." That sentence is vague and strict at the same time. It does not refelct current practice, as we remove forums, blogs, and commercial links that users could argue improve the encyclopedia. There's no definition, here or elsewhere, of what is meant by "improve". I think it should either be omitted from the proposal or defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it is uselessly tautological. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If no one defends its inclusion I'll remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I object. The wording could probably be improved. However the phrasing could use work. I believe the idea is that links that would be valid links in mainspace but for the issue of possible harassment should not be removed. I'm not sure of a good phrasing of that. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully JzG's tweak addresses that one - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- If there's no good phasing then it should be removed. The text in question is too vague, in that it doesn't define "improve the encyclopedia", and too strict, in that is says they "must not be removed". If the intent is to say that value to the encyclopedia should be weighed more than harm to individuals then that's what we should say. It may be best to leave this issue out of hte nutshell. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about this "Links meeting WP:WEL should not be removed from article space even if the links contain harassment or private information about Misplaced Pages editors." JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem right either because we often remove links that meet WP:EL, for example when there are simply too many of them. It might be better if it referred to WP:RS which has a higher standard and covers links that serve a direct purpose for the article. links are just off site "see alsos" and of little importance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with removing links because we have too many links (as we frequently get at Evolution for example) but we need to make clear that harassment and such is not a reason to remove a link in article space. How about "Harassment is not by itself sufficient reason to remove a link from article space that would be there otherwise"?JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem right either because we often remove links that meet WP:EL, for example when there are simply too many of them. It might be better if it referred to WP:RS which has a higher standard and covers links that serve a direct purpose for the article. links are just off site "see alsos" and of little importance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about this "Links meeting WP:WEL should not be removed from article space even if the links contain harassment or private information about Misplaced Pages editors." JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- If there's no good phasing then it should be removed. The text in question is too vague, in that it doesn't define "improve the encyclopedia", and too strict, in that is says they "must not be removed". If the intent is to say that value to the encyclopedia should be weighed more than harm to individuals then that's what we should say. It may be best to leave this issue out of hte nutshell. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully JzG's tweak addresses that one - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I object. The wording could probably be improved. However the phrasing could use work. I believe the idea is that links that would be valid links in mainspace but for the issue of possible harassment should not be removed. I'm not sure of a good phrasing of that. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- If no one defends its inclusion I'll remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hack for practical application value
JzG had a hack at this and I've had one too. How is it so far? I've focused on what's historically flown with the community in solving the problems - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure I'm too happy with nowikifying links. That makes a fair bit of sense outside article space (and made especial sense outside article space before we had nofollow tags) but I don't see what having the links as nowikied accomplishes in article space. People can still see the links, so it just emphasizes that we don't like it. It just seems to add inconvenience for our readers. The rest I'm more or less ok with. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have now reverted to the last consensus edit which was in place since 8 November. I feel that the language and emphasis has been changed sufficiently to require consensus for such amendments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is an overstatement to say that there was a consensus for the November 8 version. Since it appeared this proposal was dead or irrelevant some folks just lost interest. Do you have any specific comments on Gerard's draft? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have now reverted to the last consensus edit which was in place since 8 November. I feel that the language and emphasis has been changed sufficiently to require consensus for such amendments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, "consensus" is an overstatement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reverting is not a particularly helpful response; it is either {{rejected}} (as the work of a sockpuppet and a sockpuppet of a banned user, plus quite sneakily written to support a certain position while seeming not to), or we take it and work on it to make it better. The edits David and I made reflect current practice for egregious privacy violations (see Judd Bagley), and generally aim to be a guide for the bewildered rather than a crutch for wikilawyers or a stick with which to beat people. I think you'll find that David was anything but a supporter of blanket removal of links, especially from mainspace. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the Sockpuppet card - and who blocked accounts for abuse of alternate accounts (now at ArbCom)? Why, that would be Guy! What was the abuse? Disruptive editing! What disruptive editing? Creating "heat" rather than "light" on policy pages. What policy pages? hmmmm.... (I notice that some previous discussion has now been archived - and a name of a now indisposed editor along with it.) Now, what were you saying about disruption? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- BenB4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who wrote the first draft of this proposal, was not blocked by user:JzG. Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not blocked by JzG. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wasn't blocked by JzG either. This proposal has been shaped substantially by users who were already banned or who were banned shortly after participating. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are quite right. I apologise. It was User:David Gerard who indef blocked Privatemusings, which was then resolved and lifted only to be indef blocked again and is now at ArbCom. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with which anti-BADSITES proponents accounts from that ArbCom case have been blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (edit) Oh, wait! Privatemusings was indef blocked by David Gerard on 16 November, following a previous indef block by Guy on 31 October - so my comment now stands as; much of the 8 Nov edit of the mainpage was produced with the assistence and contributions of an editor who has been twice indef blocked as a violator of WP:SOCK by both Guy and David Gerard, block reverted both times, and is now at ArbCom in regard to a third indef block for the same supposed violation. Both those editors who previously indef blocked Privatemusings today happened to agree to reword the mainpage in a manner they felt more in keeping with their understanding of practice, although it changed the spirit and added language not in previous editions. You will forgive me my lapses of recall, I am not thinking as clearly as I might. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- BenB4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who wrote the first draft of this proposal, was not blocked by user:JzG. Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not blocked by JzG. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wasn't blocked by JzG either. This proposal has been shaped substantially by users who were already banned or who were banned shortly after participating. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's not helpful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, I've been consistently dead set against it. If JzG and I can halfway agree on something on the topic as being practical and useful, I submit it has at least a marginal passing chance of working in practice - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, David has consistently opposed BADSITE and is a strong supporter of free speech (and while wikipedia is not a free speech zone, free speech is an important tool to create and goal of a free unbiased encyclopedia). WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, I've been consistently dead set against it. If JzG and I can halfway agree on something on the topic as being practical and useful, I submit it has at least a marginal passing chance of working in practice - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I avoided saying this for fear of putting words in your mouth. I think we're both agreed: it's about making a workable guideline which describes current consensus and practice. "Practical application value" is exactly it. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of the problem of the previous version was that this can only work as a guideline for clueful editors of good will - clueless ones won't get the point and ones of bad will won't care. See WP:PRO. Hence the necessity of rewriting as a practical guideline. The previous version IMO stuck around so long because people had abandoned it as useless in a practical sense - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the end of the world, but the new version doesn't keep the spirit of the old one as much. The nutshell text, explicitly allowing encyclopedic content, was a very important for balance example. If there's consensus this is better, that's fine-- but there it should be discussed, not edit-warred-in. --22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecmconroy (talk • contribs)
- Looking at the history, and the fact that about half the edits seem to have been made by sockpuppets of banned users, that's perhaps no bad thing. What it does do is to reflect sanity. As David says, if he and I can agree on it, then progress is clearly being made. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Certain encyclopedia dramatica articles
Certain encyclopedia dramatica articles relating to wikipedia admins will never need to be linked to legitimatly. These should definitly be included--Phoenix-wiki 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Saying that explicitly will just give them a few orders of magnitude more traffic. Nobody disputes this point, and if this page (and NPA for that matter) don't make the point without an explicit reference they need a rewrite. WilyD 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I can't imagine anybody even suggesting it, it is so self-evidently wrong. Plus it's blacklisted anyway, or was last time I looked. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if for example the New York Times did a front page article on ED and the article contained extensive discussion about certain ED articles on Wikipedians then we might. I don't consider that to be a likely scenario. In any event WP:BEANS says not to make this sort of thing explicit and Wily is right that mentioning them will simply give them more traffic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- If we specifically ban certain ED articles, then we've just awarded them the Gold Medal of Trolling. They will have won at that point. All they want is to get a reaction, and that would be giving them the ultimate reaction. -GTBacchus 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if for example the New York Times did a front page article on ED and the article contained extensive discussion about certain ED articles on Wikipedians then we might. I don't consider that to be a likely scenario. In any event WP:BEANS says not to make this sort of thing explicit and Wily is right that mentioning them will simply give them more traffic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I can't imagine anybody even suggesting it, it is so self-evidently wrong. Plus it's blacklisted anyway, or was last time I looked. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- See Steve Summit's point 3 below: such off-site rubbish should be ignored real hard. I think we can describe it in general terms (as he does) without feeding the trolls of ED - David Gerard (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
I would like to thank recent contributors to this discussion for getting involved. We finally have the right mix of people to forge a truly useful and stable consensus guideline on linking to external harassment. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent summary by Steve Summit on wikien-l
He just added the following:
- Having followed some (but by no means all) of the interminable debate, it seems to me it all boils down to three things:
- 1. If a link in article space is allegedly non-encyclopedic, it needs to be assessed according to WP:V or WP:RS or whatever the sourcing guideline du jour is.
- 2. If a link in non-article space serves to harass a Misplaced Pages editor, it needs to be dealt with in accordance with WP:NPA, which at times has (and IMO certainly should) treat such links just as seriously as on-wiki harassment.
- 3. If an off-wiki page, not linked to from article space or from non-article space, harasses a Misplaced Pages editor, it should either be ignored, or dealt with off-wiki. Nothing we do on-wiki can punish an off-wiki harasser, or force the off-wiki harasser to remove their harassing words from the net.
3. is IMO excellent. It means "ignore this crap." But does it blend will it stand? - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Putting the link in plaintext
It's been proposed:
- "Where an especially problematic link is encyclopedic content (e.g. in an article on someone whose notability includes harassing others), putting the link in plain text, e.g. <nowiki>http://www.unpleasant.example.com/</nowiki> (rather than as a live link), or even just the domain name, e.g. unpleasant.example.com, has been considered a workable solution in the past."
This is not consistent with my conception of NPOV. "Handicapping", "bowdlerizing" or otherwise "redacting" such links serves as a strong flag that our articles considers some sites "Good Sites" and some sites "Evil Sites". A decision about whether to link during a mention should be for encyclopedia reasons, based on RS, EL, and MOS-- never for moral, judgmental, or emotional reasons. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)