Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
External Link to site
As the ArbCom seems unable or unwilling to make a decision in this case it falls to the community to make the decision (which to be honest is as it should be)
On that basis I move that a standard external link be added to the article as per standard MOS guidelines without delay. I invite other editors to comment here to establish whether my proposal has consensus. If consensus can be acheived, the link should be added or kept off as per the consensus established.
Note to admins - assuming consensus is firmly established and it is for the link to be added I do NOT expect you to remove the link against consensus citing the previous ArbCom decision - the ArbCom is A: seemingly incapable of deciding here and B: in the final analysis not the ultimate authority here - the community is - and the community will decide as to the appropiateness of the link - not the ArbCom and not any single Admin. Of course admins and ArbCom members are as welcome as anyone else to opine and help to establish consensus as long as it is clear their views hold equal weight with any other editor. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
So without further ado:-
- Support external link. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support working external link or non-working plain-text URL. WODUP 16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support from me and the otters (no, I won't vote multiple times for each otter). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - support a single link to the main page in the infobox, which may be removed on a temporary basis or permanently if needed should ED harass Wikipedians or violate anyone else's privacy, or have blatant copyright infringement, on that page. This is without referencing arbcom. If arbcom officially asks that the link be removed that is a different question (I suggest we discuss the question of interpreting and honoring Arbcom's ruling separately).Wikidemo (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support external link. (Though, the ED site seems to be down at this moment...) *Dan T.* (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment White listing a "fixed" link (Ie. www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Main_Page) is possible to do, however this Wreaks of an attempt at democracy over Arbcom's Wishes. Even linking to the homepage can easily make way for "featured articles" to be viewed, such was the case in "MONGO", which led to the Arbcom ruling. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition.Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#External_link_required --Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, this is what the WP:BADLINKS guideline says to do in this case. -- Kendrick7talk 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Either way, Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.
(Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
--Hu12 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)- That's not the most current Arbcom ruling on that topic, tho. This is: "The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with Wikipedia's key policies regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked." And Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment is the result, more or less, and states that we can link (or mention, rather) in this case. --Conti|✉ 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are confusing a "link" with a "URL address"; they aren't the same thing. Links link to something. I agree that we shouldn't link -- it's not the same thing. -- Kendrick7talk 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Either way, Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.
- No, this is what the WP:BADLINKS guideline says to do in this case. -- Kendrick7talk 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support for working link per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. Z00r (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia is made worse by not linking to ED, and a link to it is fairly likely to be gamed, as noted in the ArbCom clarification. I don't see how the benefits of linking (helping readers find ED if they want to look at it) outweigh the risks (inadvertently linking to harassment or illegal copyright violations).
Since we make decisions by discussion and not by voting, I'd like to hear from supporters of linking why the benefits outweigh the risks in this case. In other words, policy citations aside, why is it a Good Idea? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there are actual legal risks, then the Foundation will take action. If the risks are merely linking to content that we don't like, then WP:NPOV indicates that that is not a factor we should consider. The web address of a notable website is basic information that should be included in any article. I don't see how you can argue against that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you can talk about costs versus benefits, that's how. I'm not making an IDONTLIKEIT-based argument; I'm certain of that because I do like the website. I just don't see how it adds much to the article, and I do see how it is likely to be used for disruption - more so than any external link I can think of.
The benefit of linking is very small, because any Internet user can copy/paste the name into Google and click "I'm feeling lucky" if they want to go there. The cost of linking is a consideration, because links to the front page of that site have been used to carry out disruptive, harassing attacks against Wikipedians. The way I see it, the cost-benefit analysis says, "don't link". -GTBacchus(talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Saying we shouldn't link somewhere because there might just be something illegal or immoral there at some times is pure speculation which shouldn't override the core policy of neutrality. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never said, nor would ever say, "immoral". That is absolutely not a consideration. We routinely remove links where the content isn't reasonably assured of being stable and legal.
I fail to see how omitting a link directly to the website makes our coverage of them biased. Nowhere in the definitions of the words "neutral" or "encyclopedia" is it implied that we have to link to a website in order to be neutral about describing it. There's a significant logical leap there.
Additionally, it's not "pure speculation" to note that a link which has been used for disruption in the past is apt to be used for disruption. It's a fairly informed prediction. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- The neutrality / bias issue is rather strong. Removing the link is clearly not "routine". Even if that's not the direct intent of individual users who favor banning a link, the perception that generates is that Wikipedia engages in petty retribution against its detractors. That message gets broadcast inside and outside of wikipedia. If links were not so universal, the absence of a link in one article might not stick out. Here a missing link sticks out like a beacon.Wikidemo (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- A reader's perception of why a link is omitted will vary from person to person. I didn't say that removing this particular link was "routine" - nothing is routine about this article - but it is true that we routinely remove broken and/or unreliable links. The link was broken earlier today, although it seems to be working right now. I think one could reasonably argue that the bias issue is significant, and I think one could reasonably argue that it is not. Same with the disruption issue. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutrality argues in favor of treating it the same as other Web sites, and in all other cases that I know of (including ones regarded as problematic for many reasons, like Stormfront for racism, YouTube for rampant copyvios, etc.) the link is included. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, neutrality argues for treating all websites equally. We routinely remove copyvio links to YouTube, although of course, our article on YouTube links to the site's main page. I don't see the relevance of Stormfront, because we're absolutely not talking about delinking for moral reasons. We're talking about preventing disruption from being carried out in precisely the way it was previously. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- The neutrality / bias issue is rather strong. Removing the link is clearly not "routine". Even if that's not the direct intent of individual users who favor banning a link, the perception that generates is that Wikipedia engages in petty retribution against its detractors. That message gets broadcast inside and outside of wikipedia. If links were not so universal, the absence of a link in one article might not stick out. Here a missing link sticks out like a beacon.Wikidemo (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never said, nor would ever say, "immoral". That is absolutely not a consideration. We routinely remove links where the content isn't reasonably assured of being stable and legal.
- Saying we shouldn't link somewhere because there might just be something illegal or immoral there at some times is pure speculation which shouldn't override the core policy of neutrality. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you can talk about costs versus benefits, that's how. I'm not making an IDONTLIKEIT-based argument; I'm certain of that because I do like the website. I just don't see how it adds much to the article, and I do see how it is likely to be used for disruption - more so than any external link I can think of.
- If there are actual legal risks, then the Foundation will take action. If the risks are merely linking to content that we don't like, then WP:NPOV indicates that that is not a factor we should consider. The web address of a notable website is basic information that should be included in any article. I don't see how you can argue against that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- [ecxn] - the benefits are inarguable and hardly worth discussing. It's the reason we have a URL field, which is almost always filled in, for this and similar infoboxes used in several hundred thousand articles. It's a convenience to the user so they can click over and see for themselves (the basis of the WP:EL guideline). That saves 5-10 seconds of user time, not insignificant in an article that takes 10-20 seconds to read. It's a substantial part of the benefit of the article for those who do decide to investigate. Plus, in the case of articles about web services it serves the encyclopedic purpose of identifying and specifying the name of the site we're talking about. The risk of "gaming", i.e. changing the content or address of the landing page, is slight. Even if it happens it is probably less than the benefit on a reader-by-reader basis. It will probably not mar the experience for the reader, who is told in the article text that ED has abusive, offensive content and can confirm that form themselves. The likelihood of this happening is mitigated by: (1) posting a query to get to the right page, and (2) dealing with it if it happens rather than speculating that it could happen. If a problem arises later we can remove the link in the future. Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not "speculating that it could happen" - I'm observing that it has happened, fully intentionally. The benefits are neither "inarguable" nor "hardly worth discussing". Let's at least be open to the possibility that there are reasonable arguments in both directions. I'm not "obviously" wrong, because if it were truly obvious, I think I would see it. Looking fairly at the question, we're weighing a benefit (help readers find the site) versus a cost (high probability of linking directly to harassment of Wikipedians. A reasonable editor might make either call. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- [ecxn] - the benefits are inarguable and hardly worth discussing. It's the reason we have a URL field, which is almost always filled in, for this and similar infoboxes used in several hundred thousand articles. It's a convenience to the user so they can click over and see for themselves (the basis of the WP:EL guideline). That saves 5-10 seconds of user time, not insignificant in an article that takes 10-20 seconds to read. It's a substantial part of the benefit of the article for those who do decide to investigate. Plus, in the case of articles about web services it serves the encyclopedic purpose of identifying and specifying the name of the site we're talking about. The risk of "gaming", i.e. changing the content or address of the landing page, is slight. Even if it happens it is probably less than the benefit on a reader-by-reader basis. It will probably not mar the experience for the reader, who is told in the article text that ED has abusive, offensive content and can confirm that form themselves. The likelihood of this happening is mitigated by: (1) posting a query to get to the right page, and (2) dealing with it if it happens rather than speculating that it could happen. If a problem arises later we can remove the link in the future. Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the quality and usefulness of this article will be slightly hurt by not including the link. People will find it more difficult to "go to the source", and will have to take our word for it (or our sources words) that what we say is correct. Now, Wikipedia is a gigantic project, so not including one link in one article obviously isn't going to significantly impact the quality of wikipedia as a whole. However, we must reject that line of reasoning, because it could be used to justify pretty much anything. Z00r (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody has to take our word for anything. It's not as if omitting the link will make the site difficult to find. I don't think the argument that people will find it more difficult to verify what we say is very convincing. If they can find a Wikipedia article on ED, then they can find ED, too. The argument is not simply that removing the link is only a small loss; you would be absolutely right to reject such an argument. The argument is that removing the link is a small loss, which is outweighed by the benefit of avoiding so-likely-as-to-be-certain disruption to the project. Letting people Google for "encyclopedia dramatica" is less disruptive than linking directly there and having their featured article be about Wikipedia or some Wikipedian(s). -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:HARASS the link would create a harassment risk for users and is also banne by arbcom and is also on the spamblacklist. MBisanz talk 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support per above. People are harassed via myspace - should we avoid linking to it? Or Facebook? Arbcom left this decision to the community to determine, as they do not involve themselves in content issues; as we now have an article, this is a content issue. I believe there is a way around the spam blacklist using a whitelist. The benefit of a link is for encyclopedic completeness - if we have an article on a website, then to not provide its URL defies logic. Neıl 龱 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support plain-text URL per the WP:BADLINKS guideline. With all respect to Hu12, ArbCom is unlikely to overturn the community consensus developed there in response to the MONGO case. -- Kendrick7talk 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support plain-text URL (since the site is on the meta blacklist). An article about a website usually contains a link to that website. Additionally, what are we preventing from not mentioning the URL? As people have said above, you can always use Google, so it's not like we're stopping anyone from getting to that site. --Conti|✉ 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support either a plaintext link or a working URL (if the blacklist difficulties can be worked around). Having an article about a web site and then refusing to link to that site only shows off our own lack of neutrality. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - this is just why FT2 opposed overturning the clarification. Besides, "not censored" only works if the information does not violate any other policies (AC rulings are policy by the definition laid out by Jimbo in 2004). I don't think ArbCom rulings can be overruled by consensus, because otherwise the AC is more useless than it arguable is now. Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also feel that it fails easily the last three points of the BADLINKS link assessment table (unsurprisingly, as half the reason for the creation of the guideline), may fail the first because it's a wiki, may fail the first because of borderline notability. Sceptre (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. In an encyclopedia article about a website, it is inexcusable to omit the URL of that website. I still have yet to hear a convincing reason why the URL should not be included unless it be for technical restrictions related to the blacklist, in which case that needs to be explained that there is a reason there's no URL. Ford MF (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - plaintext link due to technical issues [spam blacklist]. As mentioned above people can use Google, or some common sense would tell you that if the website is called 'Encyclopedia Dramatica', then trying 'encyclopediadramatica.com' as the URL can't be far off. Not adding a plain text link will not stop curious people finding the site. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:23, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I believe that inclusion of a link in any form would be a net detriment to the encyclopedia.
- I am unconvinced that this discussion can be claimed to represent the "community" but rather I would assert that people likely to have this article watchlisted are a peculiar and unrepresentative subset.
- This discussion is predicated on the false premise that ArbCom seems unable or unwilling to make a decision in this case. In the current request for clarification, of the three arbitrators who have commented, two have expressed the opinion that an omission of the link is best course of action.
- Given the three points above, I intend to implement ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO in full.
- CIreland (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by 'net detriment'? As I mentioned, there is always Google, adding a link will not suddenly make people who have not thought of going to ED think 'ooh, I'll go to ED because there's this link here'. Curious minds always find a way. Yes, ED disparages Wikipedia, but so does Wikipedia Review, and we link there quite freely. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:29, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
- By "net detrmient" I meant to imply that I recognise that an addition of the link would be some small improvement to the article when considered in isolation. However, given the possibility of alienating a number of highly valued editors and the very real issue of past, present and likely future harassment, the negatives outweigh the positives overall. CIreland (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) "...so does Wikipedia Review, and we link there quite freely." Do we? I've been under the impression for some time that we generally don't link to WR, and I've seen links there removed on more than one occasion. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Generally I remove them when I see them, if they are linked to a thread there that harasses or outs a person here, then they should certainly be removed. If they link to a technical thread there (like the rules of the forum), its a little less clear. Its not on the spamblacklist afaik, so it is linkable, just strongly discouraged to certain circumstances. MBisanz talk 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with it, but we could fix the second point by starting an RfC on the issue. --Conti|✉ 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you enforce your own view over the concensus of editors, you will be abusing your admin powers. Z00r (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- To whom is this comment addressed? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- CIreland. (or any admin who ignores concensus to push their POV) Z00r (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there is almost unanimous community consensus that editors in general and adminsitrators in particular should respect and implement the decisions of the arbitration committee. As it happens, I agree with their decision in this case; if they were later to amend their decision (for example, as the result of a consensus within the community) I would also implement such a hypotheical ruling even if I did not agree with it. CIreland (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus can't, by meta's definition, override policy. Sceptre (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- That was directed by Z00r, by the way. I believe that ArbCom rulings are on the same level of policy because of what Jimbo said when he set them up (and back then, he could make such decrees) Sceptre (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put much stock in a legal analysis of jurisdictions and decrees. It sounds a bit lawyer-ish. Consensus can't somehow reject NPOV, because Wikipedia without NPOV isn't Wikipedia; that much is true. It's also true that ArbCom rulings are enforceable, as policy, but it's pretty clear that they're choosing not to play that card in this case. It seems tenuous to me to claim that we can't decide by consensus to do something, when the arbitrators are saying aloud that we have to make this decision as a community. Is the encyclopedia better served by keeping the link, or by removing it?
I tend to agree that we should exclude the link, but I think we need to exclude it for reason-based arguments, not due to some technical point about precedent. That won't hold as well, because an argument about what ArbCom said is just less powerful than an argument about how the quality of the encyclopedia is affected. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put much stock in a legal analysis of jurisdictions and decrees. It sounds a bit lawyer-ish. Consensus can't somehow reject NPOV, because Wikipedia without NPOV isn't Wikipedia; that much is true. It's also true that ArbCom rulings are enforceable, as policy, but it's pretty clear that they're choosing not to play that card in this case. It seems tenuous to me to claim that we can't decide by consensus to do something, when the arbitrators are saying aloud that we have to make this decision as a community. Is the encyclopedia better served by keeping the link, or by removing it?
- That was directed by Z00r, by the way. I believe that ArbCom rulings are on the same level of policy because of what Jimbo said when he set them up (and back then, he could make such decrees) Sceptre (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus can't, by meta's definition, override policy. Sceptre (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there is almost unanimous community consensus that editors in general and adminsitrators in particular should respect and implement the decisions of the arbitration committee. As it happens, I agree with their decision in this case; if they were later to amend their decision (for example, as the result of a consensus within the community) I would also implement such a hypotheical ruling even if I did not agree with it. CIreland (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- CIreland. (or any admin who ignores concensus to push their POV) Z00r (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- To whom is this comment addressed? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by 'net detriment'? As I mentioned, there is always Google, adding a link will not suddenly make people who have not thought of going to ED think 'ooh, I'll go to ED because there's this link here'. Curious minds always find a way. Yes, ED disparages Wikipedia, but so does Wikipedia Review, and we link there quite freely. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:29, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
Support - Also, I added the text of the URL without a link, as consensus seems to be in favor of a URL being given, though I did not create a link as not to violate the Arbcom ruling.--Urban Rose 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that addition of the URL is a violation of the AC ruling as what you really want to do is link to it (I doubt there is any other legitimate use for the URL) Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is one legitimate use for the URL: letting readers know what the URL of the site is. I agree that we would be better off excluding it, but it is a reasonable thing to include in an article about a website, and would be a no-brainer if it weren't for certain complicating factors, with which you're familiar. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which we normally do by links. Sceptre (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um... what? Yes, we normally use links to help readers find websites. What, are we going to (or do we imagine we can) prevent people from finding this one? If we're not going to link, then the URL is one compromise position to take. I think it makes more sense to just exclude it, but I think it's a pretty small difference either way.
As far as I can tell, the reason for not linking is to avoid harassment via the link itself. What reason are you thinking of? Please don't just answer the ArbCom case, because that's not, in itself, a sufficient reason. What reason do you have for excluding the link/URL, in terms of how the encyclopedia is made better or worse? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the conventional way to do things on Wikipedia is blocked, shut down, and a massive crater made to stop people building a path that way, we don't drive 500 miles around the crater to bypass it. Besides, I'm very concerned about the legality of the site - whereas sites like Stormfront and The Pirate Bay (and arguably Wikipedia itself) might toe the line with legality, ED doesn't have the pleasure of doing so. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the crater, I think it's a semantic hang-up. I just didn't understand the thrust of an earlier comment of yours, but it doesn't matter. Obviously you know we're not going to "hide" the site from someone who wants to find it; your position isn't based on that, and I might as well have known better. Regarding your other point, thanks for mentioning that. It seems that you're saying that ED hosts content that is downright illegal. Are you thinking of copyvios, or of something else? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why ask a question you know the answer to? Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer, or I wouldn't ask the question. As far as I know, the ED sysops try to remove illegal content as soon as they know about it. I honestly don't know what illegal content you're thinking of. Also, I can honestly see how it could be very, very useful in this discussion to explain how and why it could be illegal to link to ED. I can see how your explaining that would draw more support to the position that you and I share - namely, that we should do without the link. Would you be willing to make that explanation, in order to make our argument stronger? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know at least one instance where they've photoshopped minors into pornographic images or otherwise portrayed it as such. Copyright violations. Libel so bad the EFF would be hesitant in defending them. Sceptre (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- And if you think I'm kidding about the EFF bit, the EFF have actually said Jason Fortuny could be liable for the Craigslist controversy. I know it's privacy, but still... it's a scary thing when hyperbole turns out to be fact. Sceptre (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, I'm not going to think you're kidding. I might think you're wrong, but I won't think you're kidding.
What you say seems a bit strange. I've seen ED be very militant about removing anything that could be construed as child pornography. I'm skeptical about any claim that they knowingly and persistently host illegal content. If a lawsuit could be brought against ED, surely someone would do it, right?
I tend to think that we should avoid the link because it's not stable, i.e., we can't guarantee that it will work; and also because it's a tempting piece of bait for easy trolling by those who have used it that way before. If it's true that they're hosting a lot of content that's simply illegal in the US, then I think the argument for linking becomes altogether weaker, and the legal issue might become the strongest argument for removal of the link.
I wonder, would it make sense to apply something like a YouTube standard? I mean, at any given moment, YouTube could be - almost certainly is - hosting a lot of illegal content, but YouTube takes illegal material down if it's flagged and brought to their attention. We go ahead and link to the main page of YouTube, but we don't generally link to videos there, and certainly not to videos that we know to have illegal content. Is ED in a position similar to YouTube regarding illegal content, or are they further afield of the law? Will it really just come down to copyright violations? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, I'm not going to think you're kidding. I might think you're wrong, but I won't think you're kidding.
- And if you think I'm kidding about the EFF bit, the EFF have actually said Jason Fortuny could be liable for the Craigslist controversy. I know it's privacy, but still... it's a scary thing when hyperbole turns out to be fact. Sceptre (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know at least one instance where they've photoshopped minors into pornographic images or otherwise portrayed it as such. Copyright violations. Libel so bad the EFF would be hesitant in defending them. Sceptre (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer, or I wouldn't ask the question. As far as I know, the ED sysops try to remove illegal content as soon as they know about it. I honestly don't know what illegal content you're thinking of. Also, I can honestly see how it could be very, very useful in this discussion to explain how and why it could be illegal to link to ED. I can see how your explaining that would draw more support to the position that you and I share - namely, that we should do without the link. Would you be willing to make that explanation, in order to make our argument stronger? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why ask a question you know the answer to? Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the crater, I think it's a semantic hang-up. I just didn't understand the thrust of an earlier comment of yours, but it doesn't matter. Obviously you know we're not going to "hide" the site from someone who wants to find it; your position isn't based on that, and I might as well have known better. Regarding your other point, thanks for mentioning that. It seems that you're saying that ED hosts content that is downright illegal. Are you thinking of copyvios, or of something else? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the conventional way to do things on Wikipedia is blocked, shut down, and a massive crater made to stop people building a path that way, we don't drive 500 miles around the crater to bypass it. Besides, I'm very concerned about the legality of the site - whereas sites like Stormfront and The Pirate Bay (and arguably Wikipedia itself) might toe the line with legality, ED doesn't have the pleasure of doing so. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um... what? Yes, we normally use links to help readers find websites. What, are we going to (or do we imagine we can) prevent people from finding this one? If we're not going to link, then the URL is one compromise position to take. I think it makes more sense to just exclude it, but I think it's a pretty small difference either way.
- Which we normally do by links. Sceptre (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is one legitimate use for the URL: letting readers know what the URL of the site is. I agree that we would be better off excluding it, but it is a reasonable thing to include in an article about a website, and would be a no-brainer if it weren't for certain complicating factors, with which you're familiar. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support 1/2 way My opinion is support an unlinked url, but not allow a direct link to the site. --Cube lurker (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, assuming the article passes its current AFD nomination (as it looks likely to). I don't deny that ED is a 'BADSITE' and hosts harassment of Wikipedia editors, but that's outweighed by the clear and obvious value of the link in this article (which will hopefully be recognised by ArbCom). I don't think it should be linked to from any other article. Terraxos (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Hiding the URL is pointless; anyone with a couple of brain cells to knock together can Google it anyway. Shii (tock) 01:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question - What do supporters of linking think about the possibility that the content at ED is illegal due to copyright and possible other problems? Would you still want to maintain a link to it in that case? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The link should be to the court case convicting ED of violations, not opinions of non lawyers.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Does that argument imply that we should go ahead and link to any copyright violation that hasn't been the subject of a court conviction? We regularly delink copyright violations without writs from a judge. Am I missing something? This is an honest question. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- My view, we're responsible for violations on our site, not the sites of others, linked to or not. Note as implied by my comment, i'm not a liscenced lawyer, anyone with a liscence to practice law is free to completely invalidate my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are deep and subtle legal issues involved here that are not present in the type of sites that are routinely delinked - free speech, parody, satire, hate speech, obscenity laws, etc etc are all complicated issues that editors here are not qualified to pass legal judgement on. Z00r (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then bounce the issue to Wikimedia legal counsel, the proper place to decide such things. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right, exactly. We should link to it unless there is overwhelming legal evidence to the contrary (eg: court case conviction), or direction to unlink from Wikimedia's legal team. Z00r (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem supporting Foundation legal council as opposed to a group of editors elected to arbcom in this matter.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then bounce the issue to Wikimedia legal counsel, the proper place to decide such things. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are deep and subtle legal issues involved here that are not present in the type of sites that are routinely delinked - free speech, parody, satire, hate speech, obscenity laws, etc etc are all complicated issues that editors here are not qualified to pass legal judgement on. Z00r (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- My view, we're responsible for violations on our site, not the sites of others, linked to or not. Note as implied by my comment, i'm not a liscenced lawyer, anyone with a liscence to practice law is free to completely invalidate my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Does that argument imply that we should go ahead and link to any copyright violation that hasn't been the subject of a court conviction? We regularly delink copyright violations without writs from a judge. Am I missing something? This is an honest question. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The link should be to the court case convicting ED of violations, not opinions of non lawyers.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral.
Opposeper WP:PROBLEMLINKS. I have no strong opinion about the Wikipedia critiques. But ED is a site which openly provides illegal information, such as child pornography. We should not be linking to such a site. --Elonka 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)- I'm sorry, what? ED hosts child pornography? As far as I know, which is pretty far, they absolutely do not. They're pretty militant about deleting any child porn that gets posted there and banning anyone who posts it. Let's not base our decision on fiction. If there were child porn on ED, then we'd be in a whole different ballpark, but there isn't. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- It might even be considered libelous to accuse them of hosting child porn if this is false; those here who are bandying about intimations of illegality should try to refrain from committing any themselves. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know child porn when I see it. It's disgusting, it's pornographic, and it involves children. I won't link to it here, but if anyone wants me to send them the links off-wiki, I am available via email and IMs. You may also wish to review the international definitions of child pornography.[1] If ED would like to remove any images from their site which exploit children, I may reconsider my opinion, but as long as they host those images, my oppose stands. I will also be contacting law enforcement. --Elonka 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've emailed you. If there is any of that on ED, I'd like to see it removed quickly. I'm confident that the people running the site are also committed to keeping such material off of their site, and if they know about it, they'll delete it with prejudice. The maintenance of such content would certainly be a compelling argument against linking there, even in an article about them. We've got an article about child pornography, but we don't use the occasion to link to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there's child porn on there forget noting it to wiki admins and alert the FBI. I fully support looooong prison terms for that sort of behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The FBI will go after whoever posted it, not a site admin who deletes it as soon as they see it. ED makes it pretty clear to users that they'll cooperate with law enforcement if it comes to that. If you really hate child pornography, you might like ED, on a certain level. They helped get one pedophile arrested. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good to hear. And that's what I meant, tell the FBI that some lowlife posted it and let them arrest that degenerate. And leave the commonfolk (i.e. wiki admins) out of these legal matters.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The FBI will go after whoever posted it, not a site admin who deletes it as soon as they see it. ED makes it pretty clear to users that they'll cooperate with law enforcement if it comes to that. If you really hate child pornography, you might like ED, on a certain level. They helped get one pedophile arrested. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there's child porn on there forget noting it to wiki admins and alert the FBI. I fully support looooong prison terms for that sort of behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've emailed you. If there is any of that on ED, I'd like to see it removed quickly. I'm confident that the people running the site are also committed to keeping such material off of their site, and if they know about it, they'll delete it with prejudice. The maintenance of such content would certainly be a compelling argument against linking there, even in an article about them. We've got an article about child pornography, but we don't use the occasion to link to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what? ED hosts child pornography? As far as I know, which is pretty far, they absolutely do not. They're pretty militant about deleting any child porn that gets posted there and banning anyone who posts it. Let's not base our decision on fiction. If there were child porn on ED, then we'd be in a whole different ballpark, but there isn't. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support for many reasons listed above. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Legal issues are not relevant to this discussion Legal problems are an issue for the Foundation and their general counsel. Non-experts should not speculate about possible legal problems. It's essentially the same as a legal threat: Do what I want or Wikipedia will face legal challenges. -Chunky Rice (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is it essentially the same as a legal threat when we remove links to copyright violations in the form of, say, song lyrics? At what point does a suggestion that we decide not to link to illegal material become essentially the same as a legal threat? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- We have a policy agaisnt that, so, no, it's not the same. Wikipedia editors have the ability to act within our own policies, but we should not engage in speculation about what is legal and what is illegal. -Chunky Rice (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, at what point does it cross from obviously illegal to speculation? Is it when you see copyright images being used without permission? Is it when you see child pornography? Is it somewhere in between those two? Besides, where did our policies come from in the first place? We just wrote down the things we were doing that seemed to be good ideas. That doesn't preclude our having any more good ideas. Your contention that we're only permitted to act within pre-existing policy would seem to imply otherwise. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- We have a policy agaisnt that, so, no, it's not the same. Wikipedia editors have the ability to act within our own policies, but we should not engage in speculation about what is legal and what is illegal. -Chunky Rice (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is it essentially the same as a legal threat when we remove links to copyright violations in the form of, say, song lyrics? At what point does a suggestion that we decide not to link to illegal material become essentially the same as a legal threat? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support working external link. English Wikipedia should not be censored. --Dezidor (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Having an article about a website and not linking to said website is just ridiculous. It would be a matter of concern if ED had illegal things, but they don't. Do you think their host would allow them to keep running if that was the case? They have had to be squeaky clean in order to dodge Co$ lawyers from shutting them down. --Macdaddy5539 (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:PROBLEMLINKS and ArbCom. No value to the link so omit it. Lot's of harrassment and banned users came from there. No need to give them information about click throughs to their site. No need to give it an extra Google boost. No link is necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- ED is already the first response from Google to Encyclopedia Dramatica. As well, I was fairly under the impression that something in Wikipedia source code prevented outbound links to other sites from impacting click-through numbers or something like that. So basically, we can safely put the link in and nothing will happen. (Hey, if you were really thinking through your irrational hatred of this site, you'd WANT the link up. Imagine more and more people going to ED. They have stability problems already, right? A few thousand more accesses a day would toast their servers, so buck up and support the link addition.) Howa0082 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no hatred of the site. It's actually somewhat amusing. It just isn't encyclopedic and it's a troll magnet. Nor do I have a desire to crash their site. And I do believe that Wikipedia sounds out the referring site when you click on a link inside WP as I've been directed to special "Welcome pages" on other sites so the info is available. The only thing irrational here is the desire for ED trolls to disrupt wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- ED is already the first response from Google to Encyclopedia Dramatica. As well, I was fairly under the impression that something in Wikipedia source code prevented outbound links to other sites from impacting click-through numbers or something like that. So basically, we can safely put the link in and nothing will happen. (Hey, if you were really thinking through your irrational hatred of this site, you'd WANT the link up. Imagine more and more people going to ED. They have stability problems already, right? A few thousand more accesses a day would toast their servers, so buck up and support the link addition.) Howa0082 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support If we have an article about a website then we have to give a link to it. If we do not feel its necessary to have a a link of the website then it should not be necessary to have it as an article. One comes with the other. I suspect common sense is not prevailing here due to the external personal battles of various editors who are personally and emotionally involved with the subject of this article. These editors should recuse themselves as its probably disruptive to this article's improvement.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's Already linked. see Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#Whitelisted--Hu12 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion mooted
This discussion has been mooted by the clarification's archiving clerk saying remedy 1 of MONGO is still in effect, and Jimbo has clarified that consensus cannot override ArbCom. Use of the URL is lawyering around the ruling and bypassing the spam blacklist, and is inappropriate behaviour. Sceptre (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? You're conveniently ignoring the "unless the community decides ED warrants an article" part. —David Levy 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Use of the URL provides the relevant information, does not violate any ArbCom ruling, and is appropriate for an encyclopedia with an article on the subject. Removing the text URL three times in one day where it was added three times by two different people per consensus on this talk page is inappropriate. WODUP 18:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. It violates remedy #1 of MONGO. And don't say "it's an URL not a link!", you're not fooling anyone. Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't say that a plain-text URL is a link. You say that I'm not fooling anyone like I'm trying to fool someone. AGF? WODUP 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. It violates remedy #1 of MONGO. And don't say "it's an URL not a link!", you're not fooling anyone. Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, did you actually read the diff you linked to? It says exactly the opposite of what you say. Z00r (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I, too, read exactly the opposite in these comments from Rlevse. To paraphrase: If there's consensus to have an article on ED, we can link to it. (That's what I read from Rlevse's comments, not from the Arbcom clarification in general.) --Conti|✉ 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, the URL is not a link. MONGO says nothing about text-based URLs, and your only argument against having the URL is that users who want it there are all part of a conspiracy to restore the external link to the site. I don't care if the article has a link or not, but not even having the URL is just censorship, and you're the only one I've heard who doesn't want the URL there. Please stop being disruptive by using a false argument to support your unilaterally going against consensus by removing that URL.--Urban Rose 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, you and I, on that diff, are reading entirely different things. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then why would he say "remedy 1 is still in effect" knowing that a community consensus would invalidate that statement? Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, let's make this as clear as possible: "Remedy one of the original ruling, yes, I'd say so. ED links removable unless the community decides ED warrants an article, which I personally think it does not warrant one."[2] (Emphasis mine) Do you see our point now? --Conti|✉ 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then why would he say "remedy 1 is still in effect" knowing that a community consensus would invalidate that statement? Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
For people claiming ArbCom's decision applies to the URL and/or stands regardless of the later amendment to the MONGO case, please see: WT:RfArb#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. -- Kendrick7talk 19:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it applies to the URL. Do you really think the AC would say that the URL is fine, but putting square brackets around it is not? Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre - it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Kirills clarified the arbitrators finding here - ArbCom aren't stopping a link provided there's consensus to add it in, which of course there clearly is. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aw... now Sceptre is the official dead-horse-beater? When did I get evicted from that traditional role of mine? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The way I read the above ArbCom-related links makes it seem that an article about ED can be created if the community so desires, but a link is prohibited. My first thought is that any link (active or text) should be kept from the page, but when I think about what Google does with alleged phishing sites, I can't see the harm in a text link. I doubt most computer users will bother copying and pasting it if they can't click it easily. --clpo13(talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Kirill states: "The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.". Therefore I'd suggest that the current comment next to the text link is incorrect. All that seems to be preventing us from having a real link is the spam blacklist. Martinp23 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal clarification
First, while I am not an arb, I am an arb clerk and Ryan is an arb clerk helper. Not that that means anything except that we deal with this stuff more than most users. That being said, let me clarify and expound on my comment that was linked to.
It seems to me the arbs are clearly saying that it is up to the community to decide if there should be an ED article. The community needs to decide that first, as if there is not one, all else is moot as the ruling clearly says no links if there isn't an article. I do not see there being an article trumping arb rulings as they said the community can decide if there should be one. The external links are dependent upon the article being there; no article = no links (prob due to notability, then there's the harm issue). Note the amended remedy was even clearer "- It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):" I have to agree that Sceptre is selectively using bits of the case here. Sceptre please look at the whole picture. If further input from the arbs or arb clerks is needed, let us know. Just for the record, my own personal vote would be no ED article. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Whitelisted
I've whitelisted this specific link, http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page , for use on this article only. Whitelisted per arbcom ruling allowing for consensus in this matter for this articles content. clearly there is consensus for the link. so here it is. The the general blacklisting of the sites link will not be lifted per arbcom, however variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable. --Hu12 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |