Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 8
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Enric Naval in topic RFC:Dead link or live link?
 | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
RFC:Dead link or live link?
The dispute is based around whether there should be a live link (e.g. google) or a dead link (e.g. www.google.com) targetted to the Encyclopedia Dramatica homepage. The concerns of a live link are based around the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica has been involved in serious harassment of Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO) and Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#In articles suggests using a dead link as a compromise to linking directly. The users who are in favour of a live link believe that Wikipedia should not be censored and that having a dead link diminishes the quality of the overall article to the reader. 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- By the way - please feel free to chop and change the above statement. I've tried to make it as neutral as possible, but if people feel it isn't, then please alter it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for including a live link
- Apart from legal issues, the determination that a website indisputably of most relevance to an article is an unsuitable link target does not reflect a neutral point of view.
- It is the stylistic norm for articles about websites to include a live link to the site in the infobox.
- Live links are a convenience to the user, and supported by the guideline WP:EL.
- Omitting a live link stands out as different and calls attention to the article.
- Omitting the link does not accomplish anything - the user can visit the site if they want.
- For the above reasons, we include live links to other organizations—such as the Ku Klux Klan—that disseminate content widely perceived as objectionable.
- A deliberate decision to omit a live link appears petty and demonstrates favoritism towards Wikipedia by singling out its critics for special treatment.
- Omitting the link solves a problem that does not exist - there is no obvious copyright violation, harassment, etc., on the page. It is based on speculation that there could be.
Reasons for including a dead link
- Encyclopedia Dramatica contains pages with live links to sites that contain viruses and/or exploit web browsers.
- Any examples of this? Discombobulator (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, any action based on this needs to be based on actual things present now, not speculative assertions about what they might put somewhere, somehow, sometime. (But don't give live links to such browser exploits if the do exist!) *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- search ED for links to nimp, a popular browser crashing site. There's a link to one in this section. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Fctc#JOIN_THE_FCTC_NOW.21 Dan Beale-Cocks 12:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly that is a problem, but how does a dead link address that problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- search ED for links to nimp, a popular browser crashing site. There's a link to one in this section. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Fctc#JOIN_THE_FCTC_NOW.21 Dan Beale-Cocks 12:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia Dramatica sponsors harassment and engages in the practice of publishing nonpublic private information of Wikipedians and others.[1][2]
- Wikileaks publishes information that others want to keep private, and has even gotten in legal trouble for this. We still link there.
- Knowing this fact about Wikileaks, you haven't removed the link?--Hu12 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- We don't censor our coverage of things on the basis that they are objectionable. Wikidemo (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes we do Wikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- We don't censor our coverage of things on the basis that they are objectionable. Wikidemo (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Knowing this fact about Wikileaks, you haven't removed the link?--Hu12 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikileaks publishes information that others want to keep private, and has even gotten in legal trouble for this. We still link there.
- Live Links to ED has been used as a method of harrassment attack and humiliation on wikipedians.[3]
- Keeping from hurting the feelings of Wikipedians is not a valid reason to depart from the core policy of neutrality. [4] has published an article with a Photoshopped picture showing the Pope in a shirt with an obscene slogan regarding alleged sexuality; that seems pretty harassing and humiliating, but I guess that's OK since the Pope isn't a Wikipedian. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- So linking to a site which may put "other" people in danger is fine, so long as it doesn't sponsors efforts, promote, or encourage the harassment of you?--Hu12 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- From the character of discussion, it's quite clear that the problem is not at all harassing "others," but Wikipedians specifically. Picture it from a reader's perspective, if you will -- it looks as if the only people we care about are ourselves. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- So linking to a site which may put "other" people in danger is fine, so long as it doesn't sponsors efforts, promote, or encourage the harassment of you?--Hu12 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keeping from hurting the feelings of Wikipedians is not a valid reason to depart from the core policy of neutrality. [4] has published an article with a Photoshopped picture showing the Pope in a shirt with an obscene slogan regarding alleged sexuality; that seems pretty harassing and humiliating, but I guess that's OK since the Pope isn't a Wikipedian. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Featured articles", which are displayed on the main page, have been used as a method of attack on wikipedians.[5][6]
- Irrelevant. We link to lots of sites that attack lots of people, places, and things; there's no reason we should give our own people any special immunity. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heres a relevent, and good reason, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO--Hu12 (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- That arbitration case does not bear on this discussion. It concerned harassment by linking to attack pages. That is not what is under consideration here.Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If any link ought to be banned it's the one to that silly MONGO decision that you keep trotting out... it's not ArbCom's finest hour, in my opinion. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's keep right on linking the amended, clearly irrelevant case. Is misapplying selectively quoted policy the best you can do? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I read the amendment, the amendment allows the existence of this article. It does not allow this article to link to the domain. Add the link at your own risk, and don't complain if someone blocks you. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I would complain. Blocking is done to prevent ongoing disruption, not to take sides in an issue that's already been decided otherwise, and certainly not to take sides on an issue where there are two valid positions. Any administrator who would consider that should read the discussion first and discuss it in the appropriate place, and make sure they have some consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I read the amendment, the amendment allows the existence of this article. It does not allow this article to link to the domain. Add the link at your own risk, and don't complain if someone blocks you. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Heres a relevent, and good reason, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO--Hu12 (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. We link to lots of sites that attack lots of people, places, and things; there's no reason we should give our own people any special immunity. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Links to ED fail Wikipedia's core content policies "Verifiability" and "Reliable sources".
- How so? —David Levy 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- How can an external link possibly fail a policy relating to the sourcing of content? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Conversely, the same way claiming exclusion fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. How can an external link possibly fail a policy relating to the Neutrality of content? is this a "Verifiable Reliable Source" ? Does ED have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?[7]--Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Completely irrelevant. The link isn't being used as a source for anything other than to show the existence of the site, for which it's a perfectly fine reliable source (except when its server is crashed!) *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- ED is not being used as a source and I would be opposed to it being so. This is about an external link, not a source. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is a source, and subject to Wikipedia's core content policies "Verifiability" and "Reliable sources". Additionaly there is no policy in which requires, guarantees or mandates links for inclusion. --Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, that's such a terrible misreading of policy I can only assume it's intentional. An external link is not a "source" unless it's being cited to support some specific statement; to that end, please name any statement being specifically sourced to this URL. Pretty please. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is a source, and subject to Wikipedia's core content policies "Verifiability" and "Reliable sources". Additionaly there is no policy in which requires, guarantees or mandates links for inclusion. --Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Conversely, the same way claiming exclusion fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. How can an external link possibly fail a policy relating to the Neutrality of content? is this a "Verifiable Reliable Source" ? Does ED have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?[7]--Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Linking to copyrighted works, 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 [8]).[9]
- I acknowledge OTHERCRAPEXISTS and thus hope this issue will be raised on The Pirate Bay, amongst other articles. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you assure that ED has obtained the proper permissions and is Not carrying works in violation or copyright? Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement...... fairly self explanatory.--Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I acknowledge OTHERCRAPEXISTS and thus hope this issue will be raised on The Pirate Bay, amongst other articles. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fails External links policy and is prohibited by Restrictions on linking, additionaly fails WP:LINKSTOAVOID (#1, #2, #12)
- Note the blurb at the start of WP:LINKSTOAVOID; "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" (I note the exception listed there and here). Restrictions on linking begs the question "should we link to YouTube" since linking to the ED Main Page will have a similar affect. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:COPYRIGHT(ie.Restrictions). and explicitly fails #1, #2, #12 --Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- And note the preamble of that whole set of clauses, "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article", which makes your whole line of argument irrelevant. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly, you've misinterperated the full statement/clause, Which reads "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking——one should avoid:".... (emphasisadded to and). Clearly and invalidates your statement. furthermore... "——one should avoid:" #1, #2, #12, Which it explicitly fails. Finaly, there is no guideline or policy in which external links are in anyway required, guaranteed or mandated by any specific Wikipedia policy to be included.--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- My reading of Restrictions on linking is that the ED link passes: it's been whitelisted for the purpose of linking from this article (so it clearly passes #2), and #1 seems aimed at links to specific copyright-violating content (e.g., specific videos on youtube) rather than general purpose links to sites that may or may not have copyvio somewhere within them (e.g. links to the main page of youtube). Your reading appears tendentious to me. Care to attempt to justify it a little better? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The scope of material implied is obviously broader than just video's.--Hu12 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's not relevant. That restriction is about linking specifically to copyrighted material. For example, linking to an illicit copy of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's stone in an article about that book. It's certainly not about linking to any site that may or may not have copyright infringements somewhere on it. Hell, Wikipedia fails that standard. We have a shitload of copyright violations here. We root them out, but at any given moment, there are certain to be a few egregious ones. Any Web 2.0 site will have copyright violations. That's not what that style guideline is about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works--Hu12 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, ED claims Fair use for most/all of the copyrighted works they use. I don't know how valid that claim is, of course, but it should be mentioned here anyhow, I guess. Anyhow, if we'd be that strict with not linking to copyrighted works, we should also remove all links to Wikia. And Youtube. And Google. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, IMHO, means that we shouldn't link to a copy of a book, or to a torrent of a film or something. We still link to the Pirate Bay at The Pirate Bay, tho. --Conti|✉ 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pirate Bay assists in the communication, don't think they actualy Host, the content. If they do host copyrighted content, then thats a whole nother issue that needs be taken to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Hu12 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, ED claims Fair use for most/all of the copyrighted works they use. I don't know how valid that claim is, of course, but it should be mentioned here anyhow, I guess. Anyhow, if we'd be that strict with not linking to copyrighted works, we should also remove all links to Wikia. And Youtube. And Google. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, IMHO, means that we shouldn't link to a copy of a book, or to a torrent of a film or something. We still link to the Pirate Bay at The Pirate Bay, tho. --Conti|✉ 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works--Hu12 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's not relevant. That restriction is about linking specifically to copyrighted material. For example, linking to an illicit copy of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's stone in an article about that book. It's certainly not about linking to any site that may or may not have copyright infringements somewhere on it. Hell, Wikipedia fails that standard. We have a shitload of copyright violations here. We root them out, but at any given moment, there are certain to be a few egregious ones. Any Web 2.0 site will have copyright violations. That's not what that style guideline is about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The scope of material implied is obviously broader than just video's.--Hu12 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- My reading of Restrictions on linking is that the ED link passes: it's been whitelisted for the purpose of linking from this article (so it clearly passes #2), and #1 seems aimed at links to specific copyright-violating content (e.g., specific videos on youtube) rather than general purpose links to sites that may or may not have copyvio somewhere within them (e.g. links to the main page of youtube). Your reading appears tendentious to me. Care to attempt to justify it a little better? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly, you've misinterperated the full statement/clause, Which reads "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking——one should avoid:".... (emphasisadded to and). Clearly and invalidates your statement. furthermore... "——one should avoid:" #1, #2, #12, Which it explicitly fails. Finaly, there is no guideline or policy in which external links are in anyway required, guaranteed or mandated by any specific Wikipedia policy to be included.--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- And note the preamble of that whole set of clauses, "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article", which makes your whole line of argument irrelevant. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:COPYRIGHT(ie.Restrictions). and explicitly fails #1, #2, #12 --Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note the blurb at the start of WP:LINKSTOAVOID; "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" (I note the exception listed there and here). Restrictions on linking begs the question "should we link to YouTube" since linking to the ED Main Page will have a similar affect. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fails WP:BLP by practice of publishing nonpublic private information of Wikipedians[10]
- WP:BLP is policy for creating articles in wikipedia, not linking to other websites. Since ED is not being used as a reference for any BLP article, this argument is invalid. --Kevman459 (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, you're quoting an arb case that has since been amended and is no longer relevant. If you can't make arguments without quoting outdated, irrelevant policy, maybe it's time to admit you don't have anything to stand on. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was amended to clarify that an article on ED could be created. The relevants decisions about the links were not amended, see the permission to remove on sight links to ED and any material imported from it and permission to block for any appropiate period of time any editor that inserts links to ED (the last link is the reason because it's not wise to unilaterally add a live link) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to read through the subsequent history on this talk page - there's no standing administrative / arbcom prohibition against adding a live link here, and the consensus reflected on the talk page is to include a link, likely a live one.Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I read the last section on the talk page, and I can see Kirill saying that he doesn't mind links being added, FT2 saying that they shouldn't be ever added, and James F. agreeing with FT2 and making a comment about agreeing with Kirill that I don't understand. The clarification made no amendment to the case. Seeing this, I suppose that if this RfC decides to add a live link on this article, it will probably be ok to add it, but I don't think at all that any sort of link to ED, live or dead, can be done anywhere on wikipedia outside this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant this talk page. I believe we've (meaning the people on this page, through some consensus that was not without disagreement) collectively decided several days ago that there is no standing arbcom prohibition on a live link and that a live link to the main page should be included in the infobox. You could argue either way what Arbcom meant by the ruling, and whether it should apply here, and they would be reasonable arguments. But Arbcom rules by decree and not precedent, and it does not seem to be decreeing anything right now. If Arbcom disagrees they are certainly free to tell us otherwise, but absent action from Arbcom it's a moot issue (and kind of irrelevant) to try to reason through what Arbcom wants. Wikidemo (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see such a consensus, and the arbcom decision looks like standing to me, barring a new case or a new clarification making a new one. I'm just saying that if this RfC decides to use a live link then the arbs won't take action against it because it's a reasonable decision to use one live ED link on the article about ED. However, try to start ading live ED links over wikipedia and you will discover fastly if their decision stands or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per the March 2008 amendment of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, "The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes." Since that time, the committee has tacitly or explicitly declined to authoritatively decide the specific matter of this link on this article, whether banning or allowing it. If the committee had any strong feeling, here, I have no doubt they would let us know. Absent such a prohibition, it rightly falls to the community to decide the issue. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, ok, but only for links on this article (btw, if this RfC results on a live link, then I'll make a separate request to use live links also on the inline references) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Youtube fails then too, search "wikipedians" ... Hypatea (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- We already have a bot that removes links to youtube done by new users. I'm amazed that the youtube is not included on the spam blacklist, it appears that it's ocassionally added on a useful fashion --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Youtube fails then too, search "wikipedians" ... Hypatea (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, ok, but only for links on this article (btw, if this RfC results on a live link, then I'll make a separate request to use live links also on the inline references) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per the March 2008 amendment of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, "The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes." Since that time, the committee has tacitly or explicitly declined to authoritatively decide the specific matter of this link on this article, whether banning or allowing it. If the committee had any strong feeling, here, I have no doubt they would let us know. Absent such a prohibition, it rightly falls to the community to decide the issue. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see such a consensus, and the arbcom decision looks like standing to me, barring a new case or a new clarification making a new one. I'm just saying that if this RfC decides to use a live link then the arbs won't take action against it because it's a reasonable decision to use one live ED link on the article about ED. However, try to start ading live ED links over wikipedia and you will discover fastly if their decision stands or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant this talk page. I believe we've (meaning the people on this page, through some consensus that was not without disagreement) collectively decided several days ago that there is no standing arbcom prohibition on a live link and that a live link to the main page should be included in the infobox. You could argue either way what Arbcom meant by the ruling, and whether it should apply here, and they would be reasonable arguments. But Arbcom rules by decree and not precedent, and it does not seem to be decreeing anything right now. If Arbcom disagrees they are certainly free to tell us otherwise, but absent action from Arbcom it's a moot issue (and kind of irrelevant) to try to reason through what Arbcom wants. Wikidemo (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I read the last section on the talk page, and I can see Kirill saying that he doesn't mind links being added, FT2 saying that they shouldn't be ever added, and James F. agreeing with FT2 and making a comment about agreeing with Kirill that I don't understand. The clarification made no amendment to the case. Seeing this, I suppose that if this RfC decides to add a live link on this article, it will probably be ok to add it, but I don't think at all that any sort of link to ED, live or dead, can be done anywhere on wikipedia outside this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to read through the subsequent history on this talk page - there's no standing administrative / arbcom prohibition against adding a live link here, and the consensus reflected on the talk page is to include a link, likely a live one.Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was amended to clarify that an article on ED could be created. The relevants decisions about the links were not amended, see the permission to remove on sight links to ED and any material imported from it and permission to block for any appropiate period of time any editor that inserts links to ED (the last link is the reason because it's not wise to unilaterally add a live link) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again, you're quoting an arb case that has since been amended and is no longer relevant. If you can't make arguments without quoting outdated, irrelevant policy, maybe it's time to admit you don't have anything to stand on. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is policy for creating articles in wikipedia, not linking to other websites. Since ED is not being used as a reference for any BLP article, this argument is invalid. --Kevman459 (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Door #3
- do what articles should be doing for every external link: Use that link as a source. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)