User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Use of Websites

'''This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of the use of websites, either as verifiable sources, or as links, within the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.

Personal Websites as Verifiable Sources
Wikipedia policy permits any material added to Wikipedia to be challenged, by making a request for verifiable sources. If a verifiable source, meeting certain requirements is not produced, the material in question may be deleted. Not all sources qualify as a response to such a challenge. The Wikipedia policy Verifiability specifically mentions the following:


 * Self-published sources - Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

As mediator, I will ask whether any of websites with which the parties are associated is controlled by a well-known professional in the relevant field. By a professional in a field, I understand someone who is recognized as a professional in the field by others, for example by being hired as such by an employer, or by the awarding of advanced degrees in the field by a University.

It is the mediators opinion that if a statement in Wikipedia is challenged for a verifiable source, and the source offered is a website not controlled by a well-known professional in the appropriate field, then the challenge should be considered to have not been met. The statement in Wikipedia may be deleted. Please note, that the question of whether an article may link to a given website is another matter altogether. The opinion here relates only to whether certain material may be deleted because that material has not been supported by suitable sources.

Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108: My site is not associated or controlled by a well-known professional researcher or journalist. I agree with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding this matter. SSS108 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: Not applicable. Thaumaturgic 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries: Agree but please note that saiguru and exbaba contain much more than self-published information but also copies of book excerpts, newspaper articles excerpts, scholarly articles, such as articles by Beyerstein and Nagel. Andries 20:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please express whether, in your opinion, any website with which you are associated, is controlled by a well-known professional in the field.


 * SSS108: My site is not associated or controlled by a well-known professional researcher or journalist. SSS108 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: Not applicable Thaumaturgic 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries: The website exbaba with which I am affiliated is controlled by a webmaster whom I cannot control and is not controlled by a professional researcher or journalist. Though, occasionally Nagel who published a peer reviewed article on SSB makes comments on the contents of exbaba.

Linking to Personal Websites
Please point out to the mediator any Wikipedia policies or guidelines which you believe are relevent to the issues of when it is appropriate or inappropriate to include a link within any part of a Wikipedia article (including 'external links') to a personal website or a website which is not controlled by a professional in the appropriate field. You may point out these policies or guidelines here. Please do not discuss in this section the question of using websites as a verifiable source. --BostonMA 03:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The mediator is not familiar with any Wikipedia policies or guidelines which address the issues of when it is appropriate or inappropriate to include a link within any part of a Wikipedia article (including 'external links') to a personal website or a website which is not controlled by a professional in the appropriate field. The mediator understand this as a different issue than the question of using websites as a verifiable source. The mediator made a request to the parties to point out to any such relevent policies or guidelines, but to date, no such policies or guidelines have been brought forward. Wikipedia may not have such policies or guidelines. The Mediator believes that in the absense of knowledge of such policies or guidelines, the merits of having links to (personal etc.) websites should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the above opinion of the mediator. Please discuss unrelated issues elsewhere.


 * SSS108: Disagree: See Discussion below SSS108 06:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: Disagree Thaumaturgic 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries: Agree. Andries 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to Documents on Websites
SSS108, I have been pondering the question of links to websites. I am not asking you to do this work now, but if it should become necesssary, would you be willing to host the various documents which are currently on the opponents sites on your own site? The documents I refer to are those that may be properly used as sources on Wikipedia. Would you be willing to host them in such a way that they are segregated from your other material. That is, a page containing the document would contain just the document, nothing else, and no links to other pages? Please let me know if that is something you would be able or willing to do. --BostonMA 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, BostonMA. I already offered to this in the past. I'd provide the references within no framed pages, without any links to my site and without personal comments. SSS108 talk-email 18:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, if SSS108 were to host various documents that are also hosted on sites critical of SSS, and if those documents are on pages which are segregated from the rest of his site, such that they contain only those documents and no links, would you have any objections to the links in the article being changed to point to those pages on SSS108's site? --BostonMA 19:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will think about it. It will be clear that I intensely dislike SSS108's website for various reasons that I have abundantly made clear. Andries 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And I, similarly, intensely dislike Andries and Anti-Sai Activist's websites for various reasons I made abundantly clear. Unlike Anti-Sai Sites, the references on my site would have not links that go to my main page. Nor would it have personal comments. Less Bias = More Good. To get a better idea of the page I would be using, here it is (I would simply insert the text): Proof-Plate Also, if the pages are "pointed" to my site, they can, at any moment be changed back to "point" to Anti-Sai Sites. Again, notice the trend of Anti-Sai Activists to maintain control over the information. Why? SSS108 talk-email 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * by "point", I mean by using .htaccess SSS108 talk-email 20:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion About External Links & Personal Homepages
I would like to point out the following links:
 * Reliability
 * Personal Websites As Primary Sources
 * Personal Websites As Secondary Sources
 * Partisan Websites
 * Great For Easy Access References should be placed here, rather than on Anti/Pro Sites. SSS108 06:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Do External Links Constitute Sources per Wikipedia Guidelines/Policies
A number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines address the use of websites as sources. An issue arises as to whether all links to websites appearing in Wikipedia articles are sources (per those policies and guidelines). In particular, are links within an External Links section sources, and must they meet the requirements of sources? The mediator's understanding of sources, as in verifiable sources or reputable sources refers to "sources for information which is included in an article". These sources may be referenced in the article, but it is not a requirement that they be referenced. It is only a requirement that they be "produced", or an editor may remove the content in question is inadequately sourced. If the sources for an article need not actually appear in the article, it would seem that the converse (I'm not sure of my logic terms here) might also be true, that a reference appearing in the article is not necessarily a source (as meant by the policies and guidelines), but may merely be a reference. Such references might be present merely for the convenience of users of the encyclopedia.

Please express your opinion regarding whether links within Wikipedia articles always constitute sources and need to meet the requirements of sources per policies/guidelines. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 14:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108: Links located in the "External Links Section", in my opinion, do not constitute "sources" and can be cited in that section only. Information, in the body of the article that is referenced with external links, should not be linked to personal homepages, biased homepages or homepages that are non-notable. They need to be referenced from notable sources (on neutral, original websites when available). With the exception of blue links in wikipedia, I agree that all external links or referenced links need to meet the requirements of "sources" per policies/guidelines. SSS108 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic: Agree. References and sources need to be linked to neutral, reputable sites, but linking is not mandatory. Thaumaturgic 03:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries: There is a difference between a source, a reference, and an external link. The source is essential and has to be reputable if a statement in the article is voiced as a fact. The reference is the connection between the statement and the source. References should include ext. links, (not just a book title and page nr.), if available because they greatly help the readers. If the source is available on the website of the original publisher then we externally link to their website. For example we should link the webpage of the BBC containing the transcript of the Seduced documentary If the source information is not available on the website of the original publisher then we should link to the webpage of exbaba, saiguru, or Moreno. Placing a small number of external links in the external links section is a somewhat different matter and there is no need for such high level of the quality of the sources. Webpages already linked to as part of a reference in the article should not be repeated in external link section as per policy and guidelines. Andries 19:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion About Sources & External Links
I disagree with Andries statement for the reasons already expressed earlier Reference If the source information is not available, it should be placed on Wikipedia's site and should not be linked to either Pro/Anti sites. Publishing the references on Pro/Anti sites is direct solicitation of one's personal website. Since the websites in question are clearly biased, they are not supposed to be referenced as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is upto Andries to show us the policy that states otherwise. SSS108 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy is clear on personal websites as secondary sources. The biased, personal website of Andries is linked to repeatedly and seems to clearly violate this policy. Moreno's website should not be referenced and neither should Andries site. As a matter of fact, Andries has been arguing against the inclusion of Moreno's site and I am surprised that Andries is now changing his tune, saying that it is okay to link to sites that both oppose and favor Sathya Sai Baba, including Moreno's site. For the past few months, Andries has argued quite the opposite. Thaumaturgic 04:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic, I think that you had misunderstood me. I do not think that I changed my opinion on this. I oppose using Moreno's personal opinions on his website as a source. It will be clear that I do not like Moreno's website but to exclude it from the external link section based on my personal preference is something, I now see as wrong. I do not think that in general linking to exbaba violates policy. Sometimes it can violate policy, but I tried to make clear when linking is recommendable. Please try to understand the difference between sources, references, external links in references, and external links in the external links section Andries 08:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC) (amended)

Andries, show us the Wikipedia Policy that states one can link to personal homepages, especially biased ones? I have provided links that support my position regarding this matter:
 * Reliability
 * Personal Websites As Primary Sources
 * Personal Websites As Secondary Sources
 * Partisan Websites

You should provide the links that support your position. And remember, I am not about the external links section. I am talking about references that link externally to other sites.SSS108 18:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again and again your confuse sources with external links. I do not know how to make this clear to you. I did not mean to say that exbaba can be used as a source, but I meant to say that it helps the reader if sources, like newspaper articles that are used as a source are available online. From Reliable_sources "Full-text online sources are preferable to offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability, because they are easily accessed by other editors who want to check references, and by readers who simply want more information." Andries 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does that policy state that one can link to biased, personal webpages. As a matter of fact, the policy you just stated is preceded by policies that explicitly state one cannot link to personal homepages or sites that are biased. What qualifies references to be linked to biased, controversial, personal websites specifically opposed to Sathya Sai Baba? And you forgot to provide the full text. The part you left off said:
 * If you find a print source that is out of copyright or that is available on compatible licensing terms, add it to Wikisource and link to it there (in addition to the normal scholarly citation). Many significant out-of-copyright books have already been put online by other projects.

If they are no longer online, you should put them on Wikisource. Not on biased, controversial and personal websites specifically opposed to SSB. I am glad you cited this policy. Now you have something to work on: Moving your references to Wikisource. SSS108 19:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles have copyright and cannot be copied to wikisource. Andries 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you will have to find a way to reference it without referencing biased, controversial and personal websites, as per Wikipedia's guidelines. SSS108 20:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Linking to exbaba does not break guidelines, in contrast to e.g. using my personal opinions as a source on exbaba. Andries 20:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does wikipedia allow linking to biased, controversial and personal websites? Show us the policy? That is like saying one can link to an Anti-Semitic site, although the linked page is not Anti-Semitic. Your argument has nothing to stand on, except the bias you are trying to promote. SSS108 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot find a policy that says that linking to webpages on "biased" websites is forbidden, but I can find a statement quoted hereabove that says that linking to online sources are preferrable to just mentioning dead tree sources. Andries 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Preferable", not mandatory or required:

Personal Websites As Primary Sources ''A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.''

Personal Websites As Secondary Sources ''That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere.''

''The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.''

Partison Websites ''Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.''

Your site is partison, biased, controversial and personal. SSS108 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, learn the differences between sources and external links. The guidelines talks about sources, not about external links. Andries 20:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And "external links" link to what, if not sources? And sources are referenced through what means, if not external links? SSS108 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To summarize it. Statements are backed up by reputable sources via references and we should preferrably include an online link to the sources in the references if the sources are available online. Andries 21:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, "preferable" does not mean it is mandatory. Especially when the "online source" happens to be partison, biased, controversial and personal. I am not going to repeat myself again. I will let my current statements stand until futher mediation. You have not made your case, in my opinion, citing Wikipedia policy. SSS108 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The source is uncontroversial when it is a newspaper article that happens to be available at e.g. saiguru. I do think that I have cited Wikipedia policy that backs up my opinion, unlike you. Andries 21:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

POV External Links
External links are web links that generally appear in a section at the very end of an article labeled "External Links". The mediator is not convinced that websites to which external links point, must meet the requirements of being reputable or reliable, (requirements that apply to sources for the body of an article). The mediator admits the possibility that he is mistaken, but observes that whether or not external links are free from such requirements, it seems to be common practice for articles on controversial subjects to have external links to POV websites. This common practice is in fact endorsed by the style guide External links (not policy) which states in part:


 * What should be linked to
 * ...4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.

It is the mediator's suggestion that the parties agree to abide by the External links guidelines, and particulary the section quoted, as interpretted by the mediator, at least for the time being. Please express your willingness or unwillingness to abide by this guideline as interpretted in this section. (Note that although many editors abide by one or another guideline, such guidelines are not official policy). Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 02:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries: Agree, but it would be disingenious not to mention that I made this guideline less strict recently. Andries 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108: Agree SSS108 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thaumaturgic Agreed. Thaumaturgic 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion About External Links
Just to make it clear, I am not disputing the links in the external links section. I am disputing the references linked to external sites using external links. Example: references section These referenced links go to external sites that are partison, biased, controversial and personal. SSS108 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference Links to Sites With Agendas
Web links in Wikipedia articles to sites external to Wikipedia can be a source of contention. Web links may provide a very useful service to readers and editors by furnishing convenient access to source materials. However, the web pages which include the source material, may also include material intended to promote the agenda of the site hosting those materials.

In the mediator's opinion, the degree to which a link to a document may be said to be assisting the promotion of an agenda not supported by Wikipedia depends upon the context in which that document appears. If the document is served on a page or pages which contain no other material, as well as no links to other material, then the promotional effect of a link to that document will be minimal.

The mediator proposes the following guideline. Whenever controversy arises about a link to a document being used to promote an agenda not supported by Wikipedia, if the document is also served on an alternate web page or pages, and that page or those pages contain no other material than the document itself, including no links, then the reference should link to this alternate location. --BostonMA 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please express your willingness or unwillingness to follow this guideline. --BostonMA 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries: Disagree. Wikipedia should first try to link to the original publisher and if this is not possible, only then only we should apply this guideline. I do agree with this guideline if the aforementioned exception is applied first and BostonMA may have omitted unintentionally the exception in his proposal. Andries 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108: BostonMA. I would agree. However, the problem (as Andries rightly knows) is that all it takes is for one to remove the url extension, on the link, and one ends up back at the main index page for the biased, controversial or personal site. For example, look at Nagels article, "A Guru Accused": http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/Paper%20'A%20Guru%20Accused'.html Although this page does not reload back into Andries framed site, if one removes the url extension, one is left with http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/ which goes back to the main index page. This is the problem with putting the references on a partison, biased, controversial or personal homepage. I'd like to note that Nagel's article is just being used as an example. We already established that this article does not meet the standards for notable references. This is the reason why Andries is hesitant to use my website for hosting the references. He knows all one needs to do is remove the url extension and my site index appears. My proposition is that we try to use This Resource or no links. Or, someone can create a tripod or yahoo site (however, these can be easily deleted if someone find the content offensive), whose name and source code do not link to or suggest, in any way, either Pro/Anti Sites. The references could be posted there as long as everyone agrees that no links to Pro/Anti Sites are put on that page and only the referenced text is listed without comments, links etc. SSS108 talk-email 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108, thank you for your explanation. My proposal does not prevent the parties from agreeing to a more stringent rule.  For example, it doesn't prevent an agreement that documents on yahoo sites are better.  It only states that if a choice is available, links should be to documents which are in context which is free from controversial links and other materials.  I think this would be a step in the right direction, even if it is not perfect.
 * I understand the issue with shortening the URL. I do agree that it is somewhat of an issue.  However, the point of the proposal is not to prevent curious readers from getting information about the party that is hosting the document.  The point is to reduce the opportunity for editors to present controversial material to readers under the auspices of Wikipedia.  My proposal doesn't do that perfectly, and there is room for improvement.  However, I do think it would be a good first step.  --BostonMA 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, if Andries agrees, I will create a free geocities site to host the references on. I would name the site something along the lines: sathyasairefs and the pages would simply contain a referenced title with referenced text. If Andries agrees, I will create the account. This way the refs are hosted on neither site and would contain no external links. There would be no way to trace this site to either Pro/Anti Sites. I think this is a fair way to deal with the problem. SSS108 talk-email 00:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this proposal. Andries 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)