User talk:Zenecan

Welcome!
Hello, Zenecan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Origin of speech. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! dolfrog (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Help request
Question re: Wikipedia's policy regarding linking in the External Links section of articles to pages behind a firewall only paying subscribers can access -- this policy may be different to referencing an article

Detail, personal experience just now as a reader and an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joann_Fletcher contained - I have just removed it - a link to a UK Times Newspaper article - that I would have liked to read - I left the comment: Removed link to the Sunday Times (ST) article it is behind a pay to view effectively private for profit firewall and so it not part of the WWW but on a private intranet site - this implies all links to ST articles should be removed!)

The question I have regards my last statement: 'this implies all links to ST articles should be removed!'

What is Wikipedia agreed policy regarding putting hyperlinks on a page to articles that are behind a fire wall that only paying subscribers can access eg the link to this article is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article521971.ece

but unless you are a paid up to date member of the Times pay wall the page you get if you click this link / go to this URL is a generic Times page effectively advertising the Times newspaper but of course having nothing about Joann Fletcher or the article I wanted to read:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life//

It is not as if the Times allows a reader to read say 10 articles a week for free before requesting payment.

So since 99.99% of WWW users eg practically the whole of say Africa - do not pay the Times to access articles behind their pay wall -- should ANY articles be hyperlinked to from Wikipedia pages!

So this implies there is a job for a bot to do in removing all these links 'overnight' [which is clearly not happening at the moment] after they are added to a page and advising the editor that these links are not useful / and are mislead as they link to a generic Times page to 99.99% of wikipedia readers.

So I wonder where I go to find out what Wikipedia's agreed policy is on this / or if it is not decided to discuss the policy on this - perhaps I should not have removed the link?

Zenecan (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:External links, in particular WP:ELREG. That discourages links to paywall sites, but does not prohibit them, or require that they should be removed. I think myself that would be a mistake, because a link available to some users is better than no link at all. If you want to discuss this, the place would be the External links/Noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

{{ec}There are two issues here - using the link as an external link - the case which you are asking about, and using it as a reference.As a reference so long as it can be identified - date, exact name of article, etc, we don't care as it can be looked up in a library, etc. In other words, it can be verified. As an EL however I'd agree with you. But the best place to ask about external links if its policy you want to know about is Wikipedia talk:EL. We also have a noticeboard, WP:ELN, but that's more for "is this specific link appropriate" questions. I hope that answers your question or gives you a lead on where to get more information. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance - very helpful - it seems from what you say 'because a link available to some users is better than no link at all' v 'however I'd agree with you' - it seems a shame to remove a link some one has added but if 99.99% of people clicking the link will be disappointed I think it should be removed - if the Times allowed the first 10 articles a week say to be read for free I would not have removed it - Unfortunately this is the Times owners policy and not Wikipedia's which is hiding the article so only those rich enough / interested enough to work to sign up and pay for a Times subscription can access it. It is as if a new section is needed other than external links - ie Further Reading - where the articles existence is refered to but there is not a hyperlink to it.

Zenecan (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)