Wikipedia:Convenience link

This essay discusses the advantages, disadvantages, and existing policies and guidelines regarding convenience links.

Definition
The term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. For example, an editor providing a citation to Adam Smith's famous work The Wealth of Nations might choose to include both a citation to a published copy of the work and a link to the work on the internet, as follows:

", available at Wikisource"

In that example, the link to the copy of The Wealth of Nations available at Wikisource serves as a convenience to readers who may wish to read the work online rather than in its print form. The printed copy, however, is clearly identified for any user wishing to verify any statements supported by the citation.

A disagreement arises on the question of whether the editor adding the citation actually looked at the original source, or just at the convenience link. Some people may use the term "convenience link" to apply to both situations. Other editors may only consider it a "convenience link" if the editor adding the citation did indeed look at the original source. When the editor adding the citation did not look at the link, it may be called an intermediate or indirect source.

The style of following the print cite with a phrase "available at " is not material, and it is acceptable to surround the title of the work with the link, as long as the print information, such as publisher and year, are provided.

Reliability
It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any changes made to it. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own (e.g., a newspaper website hosting a copy of a government report), this is plausible to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.

Some convenience links are to image files of the print edition. Others are to renditions into other formats, such as semi-automated OCR conversions from printed material into text on a website. Many rendered editions make small edits, such as by incorporating the errors in an "errata" page of the print edition into the body of the work. It is acceptable to make such minor changes that were made, albeit in a somewhat different form, by the author of the original work. It is also acceptable to correct obvious typographical errors that were made by the typesetter and not by the author. It is also acceptable to clean up images to remove speckle and other artifacts of microfilming or scanning that did not appear in the original print edition and that might obscure the text.

Arguments in favor of convenience links
Convenience links have a number of things going for them.


 * 1) Particularly in the case of sources that are difficult to access (though still published and accessible) sources, such as public court documents, local newspapers, older government reports, or print-only sources, a convenience link permits users to access the original information easily.
 * 2) In some cases, the original editor may only have read the "convenience link," rather than the original source. Including the link used by the original editor promotes clarity about what that editor actually read, which can be useful if what looks like a true copy of the original is later found to contain errors or omissions.
 * 3) If the editors did read the original source, and edit based on that, the reliability of the website hosting a copy of the original document is unimportant.
 * 4) They can save editors a lot of money and time when they do not (again) have to find, buy, or borrow the book or article.

Arguments against convenience links

 * 1) Although the original source is identified and (must be) verifiable and reliable, the "convenience site" may be itself unreliable, particularly if it is strongly associated with a particular viewpoint. Some editors think that it's better to cite a reliable source with no URL at all, than to have a link to a true copy of that reliable source on a website (e.g., social media, a user-generated site) that would normally be considered unreliable.
 * 2) Convenience links feel like a form of advertising to some editors. If editors are using convenience links to direct traffic to a particular commercial, political, or other site, that may violate Wikipedia guidelines regarding external links and/or "spam".
 * 3) Some webpages with convenience links may additionally contain partisan or POV comments on reputable sources. In cases where the comments on the reputable source cannot be distinguished from the reputable source itself, the webpage is probably unsuitable as a convenience link. But even if the comments can be clearly distinguished from the reputable source, linking to the webpage may be considered inappropriate by contributors who disagree with the comments.

External links may not link to pages that violate copyright
The first relevant policy to convenience links is Wikipedia's copyright policy. Pursuant to the relevant section of that policy, editors may not link to material that may be a copyright violation without making a reasonable effort to ensure that the material is in the public domain, is published under license, or qualifies as fair use.

As a practical matter, this policy resolves many convenience link arguments. Where a convenience link leads to a republication of a newspaper, book, or other published material, the link should be removed unless there is good reason to believe that the material's publication does not violate copyright. (The original citation, however, can stay unless deficient for other reasons).

Citation guidelines
The guidelines that apply most directly to convenience links are Wikipedia's citation guidelines regarding "intermediate sources." Under the relevant section of that guideline:


 * 1) In cases where an editor reads only an "intermediate source", such as a source that describes what's in the original source (but does not provide a true and complete copy of the original source), the editor should cite the intermediate source, and may optionally also cite the original source. This could produce a citation that looks like this:  "Shakespeare (1609) "Very Short Poem", as quoted in Expert, Alice (2019) "Review of Shakespeare's Shortest Poems". J. Important, 23:230–231."
 * 2) In cases where the editor reads the original source, they should cite to the original source, and may, but need not include a convenience link. In this case, the convenience link (e.g., to Google Books) is not a source per se, and its only duty is to contain a true copy of the original source.

In either case, the format of the citation should make it clear which source was used as the source of information.

However, the guideline does not clarify whether, in the second case, the intermediate source or "convenience site" must be reliable. Therefore, it is at least arguable that if an editor represents that they have compared the original source and convenience site and found the convenience cited material to be accurate, they may include a link to the convenience site even if it would not itself satisfy the reliable source guideline.

However, where several convenience sites are available to link to the same content, the site selected as the convenience link should always be the one whose general content is most in line with Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.

External link guidelines
Technically, Wikipedia's guidelines regarding external links are not directly relevant to "convenience links," which are combined with citations and therefore occur in an article's body or reference section. Nevertheless, the guideline's sections relating to "links to be used occasionally" and "links normally to be avoided" may be instructive.