Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment/Archive 3

Return of the Nutshell.
I've reworded the nutshell once more. As previously worded, the sentence we had there implied that any links to harassment could not be posted, thus interfering with article space in the event that a relevant, reliable source reveals personal information. The final clause mentioned that if the link served no encyclopedic purpose then it may be removed.

I've simplified and strengthened the language somewhat. Privatemusings 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Prohibition against linking to sites
I believe the prohibition in "Do not add external links of no value to the encyclopedia or the community building the encyclopedia," currently prohibits only links which directly violate privacy. I believe that adding links of no value to the encyclopedia from sites which regularly engage in privacy violation is also prohibited, or very well should be. I don't see that there's any reason to protect links with no value to the encyclopedia or community which are from, say, Wikipedia Review. I wonder where such a link would be appropriate. MOASPN 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, we're considering "External links of value to the encyclopedia or the community which don't link directly to privacy violations, but which are hosted on domain names that may violate privacy?"  I'd say keep them.  A link of value is a link of value. --Alecmconroy 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * External links of no value to the encyclopedia hosted on domain names that do violate privacy. You're not even close. MOASPN 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to sound less bullish MOASPN, I believe all editors here are in agreement that links (or comments, or contributions) of no value can be removed at anytime by anyone. I've explained further in several posts below. Privatemusings 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That does not appear evident given the edit warring to reinsert links of no encyclopedic value by some of the contributors here. MOASPN 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're either misunderstanding other editor's perception of 'value' or you simply disagree with their subjective analysis of certain links. Privatemusings 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Said editors denied evaluating their insertions on a link-by-link basis. MOASPN 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you're referring to specifically. If it's Alex's reverting JzG's recent edits, then there's a very clear explanation on the talk pages, if it's something else then you'll have to elucidate. Privatemusings 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I would like to note that MOASPN is the same editor as MusingsOfAPrivateNature, and Semiprivatemusings above. I've asked her or him to consider a name change.

There are a couple of problems with strengthening the prohibition to include an entire site. One way to consider it is to look at your last sentence "I wonder where such a link would be appropriate" - you're largely correct, in many instances such a link will be inappropriate, and therefore removing it a sensible, recommended choice. In the event that a link is appropriate (revealing a conflict of interest, or a valid criticism spring to mind) then (self evidently) it should remain. Privatemusings 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is a link of no value to the encyclopedia hosted on a site which regularly violates privacy appropriate? Please note that your examples had value to the encyclopedia. MOASPN 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand that. I suppose we're considering the situation where a link of value appears in a site that routinely harasses and is generally of no value. I believe the link should be retained. Privatemusings 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not at odds with my proposal, which clearly stated "no value." MOASPN 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In main article space, something of no value to the encyclopedia should be removed regardless of whether the site it's in violates privacy, makes personal attacks, or smells funny. In other spaces like talk, project, and user space, the concept of what is "of value" becomes much more contentious and debatable, as the value can be very abstract and remote and still be justifiable in the course of a meta-debate of some sort.  It's best to err in the direction of less interference with free inquiry. *Dan T.* 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you are at odds with the community at large. Have you considered asking individuals not otherwise involved if they believe that links to Wikipedia Review, which is obviously your focus, are often acceptable in these circumstances? MOASPN 00:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always wanted to see wider participation from the community in giving opinions on this issue, but every forum for discussing it, and every straw poll, has brought in almost entirely The Usual Suspects in the debate, not too many others of presumably less-entrenched position. Do you have any suggestions as to how to get broader participation? *Dan T.* 12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the community has considered blanket bans on sites several times, and rejected ('righteously' - Jimbo) the ideas each time. Your posts indicate that you don't feel people are listening to you. Please at least consider that you are being heard, and that people simply disagree that logic along the lines of 'everything at WR is rubbish so lets just ban it' is appropriate. Dan in particular has explained at great length in many arenas why he feels so strongly about the potential for pernicious creep if we follow that path. Privatemusings 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At no point have I suggested a blanket ban. One wonders if you have ceased reading what people who disagree with you have written and have hunkered down for the "No, no consensus means no policy" fight. I see no evidence of substantial compromise, ever, anywhere, from DTobias, and little talk page engagement from you. Alex, on the other hand, seems to be operating fine except for his misread of my "no value" above. Consider taking a page from him. MOASPN 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah MOASPN, your advice is noted. I certainly agree that Alex is a model editor on this issue. I really do read your posts you know, but I must say that I find your demeanor unhelpful at times. Privatemusings 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to declaring an entire site unsuitable to link; that is too easy to abuse in order to suppress opinions somebody dislikes. A link that is specifically for the purpose of harassment is a fairly clearcut case that nearly everybody can agree on; a judgment as to the nature and purpose of a site as a whole is a much more difficult and contentious thing, and not particularly relevant when the purpose of a particular link is not harassing in nature. *Dan T.* 00:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you considered reading what I wrote? MOASPN 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now now, play nice. Privatemusings 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's the third of your blockade that didn't read a word I wrote. MOASPN 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's true - and please try and avoid escalation. Privatemusings 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which of the three of you read what I wrote before the knees jerked? MOASPN 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Steady. Please play nice. Privatemusings 00:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm playing perfectly nice. I'm interested in knowing how many of the three you are reading what you object to before objecting. The answer appears to be zero. I suggest you reading what people say, rather than who said it. MOASPN 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you see that's not playing nice. Please see my posts above. I'm happy to talk with you pleasantly. Privatemusings 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then do so. Please address my points, not some other points which I have not made - specifically, links of no encyclopedic value from sites which regularly violate privacy. Thanks. MOASPN 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any links (or comments, or contributions) of no value can be removed happily within existing policies. I'm afraid it is not a logical next step however to issue guidelines which are predictive of said value. They don't work. Privatemusings 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe we should restate the fact that links of no encyclopedic value can be removed from any page at any time. MOASPN 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We must of course be careful not to conflate 'encycloepdic value' in this sense, with our sourcing policies etc. when what we are referring to is a link that forms a useful (ie. valuable) part of any discussion on this site. If we can tread that line carefully then I think you'll find broad support for this inclusion. Privatemusings 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am hard pressed to find where a link to one of the sites in question provides a useful part of any discussion, and would assume that this clause would satisfy my desire to get rid of concern trolls who show up to post as many pointers as possible to their pet WR harassment thread. MOASPN 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The beauty of this proposal is that you don't need to worry about considering every possible or potential link. If a concern crosses the line from 'good faith' to 'trolling' then that editor can be sanctioned happily under this, and other existing policies. In particular, see the section on 'Bad Faith'. Your desire to limit concern trolling is a good one, but we must balance it with some caution a) that genuine concerns aren't squashed prematurely as 'trolling' and b) vis. Charles Matthews, that we engage with external organisations appropriately, and diplomatically. Privatemusings 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlier I had commented on "External links of value to the encyclopedia or the community which don't link directly to privacy violations, but which are hosted on domain names that may violate privacy?" Turns out MOASPN actually wanted comments on "External links of value to the encyclopedia or the community which don't link directly to privacy violations, but which are hosted on domain names that may violate privacy?. My apologies for being off on what it was we were talking about--  I'm glad I spelled it out, so we could see the miscommunication.  (see- verbosity pays off. :) )

I agree that people shouldn't insert links that are of no value to the encyclopedia or the project if the site contains privacy violations. I agree that people shouldn't insert links that are of no value to the encyclopedia or the project if the site DOESN'T contains privacy violations. I agree that people shouldn't insert ANY links that are of no value to the encyclopedia or the project.

But, I would oppose language that says "We forbid links of no encyclopedia value to sites that harass". Just doesn't smell right, you know? It's a little bit having a business that only hires people with prior experience, and then posting a sign that says "We do not hire African-Americans who don't have prior experience in the field". It's not inherently a bad policy, since you don't hire ANYONE without prior experience-- but it carries with it the implication that there's something rotten in denmark.

Or, people would interpret it to mean links to sites that harass can be removed even if they DO have encyclopedic value-- which isn't the case. So, instruction creep at best-- embarrassing and misleading at worse. --Alecmconroy 04:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense to me. Good rule: "Things of no value may be removed".  Bad rule: "Things of no value may be removed, including ones that involve sexual humiliation (tee hee)".  (note - that giggle was not me, laughing at somebody's harassment; that was me, intimating a postulated prurience in the mind of a passing reader.) -GTBacchus(talk) 07:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

DENY
If we write a special mention of websites that harass into our rules, then they've just won a victory. They can say, "look at the power we have over them; they're modifying their rules to defend against us." I don't think it's a good idea to give them that power, which is entirely ours to give or withhold. This is precisely the spirit of WP:DENY. Making a special policy for them is like opening a hot dog stand for trolls. We can deal with harassment and trolling as just one part of our ordinary day-to-day encyclopedia work. There's no need to give it a special status, appoint a task force and buy them all walkie-talkies -- I know nobody's suggesting anything that silly, but we are talking about crafting a whole new policy to protect ourselves from the bad sites with mean people. Why not rather be bored by them, and just apply encyclopedic standards as encyclopedic standards, minus the cop mentality? All we have to do is stay focused on the articles, and not on personalities. If you start talking about someone's motives, you've just handed them permission to push your buttons as much as they want to. If you refuse to address anybody with anything but respect and dignity, then trolling can't get any traction. If somebody's using links to harass (or links that harass, or whatever permutation), they can be removed as unencyclopedic, and somebody persisting in re-adding them will run afoul of 3RR or NPA, or they'll just be blocked for disruption. If they're doing something truly illegal, then we go to OFFICE. Where in that process is a new policy required? I support adding a line to WP:EL if it isn't already there saying that, "although we generally allow more latitude on user pages than in articles, external links of no encyclopedic value may be removed at any time." -GTBacchus(talk) 07:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the behavior of certain of those who feel most strongly about removal of such links has led a number of editors to believe we need an explicit policy to keep the link removers under control. And ArbComm has now (twice) remanded the issue to the community.  While I appreciate the spirit of denial, I think some of the editors who want to remove links have made that approach non-viable in this area.  GRBerry 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, people on both side seem to think we need a policy to keep the other side under control. If we want to satisfy ArbCom's request for a policy clarification, that doesn't mean it has to be a full page of definitions and paragraphs.  It can be a small solution, and a firm resolution to consider links on encyclopedic merits, and to restrain community members who prefer to create disruption.  We don't have to put up with disruption, whether it be created by spamming links of no encyclopedic value, by removing links with encyclopedic value, or by making personal attacks against those who add or remove links intemperately. It's not as if we're helpless to stop people from being disruptive; it's just a matter of the will to do it.  If people want to add or remove links, they can do it on the basis of sound encyclopedic judgment, or they can go to some wiki where other standards apply.  We don't have to be held hostage to drama. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should conflicts of interest be exposed?
There's this idea, that if somebody is editing with a conflict of interest, and their identity is discovered, then they should be "outed"... I'm not sure that's true. If it's not, and if the only value that a link claims to have is exposing a COI, then the link has no encyclopedic value, and it "may be removed at any time," per duh. These servers are for writing an encyclopedia, not for playing cloak and dagger. It might be a stupid question, but if a conflict of interest is serious enough to warrant exposing, then somebody besides Wikipedians will be interested. Then you don't have to out them by posting links on Wikipedia, you just talk to those putative people who care. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If a user ever suspects another user of conflict of interest or of something else that requires action, then that person should email the evidence privately to Jimbo or the ArbCom or someone from the Foundation, and leave it to their judgment. If the people who have the authority to make these decisions decide that something needs to be done, they can do it discreetly. For example, supposing someone notable enough to have an article registers an account here and starts editing that article occasionally, it's probably not a big problem. There's no need for action. If it's over positive, someone else will revert. If the person becomes disruptive, and insists on reverting to unsourced flattery, and doesn't respond to being told gently of our policies on NPOV, and a concerned user has evidence of this person's identity, although the person has not acknowledged it, it should be kept off Wikipedia. The ArbCom can communicate privately with this person, so that the person will have the option of quietly disappearing, without being embarrassed in real life. Similarly, if the edits are negative, and a concerned user thinks that the editor might be someone who has a real-life grudge against the subject of the article, it's almost certainly better to deal with it privately. Again, if the ArbCom have strong evidence of the editor's identity, they can privately offer him the option of agreeing to leave the article alone. ElinorD (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that privately reporting potential conflict of interests to persons of authority is an ideal procedure, and I would strongly recommend it. But I don't think it's realistic to expect that people, having sincere concerns about our trustworthiness, are going to be content to secretly whisper their concerns to Jimbo & Arbiters, and then accept their say-so that it will be taken care of.  I would, and I think most people highly familiar the persons involved would have that sort of trust also.   But many people are strangers to Wikipedia-- they're going to want to have their concerns publically discussed and evaluated in a transparent forum.


 * I'm not saying that's a good thing, per se, but I think that's the way of the world. I'm thinking, for example,  of what a lost opportunity it was when SV was reported to be a secret agent---  I think we generally deleted all the comments from all the newbies who came here to discuss it, which sent a "keep out" message to most, and probably actually substantiated the secret agent theory in the minds of a few.


 * I guess I just feel like Good people, with sincere motives, acting in good faith need to be free to discuss pretty anything that's realistically relevant to the project. Sometimes their discussions are going to include things we wish they didn't--  links to sites we don't like, speculates about things we wish weren't speculated about, etc.  On the one hand, it's unfortunate.  But on the other hand-- it really is necessary to the project, that people feel like we're not trying to clamp down on good-faith conversations, inquires, etc.  People won't learn to trust us as a source because we have a policy telling them to.  They'll learn to trust us because they see that our amazing openness engenders trust.


 * Now, when we begin to doubt the good faith of a pariticpant, then we have a different story. Spammers, people engaged in extend campaigns, people who are out to harass-- that's should be "shot on site", to use the parlance of our times. --Alecmconroy 12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Elinor's approach, of privately contacting Jimbo or an arbitrator, makes a lot of sense for someone who trusts Jimbo and/or some arbitrator. For others, we really can't dictate how they choose to interact with Wikipedia, we can only control how we react to them.  If they're dead set on outing Wikipedians without consent, then they can be shown the door, and if they continue their campaign elsewhere, there's not much we can do unless they're breaking the law, and that's out of our hands as Wikipedians (which is to say that pursuing any kind of legal remedy is an inherently off-wiki activity). I don't accept the argument that a person's identity has to be relevant.  All the content policies still apply, and they still have to convince people to agree with their edits, no matter who they are.  If one really want to "out" an editor, how is that actually a contribution to the project, and not simply soapboxing?  I'm open to hearing why an editor's real-life identity could be relevant, but if you want to name names, I'd rather hear it by email. In response to Alec, I agree that good, sincere people can discuss pretty much anything, but not everything is related to building an encyclopedia.  To illustrate by taking it to an extreme, if somebody decides that speculations about Wikipedians' sexual proclivities were somehow an important issue to discuss, and that they won't trust us unless we discuss that topic, openly and frankly, then I think we'd show them the door, and nobody would blame us for that. At some point, demanding discussion of concerns unrelated to our project here becomes disruption.  How long do we have to humor and entertain people's conspiracy theories in order to prove that we're open to criticism?  Must we give everybody unbounded power to make us discuss their whims, no matter how deep into the mud they want to go?  This isn't supposed to be the Wiki that runs on drama. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a fine idea, but the existence and use of WP:COI/N suggests people are fine with public notice. -- 67.98.206.2 16:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The question remains - why must individuals with a COI be outed?  I accept that a lot of people believe it, but I'm still asking why.  I think all they need is a neutrality check, which is just part of normal editing.  Insofar as the COI/N accomplishes that, it seems pretty cool; I don't think we need an "outing" board, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's a question of reliability. It's one thing to contend "User:Essjay is lying when he says he's a canon lawyer" because that's pretty much an assertion without evidence, on some blog we're forbidden to link to, and probably anyone who goes around saying that would be blocked for making this absurd personal attack. It's another thing to say "User:Essjay is lying when he says he's a canon lawyer because he's really Ryan Jordan, a college drop out, and here's the evidence" and when you make the community aware of this, the community can go back and scour his thousands of edits for potential problems, rather than putting that effort on the shoulders of some unfortunate administrator who got secretly mailed this information in your scenario. I know I'm glossing over the finer details of the Essjay scandal and how it actually unfolded, but it's an obvious case in point where the wikipedia is better off for the community having gotten this information. -- 67.98.206.2 17:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a conflict of interest situation anon. Essjay was, as you say, misrepresenting himself... not editing articles which personally impacted him. As to the general question of this section. Some people hold that users are forbidden from editing articles where they have a COI and should be blocked if they do. In fact, there is no such policy. Never has been. WP:COI states the exact opposite on both points. Jimbo hasn't ever been blocked for doing it. Nor are all Wikipedians prohibited from editing Wikipedia. Instead, we suggest that people should not edit where they have a conflict and/or give them pointers on how to do so in a neutral fashion. Notably, 'outing' of users with a COI is also specifically prohibited by WP:COI; "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." --CBD 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but this "basic policy" about revealing real names was added to WP:COI barely five months ago. It's hardly written in stone. -- 67.98.206.2 18:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be written in stone; it's obvious. Why on Earth would it be otherwise?  Why would violating people's anonymity against their wishes ever be a good or helpful thing to do?  How is that consistent with the basic goals of our project?  If somebody's editing with bias, then you can edit for neutrality, and work with them to find a neutral point of view; there's no need to blow the whistle on their real name as any part of that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying wikipedia would be better off had Essjay never been outed? I can't agree with that. Worse, Wikipedia, collectively, just sat on its hands until the scandal was on the ABC Evening News, which was certainly an embarrassment to the project of epic proportions. I don't see a good reason to deny us the transparency we need to deal with future problems like that before they become worldwide scandals. And if they become so commonplace that the mainstream media doesn't even care, I think we'll be really screwed, because we'll know wikipedia has jumped the shark. -- 67.98.206.2 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I saying that Wikipedia would be better off had Essjay not been outed (didn't he out himself, anyway)? No, I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying it's not such a big deal if someone is editing with bias - in fact thousands of people are editing with bias right now, and you'll never know about most of their conflicts of interest.  That's why each edit is viewed by a thousand proofreading eyes.  That's the brilliant thing about Wikipedia: we, as a whole, are bigger and smarter and more persistent than any one editor's bias. I'm saying that Wikipedia learned something from the Essjay affair, and that we're still learning.  Let's give ourselves the chance to learn, without insisting that we fall back on the rule-making instinct.  We've got to at least try doing it right. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue with regard to this proposed policy is what does this proposed policy suggest we do with links placed on Wikipedia to another site that has purported evidence of a COI of one or more wikipedia editors (especially someone powerful enough to stifle on-wiki debate/evidence) that is purported to affect Wikipedia NPOV? This has already happened with regard to POVs regarding BLPs (eg Daniel Brandt), private organizations (eg Scientology), alleged government conspiracies (eg 9-11), legal/social issues (eg sexual preference for children), and others. We are at our best when we are most open. But sometimes it is helpful to be discrete. Some are suggesting that whatever policy we write with regard to this can not help but be beans; so no policy is better than any policy and we should simply take every case as it comes. Careful caring thoughtful case by case. Any proposed policy is gonna have to be better than that general advice to become policy. WAS 4.250 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was well said. Anything that is no improvement on, "links with no encyclopedic value may be removed at any time, and whether a link has encyclopedic value is a matter for sound, impersonal editorial judgment," isn't an improvement. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudzu
I also just removed a section of this proposal page called "Scope", which contained detailed definitions that were.... a bit too juicy. Isn't it kinda gross to describe in salacious terms what we don't want people doing to us over the internet? The section also added nothing that isn't covered by "external links of no encyclopedic value may be removed at any time."

I realize taking that paragraph out sort of eviscerates the page, so please feel free to put it back (per BRD), but consider the question raised. I think much more ought to come out as well. What more do we need than (a) a line in WP:EL saying that, "although we generally allow more latitude on user pages than in articles, external links of no encyclopedic value may be removed at any time;" and (b) a section on WP:NPA (or wherever) about dealing with harassment? That section ("Victim information")(?) is the best part of the current proposal page. Most of the rest is a long list of rules, looking for gamers - so many hairs to split.

I think writing it has been an excellent exercise in dispute resolution, but I don't think this is likely to become policy, except to the extent that it already is and always has been. Maybe I'm wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it's very important to define our terms to prevent edit warring over what links do or do not contain privacy violations and malicious harassment. The rules are there to prevent gamers. -- 67.98.206.2 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't prevent edit warring by writing another rule against it; edit warring is already inappropriate. You prevent edit warring by warning people not to do it, and blocking them if they refuse to stop.  You also lead by example, and refuse to edit-war back.  Whether or not a link is of any encyclopedic value is a content question, and it can be answered using sound editorial judgment, not by seeing who can edit-war and lawyer the longest.  Edit warring is a behavior problem, and it can be dealt with in the usual manner.  There's no excuse for edit warring, full stop. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we aren't going to define ours terms, we can't have a 3RR exception. We're left with a policy that lets anyone remove any link as often as they like based on some nebulous claim and block anyone who puts it back. I'll certainly never consent to that. -- 67.98.206.2 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. No policy allows anybody to, "remove any link as often as they like based on some nebulous claim and block anyone who puts it back." Nothing we could write on a policy page would ever overrule good sense. What you describe sounds like ragingly disruptive behavior, and our policies do not allow for disruption. What people are allowed to do is to exercise sound editorial judgment while always maintaining civility, neutrality and decorum. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never been a fan of the '3RR exception' for any part of this. Think about the one suggested currently... removing links to privacy violations is not subject to 3RR. Does it strike no one else that we don't have any such exception for privacy violations written directly on Wikipedia? It would make no sense to have an exemption ONLY for privacy violations written outside Wikipedia. Some might then say, 'OMG, we need an exception for the on-site violations too!'... but I disagree. There is a reason we have never had 3RR exemptions for 'privacy violations', 'harassment', 'personal attacks', or any of the other things which have been proposed to exempt when links are involved. Specifically, we don't exempt these things because we have all seen people grossly mis-characterize innocent comments as such violations. It happens all the time. 'Hey Donald Trump, that picture on your user page of you at the Trump Tower in NYC is great', becomes 'ZOMG, you used my real name and told people where I live!'. 'I disagree with your view on this matter', becomes 'How dare you attack me in that heinous fashion!'. Anything and everything a user doesn't like is "harassment". Et cetera. In cases where there really IS a significant privacy violation, or the like, it gets resolved in short order... usually with blocks involved. Even if someone did edit war to keep out some truly foul nonsense, no admin in their right mind is going to impose a 3RR block for it. There is thus no need for a 3RR exemption in such situations, and a vast downside from constant mis-application of any exemption given. That's why we DON'T exempt this stuff on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be doing so for links to it OFF Wikipedia. --CBD 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the explicit 3RR exemption really necessary?

 * I too would prefer not to explicitly exempt some edits from 3RR as part of this policy. I think the past has shown that the explicit 3RR exemption had tended to lead to disruptive edit wars of removing stuff that shouldn't be removed.  On the other hand, I for one have confidence in the ability of our admins to remove the stuff that truly  needs removal, and not to block those who act appropriately in doing so. We have enough contributors in all time zones now that I think, in practice, it should be easy enough for anyone to quickly enlist enough aid for truly serious situations, without having to go beyond three reverts.  And of course, WP:3RR is written to allow this sort of discretion.


 * I don't believe we'd actually see 3RR blocks for people removing stuff that truly needs to be removed-- we certainly haven't see any yet. All WP:3RR really says is that if you make more than 3 reverts and someone complains, we're going to have an admin do a quick, independent review of your actions and their appropriateness.  3RR admins have always had ample discretion in deciding whether the reverts were disruptive.


 * To me, the policy WP:3RR does include, under its scope, those edits that claim to remove harassment. Such edits shouldn't be, automatically, exempt from investigation under WP:3RR.   But, there should be ample discretion within 3RR to allow for the fact that sometimes people may need to exceed 3 reversions in some specific instances to combat vandalism and harassment.  I think WP:3RR does recognize this, so there's no need to carve out a special exemption.


 * Granted, if it turns out that WP:3RR gets applied too robotically and we actually see blocks for removing what is clearly bad-faith harassment, then I would defintely want to revisit the situation and look into changing the language here. I don't think that would happen, but if I saw a trend of good editors getting inappropriately blocked for removing garbage, I'd change my tune.  But in the mean time, I suggest we try the policy without an explicit 3RR exemption for a while, and that we start carving out exceptions and tinkering with fundamental policies only if that is truly necessary.  --Alecmconroy 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I question the wisdom of your assumption that "we actually see blocks" as often as we should. I'm certainly unaware of some list I can track anywhere. It's arguable that if User:WordBomb hadn't gotten WP:BITTEN and banned for life within his first eight hours of being a wikipedian, there'd be one less so-called "attack site" in the world. (I'm reminded of a line from one of the Superman movies about Lex Luthor, if only his genius could be harvested for good instead of evil etc.)-- 67.98.206.2 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on top of that his user talk page was immediately protected, so he'd never even be able to request be allowed back into the community, which seems to me a clear violation of WP:BLOCK. But as you sow, so shall you reap. Still, how many other editors have been capriciously banned for life without even being left with the voice to complain, who didn't go off and start an "attack site" who we'll just never know about? Kind of makes you think. -- 67.98.206.2 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Independently of this discussion, that's an excellent question. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

per the above, another voice in support of removing reference to 3RR being ok. I believe we're simply inviting poor editing choices. I've trimmed the sentence to its core meaning, and am finding more and more that every attempt to create hard behavioural regulations (what's allowed and what's not) we fall on our sword. Perhaps my rewrite says enough. Privatemusings 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
How can removal of links not be subject to 3RR, *and* users be told to avoid edit wars? (Unless the 3RR exemption is meant to say "you can remove it as many times as you want without it counting as an edit war").

I also think the "bad faith" rule has the same problem I pointed out a while back; anyone who tries to put up a link will get told "I'm taking it out and if you put it up a second time, it'll be bad faith". In fact, the bad faith rule pretty much encourages this abuse by saying that if you repeatedly raise the same concerns, it may be considered bad faith. Ken Arromdee 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What has worked in the past is that if everybody agrees with a link removal then fine, otherwise talk about it enough to get all the sources known, then if needed go private with it. The problem has been people who turn wikipedia into a battleground by edit warring over adding or removing links. The "3RR does not apply" is exactly what has created these edit wars because there is then the catch-22 that there is no way to provide evidence that the link should be subject to 3RR cause the link can't be used as evidence for what it is or is not. WAS 4.250 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The 3RR is totally beside the point, by its very nature. The rule is, "don't edit war".  That's true no matter what the other person's doing, because it's a disruptive, ineffective strategy.  If you have to make an edit a second time, you get to a talk page and see if people are going to support your edit with a consensus. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Great skepticism
The prior text said "Information on these so-called "attack sites" should be treated with healthy skepticism". This was changed to say "should be treated as unreliable". I personally object to prejudging reliability-- it's not per se incorrect, but it's just not cricket. At the same time-- I understand how "healthy skepticism" might not be strong enough wording, so I changed it to "should be treated with great skepticism.   --Alecmconroy 03:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They should be treated as unreliable or they wouldn't be so-called attack sites. By not using the same wording, people will quibble that it's a "reliable source".  They simply aren't.  Sites that meet the definition of attack site are by definition unreliable.  No need to weasel up policy.  --DHeyward 06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the logical connection between something being an attack site and something being unreliable. It seems like if it were "by definition" it'd be more obvious, can you maybe elaborate on it?  Milto LOL pia 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, I'm not seeing it. People don't get very far quibbling about other non-notable blogs being reliable sources; why should WR be different?  It's no more reliable than thousands of other websites to which we don't link.  I don't see why we need a special policy to tell people not to trust unreliable sources.  I mean, what does "unreliable" mean? All it takes for us not to link to a source is that it be unreliable.  Asking for more is asking for trouble. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Well, see what others think, but I personally still disagree with current wording, which declares attack sites to be unreliable.  It prejudges, which we shouldn't do.  And it conflates "reliability" (the concept) with "Reliable Sources", the policy.  Really, the name Reliable Sources is a bit of a misnomer, since extremely unreliable (untrustworthy) sources are often still "reliable sources" (able to satisfy WP:V).


 * For example, I have yet to figure out if the author of the Time cube website is insane or merely doing tongue-in-cheek satire, but whichever it is, the website is about as far from being reliable as I can imagine any site being.  I mean, in terms of trustworthiness, this site makes Encyclopedia Dramatica look like Encyclopedia Britannica!  Not that ED is at all trustworthy, but they do seem to at least inhabit the same plane of existence as the rest of us, whereas the author of Timecube seems to be delusional, incoherent, mentally ill, or under the influence of mind altering substances.   And yet, despite being the ravings of a madman, the Time Cube website is, in fact, a Reliable Source, within the context of the Time Cube article.  --Alecmconroy 08:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Sites need to be judged on their merits in context, blanket generalizations like the current wording are bad ideas for this reason.  Milto LOL pia 08:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a post that basically addresses the whole "blogs containing attacks CAN be reliable sources". I suggest we change this back to "great skepticisim" instead of "are unreliable" --Alecmconroy 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Have reworded to distill the important meaning of the point. Further, as Miltopia points out, we must be careful not to conflate the reliability of any site with it's views of wikipedia. There is nothing inherently unreliable about a site which choses to attack wikipedia, and we seem foolish to say so.

As i mentioned in my edit summary, less is certainly more in this instance, hence my preferred version, although as a small ps. I don't think 'strongly' should be in there. Privatemusings 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Learning from history (crossposted from AN/I)
Do you remember when we had an article about ED? It was nominated for deletion something like 18 times, and kept closing as no consensus, or being speedy kept as too soon after the last AfD, or being deleted and then recreated... the point is, it didn't go away. After the last AfD, it finally went away. Do you know why? What was different about that one? Well, enough people finally decided that we needed to delete the article for boring encyclopedic reasons, and not because we find its subject offensive. Everyone (ok, many) managed to leave their moral outrage outside the room for a few hours. We managed to get a group of people to look objectively at sourcing, and whaddya know, there wasn't sufficient sourcing to have an article. For a few more months, some of us guarded the deleted-again, back-again talk page, and make sure that it was always explained to inquirers that the page was deleted for lack of sourcing, and not because those racist, homophobic, baby-eating, so-and-sos appall us so much. It can't have anything to do with being "appalled". Now, it appears that people are arguing that we not learn from history. Shall we conduct ourselves as we did at the 17 unsuccessful AfDs? Why not give the encyclopedia a chance; what's going to happen? Will Wikipedia Review suddenly become a reliable source, linked at the bottom of every article like the IMDb? Look at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. That's the idea. I got a bit frustrated in that case, but I hope you can see what I was pointing towards, and that it worked, and will continue to work. Let's try it. Let's learn from the past. DHeyward, thanks for putting [in conversation on AN/I] a succinct phrase to "symbolically stripping protection". That helps me understand the perception that I don't want to project, because that's not remotely my idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) this is crossposted from AN/I because, after putting it there, I realized it's more immediately relevant here. Please feel free to refactor, if something else makes more sense than what I did. -GTBacchus(talk)
 * Agree, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia needs to take priority, and looking at these issues with WP:ENC at the forefront of one's mind will actually be the best way to avoid empowering offsite trolls - certainly more than widely-advertised manifestos. Milto LOL pia 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A small raft of changes
I've tightened and tidied throughout the proposal. Discussion welcomed. Privatemusings 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a question: when defining "Sites that routinely harass" versus the other kind, why specify whether the harassment is of Wikipedians? Are sites that harass others considered to be problematic links, for that reason?  Are there sites that "routinely harass" non Wikipedians, and yet we link to them?  These are genuine, non-leading questions; I just don't know. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is an important question. There was some discussion on this issue in the BADSITES Arbitration case between FloNight and Paul August, with Paul explaining his position that wikipedia shouldn't / can't offer any greater protection to its editors than to anyone else without potentially violating NPOV. Flo argued that we must for the sake of the health of the project (this is a grade school precis, sorry). Personally, I'd rather we didn't specify that the harassment this policy is discussing is only that of wikipedians, and that we craft a coherent guide to all external harassment. I'm not sure that the wording as is specifies that the harassment must be of wikipedians - do you think it does? (again, honest 'no big deal' question.) Privatemusings 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The current wording is ambiguous, which is what made it stand out to me. "Does not routinely harass" is defined in relation to Wikipedians, but "does routinely harass" is not.  I suspect that wording is due to some minor oversight, but it raises the question, which I find interesting. I'm not sure why we should develop a policy specific to "enemies of Wikipedia" - why grant them such a certification of existence and authenticity?  I removed the redundant clause, "...that commit privacy violations or which engage in malicious harassment," from the sentence about not adding links of no encyclopedic value.  Please re-add at will, but I think we can do without it. Here's what I'm picturing we can do - without new policy: Someone (in good faith or not - it never matters) adds a link to a website containing unverified and/or privacy-violating speculation as to some Wikipedian(s)' true identities.  Someone removes the link, and a BRD-style discussion ensues as to the encyclopedic value of the link.  A consensus forms that the link has no encyclopedic value, and we therefore remove the link, per WP:EL. At this point, there is a consensus, and anybody wishing to re-add the link must persuade the community to change its mind.  This is carried out as a content dispute, and not as a lynching of any kind.  Nobody need be called names during this process.  After some time, it's settled, and we have the same kind of peace that we now have with common spam, or with people going on national-varieties-of-English crusades.  It's easy to deal with, because the community understands that it's just not done, and that can be communicated effectively to clueless newbies, taking care always not to bite. Does that sound, on the one hand Orwellian, or on the other hand, insufficiently sensitive to victims of harassment? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds very sensible in fact, and would be a fantastic model for the future. Pragmatically speaking however, this approach would be easier to establish from a blank canvas, which I'm not certain is the case. For example, many editors have been quite open about their inclination to judge all links that refer to editor's identities as harassment, and I'm sure they would argue therefore of no value. I'm not sure that despite clear consensus, some editors have understood that it was wrong to remove the link to michaelmoore.com from his article. I've felt for a while that the role of this policy is more a clear statement of the consensus interpretation of existing policies rather than to tread new ground. In that way, it may help protect the encyclopedia, from external harassment, and internal disruption. Privatemusings 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that the solution is take our current content and behavior policies and let them guide the way. Prior to the MONGO case, and its subsequent misinterpretations, it doesn't seem to me like there was a problem that couldn't have been solved by the normal processes.  Now, it might be necessary to explicitly provide guidance in the form of a new guideline or policy, or it might not. --Alecmconroy 06:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the need (or needlessness) of this policy can be expressed clearly through a statement of principle, and behaviour. Principle : I believe wikipedia editors should be able to link in good faith to critical material which isn't criminal. Behaviour : Links have been removed repeatedly by senior editors all over the wiki, and there is support in several quarters for blanket link bans of sites which discuss identity. The policy should be the stake in the ground which ensures the behaviour complies with the principle. Obviously this principle and analysis of behaviour is mine alone.


 * I could discuss at length my analysis of why identity and pseudo anonymity have become a singular issue on wikipedia, but that would probably ramble off topic. Perhaps I'll join the growing ranks of the essay writing club anon. Privatemusings 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Dan's essay for his discussion of various nasty sites we do link to. Privatemusings 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that harassment of article subjects is a BLP consideration that should factor into evaluating a link's usefulness. That's more of a question of external links and reliable sources then harassment though.  If sites are harassing people who aren't article subjects and not editors, then frankly it's not our problem I don't think; we should not detract even a tiny bit of importance away from WP:ENC for the sake of moral combat.  Heh, there's a pun there but I guess I'm not seeing it.  Milto LOL pia 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course by "article subject", I mean anyone named in an article, not just a person whose name appears in the title. Milto LOL pia 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I never thought the air round here would feel so fresh!
anyways - with the recent shift at NPA back to what might be described as the 'common sense' approach (ie. we always had the appropriate policies in place, so let's just use them) this page is probably off the front burner.

I would like to see it gain consensus as a guideline, given its role in demonstrating how our existing polices and guidelines function. Privatemusings 12:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Make this a guideline?
This seems relatively non-controversial and there's a lot of useful stuff in it. What would people say about making this a guideline-- it's been stable for some time. --Alecmconroy 06:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait. WAS 4.250 07:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the work we've done here is very valuable - but I don't think there's a rush, so would tend to agree with WAS right at the moment. Perhaps it's time for an RfC to gather some informed, previously uninvolved analysis. I am certain that this is a very useful essay, I think it might have a place as a guideline, and feel that perhaps common sense has kicked in just in time to negate the need for this as policy.


 * The Prof. Black issue has raised some concerns for me, but ultimately the consensus formed there (and in fact almost everywhere discussion have occurred) is reassuring - the wiki is actually working pretty well!


 * Having said all that, I believe this work is very handy at laying out what I believe to be the consensus position currently, and in due course, citing WP:LINKLOVE may be useful in various discussions. Best all, Privatemusings 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need to debate it now, but I find some of the material in this proposal objectionable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will, I don't think you will object to what happens in practice over the next couple of months if things calm down; and then we can revisit this proposal and ask (in say 2 months) how is this proposal the same or different from what we are now actually doing. WAS 4.250 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could anyone talk about how this guideline is different from current policy? To the best of my knowledge, it just describes what we're actually doing. --Alecmconroy 04:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. But in the recent past some well meaning people overreacted. A few months will turn "recent past" into "ancient history" by wikipedia/internet time standards. So give it a couple months. WAS 4.250 21:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with User:WAS 4.250. There is no hurry to turn a page into a guideline. Some pages do their best work when they have no official status. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression this was policy already (de facto, if not de jure). Isn't this the whole reason we can't link to ED, for example? So, if we're following this policy already, what do we lose by making it official? Terraxos 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * People are still hot under the collar. Let the emotions die down. WAS 4.250 05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in the light of day, I have to yield to the people who understand Wikipedia best-- they probably know what they're talking about in suggesting a wait. And there definitely isn't any hurry-- this just expands on what we're already doing.  --Alecmconroy 06:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further - the longer pause may add weight to the belief / argument that what we've written up here is common practice, and has broad consensus approval. I certainly believe that, and am happy for it to be shown to be the case over a couple of months. Privatemusings 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And more importantly, after a few months trial run of what Wikipedia is like without BADSITES, it will be very clear that the sky does not, in fact, fall in on us. We will not be overrun with links to BADSITES, we will not stop fighting inappropriate linkspam.  And of course, not trying to push through a guideline vote right now won't stop this page from being useful-- people who are weighing the utilities of links will still come here, read the page, appreciate it's inherent logic, and find it informative.  --Alecmconroy 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do not post links for the sole purpose of harrassing people"? Why not leave out the "sole"? If one is harassing people through links, one is still harassing people, right? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 04:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your post harasses someone somewhere. While you are not posting for the sole purpose of harassing, if any post that harasses anyone anywhere is not allowed, then Wikipedia becomes controlled by whoever plays victim the loudest. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Links that improve the encyclopedia must not be removed.
My principal objection is to the sentence in the nutshell: " Links that improve the encyclopedia must not be removed." That sentence is vague and strict at the same time. It does not refelct current practice, as we remove forums, blogs, and commercial links that users could argue improve the encyclopedia. There's no definition, here or elsewhere, of what is meant by "improve". I think it should either be omitted from the proposal or defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is uselessly tautological. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one defends its inclusion I'll remove it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I object. The wording could probably be improved. However the phrasing could use work. I believe the idea is that links that would be valid links in mainspace but for the issue of possible harassment should not be removed. I'm not sure of a good phrasing of that. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully JzG's tweak addresses that one - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's no good phasing then it should be removed. The text in question is too vague, in that it doesn't define "improve the encyclopedia", and too strict, in that is says they "must not be removed". If the intent is to say that value to the encyclopedia should be weighed more than harm to individuals then that's what we should say. It may be best to leave this issue out of hte nutshell. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this "Links meeting WP:WEL should not be removed from article space even if the links contain harassment or private information about Wikipedia editors." JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem right either because we often remove links that meet WP:EL, for example when there are simply too many of them. It might be better if it referred to WP:RS which has a higher standard and covers links that serve a direct purpose for the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing links because we have too many links (as we frequently get at Evolution for example) but we need to make clear that harassment and such is not a reason to remove a link in article space. How about "Harassment is not by itself sufficient reason to remove a link from article space that would be there otherwise"?JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the intent, but that conveys the idea more clearly. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Two questions, first: could you clarify the objection to the intent? Second, would you mind terribly if this non-ideal language were inserted? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we should categorically exclude harassment as a cause for removing links, as I think everyone agrees there are some types or degrees of harassment which is so severe that all efforts should be taken to minimize the effect. OTOH, it's likely that those cases are so few that they can be handled as exceptions that don't need to be specifically mentioned in the guideline. However I think the text in the proposal now (Links in articles are a matter for "sound editorial judgement".) is as good or better. WP:EL already says that all links are up for discussion, and that phrasing may do a better job of expressing the idea that it is up to WP editors to decide which links to include or exclude. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your claim that "everyone agrees". In particular, I'm not sure I agree. If a link belongs in article space but for it being harassing then we shouldn't take it out. Furthermore, if we do allow some such links to be removed (which IMO, we shouldn't) there's no clear line; it just asks for more drama. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hack for practical application value
JzG had a hack at this and I've had one too. How is it so far? I've focused on what's historically flown with the community in solving the problems - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure I'm too happy with nowikifying links. That makes a fair bit of sense outside article space (and made especial sense outside article space before we had nofollow tags) but I don't see what having the links as nowikied accomplishes in article space. People can still see the links, so it just emphasizes that we don't like it. It just seems to add inconvenience for our readers. The rest I'm more or less ok with. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted to the last consensus edit which was in place since 8 November. I feel that the language and emphasis has been changed sufficiently to require consensus for such amendments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an overstatement to say that there was a consensus for the November 8 version. Since it appeared this proposal was dead or irrelevant some folks just lost interest. Do you have any specific comments on Gerard's draft? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, "consensus" is an overstatement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting is not a particularly helpful response; it is either rejected (as the work of a sockpuppet and a sockpuppet of a banned user, plus quite sneakily written to support a certain position while seeming not to), or we take it and work on it to make it better. The edits David and I made reflect current practice for egregious privacy violations (see Judd Bagley), and generally aim to be a guide for the bewildered rather than a crutch for wikilawyers or a stick with which to beat people.  I think you'll find that David was anything but a supporter of blanket removal of links, especially from mainspace. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the Sockpuppet card - and who blocked accounts for abuse of alternate accounts (now at ArbCom)? Why, that would be Guy! What was the abuse? Disruptive editing! What disruptive editing? Creating "heat" rather than "light" on policy pages. What policy pages? hmmmm.... (I notice that some previous discussion has now been archived - and a name of a now indisposed editor along with it.) Now, what were you saying about disruption? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , who wrote the first draft of this proposal, was not blocked by user:JzG. was not blocked by JzG.  wasn't blocked by JzG either. This proposal has been shaped substantially by users who were already banned or who were banned shortly after participating.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. I apologise. It was User:David Gerard who indef blocked Privatemusings, which was then resolved and lifted only to be indef blocked again and is now at ArbCom. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with which anti-BADSITES proponents accounts from that ArbCom case have been blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (edit) Oh, wait! Privatemusings was indef blocked by David Gerard on 16 November, following a previous indef block by Guy on 31 October - so my comment now stands as; much of the 8 Nov edit of the mainpage was produced with the assistence and contributions of an editor who has been twice indef blocked as a violator of WP:SOCK by both Guy and David Gerard, block reverted both times, and is now at ArbCom in regard to a third indef block for the same supposed violation. Both those editors who previously indef blocked Privatemusings today happened to agree to reword the mainpage in a manner they felt more in keeping with their understanding of practice, although it changed the spirit and added language not in previous editions. You will forgive me my lapses of recall, I am not thinking as clearly as I might. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not helpful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, I've been consistently dead set against it. If JzG and I can halfway agree on something on the topic as being practical and useful, I submit it has at least a marginal passing chance of working in practice - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, David has consistently opposed BADSITE and is a strong supporter of free speech (and while wikipedia is not a free speech zone, free speech is an important tool to create and goal of a free unbiased encyclopedia). WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I avoided saying this for fear of putting words in your mouth. I think we're both agreed: it's about making a workable guideline which describes current consensus and practice. "Practical application value" is exactly it. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of the problem of the previous version was that this can only work as a guideline for clueful editors of good will - clueless ones won't get the point and ones of bad will won't care. See WP:PRO. Hence the necessity of rewriting as a practical guideline. The previous version IMO stuck around so long because people had abandoned  it as useless in a practical sense - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the end of the world, but the new version doesn't keep the spirit of the old one as much.  The nutshell text, explicitly allowing encyclopedic content, was a very important for balance example.  If there's consensus this is better, that's fine-- but there it should be discussed, not edit-warred-in.  --22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecmconroy (talk • contribs)


 * Looking at the history, and the fact that about half the edits seem to have been made by sockpuppets of banned users, that's perhaps no bad thing. What it does do is to reflect sanity.  As David says, if he and I can agree on it, then progress is clearly being made. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Certain encyclopedia dramatica articles
Certain encyclopedia dramatica articles relating to wikipedia admins will never need to be linked to legitimatly. These should definitly be included--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying that explicitly will just give them a few orders of magnitude more traffic. Nobody disputes this point, and if this page (and NPA for that matter) don't make the point without an explicit reference they need a rewrite. Wily D  23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't imagine anybody even suggesting it, it is so self-evidently wrong. Plus it's blacklisted anyway, or was last time I looked. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if for example the New York Times did a front page article on ED and the article contained extensive discussion about certain ED articles on Wikipedians then we might. I don't consider that to be a likely scenario. In any event WP:BEANS says not to make this sort of thing explicit and Wily is right that mentioning them will simply give them more traffic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If we specifically ban certain ED articles, then we've just awarded them the Gold Medal of Trolling. They will have won at that point. All they want is to get a reaction, and that would be giving them the ultimate reaction. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Steve Summit's point 3 below: such off-site rubbish should be ignored real hard. I think we can describe it in general terms (as he does) without feeding the trolls of ED - David Gerard (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope this policy won't include or refer to any lists of "permabanned" sites. We shouldn't do blacklisting; it smacks too much of prior restraint. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I would like to thank recent contributors to this discussion for getting involved. We finally have the right mix of people to forge a truly useful and stable consensus guideline on linking to external harassment. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary by Steve Summit on wikien-l
He just added the following:


 * Having followed some (but by no means all) of the interminable debate, it seems to me it all boils down to three things:


 * 1. If a link in article space is allegedly non-encyclopedic, it needs to be assessed according to WP:V or WP:RS or whatever the sourcing guideline du jour is.
 * 2. If a link in non-article space serves to harass a Wikipedia editor, it needs to be dealt with in accordance with WP:NPA, which at times has (and IMO certainly should) treat such links just as seriously as on-wiki harassment.
 * 3. If an off-wiki page, not linked to from article space or from non-article space, harasses a Wikipedia editor, it should either be ignored, or dealt with off-wiki. Nothing we do on-wiki can punish an off-wiki harasser, or force the off-wiki harasser to remove their harassing words from the net.

3. is IMO excellent. It means "ignore this crap." But does it blend will it stand? - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bravo. Thank you, David, for cross-posting that here. I can't keep up with the mailing list. As far as point number 2 goes, I'm wondering this... If there is a significant faction of people who think that the policy needs to be "strengthened", or more thoroughly specified, in order to protect Wikipedians from harassment, then does that mean that we've somehow failed to demonstrate that a simple policy, together with effective enforcement, is all we need to beat harassment? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have, without doubt, resoundingly and spectacularly failed to demonstrate that. Whether the proposed changes will make things better or worse is very much an open question. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If our problem is inability to enforce a clear policy, then why will writing more words on it make any difference? If that's our problem, how do we address it? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This will likely end up a guideline that suppliments WP:NPA, just for those who need a lot of words. Wily D  14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's inability to enforce a clear policy, it's the absence of a clear policy to enforce. Or rather, the fact that every time what seems clear is enforced, we have a shitstorm.  So: the purpose is to decide, in detail, what the Wikipedia community actually thinks on this matter (which is, to be honest, not that hard to discern, since everyone seems to agree that linking harassment is Just Plain Wrong), and to codify things for the guidance of the well-intentioned but inexperienced.  In other words, to avoid repeating past mistakes.  If we get this right it will be a consensus version of the history of the Great Attack Link Wars of 2006 and 2007.  Who was it said that he who will not learn from history is doomed to repeat it?  Something like that anyway.  Guy (Help!) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a clear consensus against linking for the purpose of harassment, or committing harassment by the means of linking; there's much less of a sense that there's a consensus against linking to harassment, which differs from harassment itself like a map differs from the country it maps. Discussion of things in a free-ranging spirit of inquiry can include talking about, and linking to, things that constitute harassment as long as such things exist in the real world.  That's a whole different thing from actually harassing somebody (with or without the use of links).  The failure to distinguish the two is a philosophical divide that will forever frustrate attempts to get a complete consensus. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I quote form the current wording: Linking to external harassment, attacks, or to sites which routinely engage in such attacks, is usually considered inappropriate, and should be done only after careful thought has been given to the likely effect on the victim. That seems to reflect a consensus position.  It does not absolutely forbid such a link, but it urges serious thought before doing so, which is as it should be. What is wrong with that wording, exactly?  Please be specific. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is a consensus against frivolously linking to things we find unpleasant, which is what that seems to be getting at. Wily D 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, per se, to an urging to give "careful thought" about what you link to. You should give careful thought to everything you say and do.  I think lots of things, especially when I'm angry, that I'm very glad I had the sense not to actually say or act on.  My concerns are not really with that wording itself but with some of the attitudes displayed by people espousing it and similar things, where I'm not convinced they don't have an agenda to let it continue to evolve and mutate into something more forbidding and less thoughtful.  Am I just assuming bad faith? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an inherent danger in any mutable policy that it could change into something undesirable. Just write the right policy (or in this case, I'd guess guideline) and worry about the future when it happens. Wily D  16:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "...[E]veryone seems to agree that linking harassment is Just Plain Wrong". This highlights the whole, tormented issue in a nutshell, I think.
 * Dan's already said this, but in my words: everyone agrees that linking to harass is Just Plain Wrong. Me, otherwise, I have absolutely no problem with linking to harassment (if, obviously, there's some other decent reason to do so other than to harass).  The wording "linking harassment" is beautifully ambiguous, and could be argued for..., well, for as long as we've been arguing abut this.
 * The people who want to go beyond "don't link to harass", who want to say something more like "don't link to harassment", are trying to accomplish one (or more) of three things, I think:
 * G1. Suppress the harassment: Each fewer link to it that there is makes it that much harder to find.
 * G2. Protect the harassed: Each time an injured editor sees a link to (or mention of) their tormentors, they are reminded of their pain.
 * G3. Punish the harassers: They're evil, nasty people; they don't deserve incoming links from a quality site like Wikipedia.
 * Now, all three of these are quite arguably noble goals. But some of us are arguing (rather passionately, it seems) that we do not want to pursue any of them in this way.  It's not that we condone the harassers, it's not that we don't have the utmost sympathy for the harassees and wish to support them in every way we can, but we feel that those three goals (a) don't really help much and (b) sponsor way too much collateral damage.
 * The other thing that goes on (though I'm not sure this is the policy to discuss it under) is that when someone wants to remove a link they find objectionable, they may try to accomplish it under the rubric of some other policy, such as WP:RS. If a link under discussion fails RS, that's fine.  But we've seen people try to twist and misinterpret RS in order to delete some particular link, when it's pretty clear that their real motivation is to accomplish one of the above three goals.  That's a problem -- especially if those three goals don't have consensus (which, I argue, they do not). —Steve Summit (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

← OK, so there are several threads in there. Let me ask first up: what text do you think should change in this guideline as currently written; from what and to what? Second, you raise the prospect of collateral damage. We've had something under ten articles that have been temporarily disrupted by edit warring; a strong presumption in favour of discussion should avert the edit warring, and sanity should result in the correct outcome for the articles themselves. Does that not sufficiently limit the potential for collateral damage, or is there some other form of damage you think is likely? I don't think we can ever fix a problem of people trying to remove links they don't like by cycling through policies until they find one that looks good, any more than we can prevent that exact same problem with any other kind of content, but again I would think that a strong presumption in favour of discussion - and of respecting the results of that discussion, I guess - should fix that. Yes? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What text do I think should change? Good question.  My own, personal, selfish answer is that I don't much care: there are probably some words in there that aren't quite right, but I'm not super-motivated to find and fix them, because I don't have a clear understanding of what this proto-policy is for, or why it's necessary in the first place.


 * The primary reason, I know, is that Arbcom asked the community to draft a policy on links to external harassment. And I understand that this is a complicated, sticky, emotional issue, but I keep coming back to the three points of mine which David pasted into this thread.  I think links in article space ought to be governed by WP:RS.  I think links in non-article space, if they're perceived as harassing, ought to be governed by WP:NPA.  So, ideally, there's nothing left for this policy to talk about.  (Perhaps it is, as WilyD suggested above, just a bunch of extra guideline text to go along with NPA.)


 * I will take a stab at the words in the guideline. But I would ask anyone else: Do you agree with points 1, 2, and 3 at the start of this section?  If you do, I think the conclusion is inescapable that there's nothing left for a "Linking to external harassment" policy to talk about.  Am I wrong?  Or if you don't agree with all three points, which one(s) do you disagree with?  Why?  Is it because you're in favor of G1, G2, and/or G3 above, or for some other reason? —Steve Summit (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting the link in plaintext
It's been proposed:
 * "Where an especially problematic link is encyclopedic content (e.g. in an article on someone whose notability includes harassing others), putting the link in plain text, e.g.  http://www.unpleasant.example.com/&lt;/nowiki&gt;  (rather than as a live link), or even just the domain name, e.g. unpleasant.example.com, has been considered a workable solution in the past."

This is not consistent with my conception of NPOV. "Handicapping", "bowdlerizing" or otherwise "redacting" such links serves as a strong flag that our articles considers some sites "Good Sites" and some sites "Evil Sites". A decision about whether to link during a mention should be made for encyclopedic reasons, based on RS, EL, and MOS-- never for moral, judgmental, or emotional reasons. --Alecmc ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This was mentioned above and quickly went to a different place. My concern with the nowiki suggestion consists of two parts. 1. Having a unlinked url on our site invites people to fix it. 2. Having out in the open invites vandals to war over it. In regard to #1, a newcomer to WP would see "Why is this not linked?" and fix it possibly opening the door to biting and possible further sanctions depending on the heat or light generated by said link (we have banned new users based on patterns of acting like vandals/socks. A truly innocent new user could be caught in this as fixing links is a relatively easy task and has a low learning curve). In regard to #2, having an unwikied link in an article (especially one known to cause issues) is like having a large steak in the middle of a pack of wild dogs. I would rather comment it out so it is not visible at the very least, in the middle put a detailed html comment in its place with a link to the discussion on why it was removed and the very most remove it completely. The last paragraph of "In articles" covers the second to worse case scenario (with the worst being permanent removal).

As a FYI, I am really trying not going to get involved in this as much as NPA. I would rather get back to editing the encyclopedia. I am merely going to be here to play devils advocate/third opinion of things I have not seen brought up. Don't shoot the messenger as I am trying to point out flaws with what could happen with wording.  spryde |  talk  01:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it makes a lot of sense to either not talk about a link, or else provide it as a live link. Places in-between those two seem, as you suggest, to invite fixing the link, either by making it live, or by removing mention of it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The site in question was antisocialmedia and the article was Judd Bagley and the person who added the text was David Gerard, who absolutely is not as proponent of removing links. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that this has been used as an actual (not theoretical) method of resolving an issue between two sides. Apparently, it works because one side thinks removing the link altogether is unencyclopedic, the other side feels their emotions have been honored, and the page is carefully watched by both sides so third parties are not an issue. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that " A decision about whether to link during a mention should be made for encyclopedic reasons, based on RS, EL, and MOS-- never for moral, judgmental, or emotional reasons." it is also true that time spent arguing over "live or not live" is time not spent doing something else, and I for one do not consider the difference enough to waste time over, while the emotionally distraught often will. Life is about choices. Let's not recommend that people insist on drama when this simple measure is workable, even if not optimum. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see Alec's point. I mention it as an example of how these things have actually been dealt with. Examples include the naming of antisocialmedia.net on Judd Bagley - the site is entirely detailed and odious personal attacks on Bagley's perceived enemies (who happen to include several Wikipedians) but also happens to have been named in the New York Times, is something he's notable for and is something no article on him could reasonably leave out. Though there were those who wanted the name removed entirely from the article as a violation of No Personal Attacks (this issue eventually went to arbitration), even those thinking it needed to be named in the article were happy just to have it in text form. (It's now present as a link in Overstock.com.) Less pointed examples include shock sites (the present page looks to have been edited with an axe, but past versions favoured text links) and the photograph on autofellatio (which used to be linked rather than inline - note, it's now present). It's imperfect but at least gets the information out there. Hence my reference to this having historically led to a compromise that stops everyone wasting megabytes arguing - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I said it wouldn't work, but practice trumps theory. I guess that's a viable alternative. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting links in plaintext is just puerile. It may soothe some ruffled feathers, but it makes every uninvolved reader wonder (a) if we don't understand HTML, or (b) why we're making them jump through pointless cut'n'paste hoops. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea here is to document what happens in practice. If you think what happens in practice is wrong, please feel free to go to the talk page of the article in question and propose a change. I don't think that debate belongs here. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the plaintext option sounds absurd to me, too, but if it works, then it works. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ditto" - plaintext seems kind of childish but if it's been made a workable solution in one case, whatever. The information is still there uncensored. Wily D  19:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems silly to me, like trying to be half pregnant. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems silly because it is silly, but if we can solve the GD MF BADSITES problem by letting people be a little silly, I'll suggest the wisest course of action is just to let them. Wily D 14:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's also like writing "f*ck", which I've also never really understood, because everybody knows what you mean, so how is "f*ck" any less offensive than "fuck"? But of course, that circumlocution gets used all the time, whether or not I personally think it makes sense.  Okay, in the spirit of compromise, point conceded. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You got a point there :-) Guy (Help!) 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that putting links in plaintext will actually draw attention to links (and in any event the BITING issue if a newbie comes along to try to fix it is a serious problem). I'm seriously considering in the actually Bagely case of proposing that we do an actual link but I think that that may just create more drama at this point in time. I frankly don't see what we gain by nowikying. In those cases we simply are slightly screwing our readers and have no advantage (not to mention that it makes it even more blatant to readers that we're letting our personal issues alter the project which will do wonders for our reputation). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the BITING issue you mention, too, but I think it's manageable. Any time there's a link that's plaintext for a reason, we can put an   next to it explaining so and directing would-be hotlinkers to go to the talk page for discussion first.  We can also resolve not to punish first-time hotlinkers, and to defend any first-time hotlinkers who are too-zealously blocked before the saner heads have had their say.  The defense is simple: "You're right, that link should be hot like all the rest, there's no good reason for it to be plaintext, but here's the very good non-good reason why it's not."  (If the would-be hotlinker ignores the warning and gets into an edit war over it, they may deserve blocking for that.)


 * What do we gain by nowikying? Yes, we slightly screw our readers.  No, we don't improve the article in any way. What we gain is simply that the editors of ours who didn't want the link there are mollified.  If we can't convince them that they're wrong for not wanting the link there, if we can't make them go away, and if we're insistent on retaining some form of the link, the non-hot link is, precisely, a compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, I guess if this is going to be necessary to get this agreed to I'll support it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note in the text flagging the NPOV issue. Wording tweaks welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding and removing
At the risk of turning up the temperature here, which is not my intention, there have been a couple of edits that have changed "removing" to "adding or removing" in the sentence If a link is removed in good faith, the first step should be a calm and reasoned discussion on the relevant discussion page. Bear with me here, please, I want to develop my argument in full.

I think this is an important point on which to gain agreement. There are some fundamentals to state first:


 * We are talking here about a very small number of cases (fewer than ten articles, as far as I can make out). A pragmatic approach is clearly indicated, since there are few if any general rules that can be drawn from such a very small sample.
 * There are, broadly, two classes of site: one, exemplified by antisocialmedia, is primarily dedicated to harassment, the other, exemplified by michaelmoore.com, is not.
 * In these latter cases, Moore, Murphy and Neilsen-Hayden being the ones I recall, the content of the site changed at some point. This breaks the normal Wikipedia model of bold, revert, discuss (BRD).
 * BRD defaults to a position where disputed content is removed until consensus is achieved for its inclusion. This is as it should be, otherwise we'd have a Wikilawyers' charter and policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would become virtually unenforceable.
 * So, while the onus is on the editor seeking to include content to justify its inclusion, links break the normal process because the content of the site linked may be entirely different from the content at the time when said consensus was achieved. Hence the problem.

Now the bits which I think are likely to be contentious:


 * Wikipedia is not evil. (OK, not that contentious).
 * External links are not immediately critical to the content. Important, perhaps, and a useful service to our readers, but what really matters is the text of the article.  Absence of a link may be puzzling to some, but probably no more than that.

We are balancing two competing imperatives: on the one hand, the need to be respectful to living individuals, and on the other, the need to be a neutral encyclopaedia. But there's the crucial difference in how we weight the two: a link to harassment causes pain to a real person right now, whereas the encyclopaedia is an abstract concept, a work in progress with no deadline to meet. There is harassment out there, and we can't fix that, but Wikipedia should be seen to do the right thing by not aggressively insisting on linking to it while we examine our collective navels.

I come to this from the perspective of an OTRS volunteer, I think some others here also do OTRS. If we get a complaint then we don't reply that if the argument settles itself in a week or so then the defamatory material will be removed, we remove it, there ad then, and initiate a discussion on the talk page. And that's a really important principle to uphold. It is vastly easier to go back to the complainant a week later and say look, I'm awfully sorry, but we read around the subject and there is no doubt that many reliable sources have indicated that this material is significant; unfortunately we have a limited ability to fix real-world problems. If this is not obvious then I probably haven't explained it right, I guess, at least it seems obvious to me.

One obvious source of problems would be if a link is removed again shortly after a debate on Talk. That's easily handled: the individual who removes the link can be pointed to the talk page, and we can all WP:AGF until it's proven otherwise.

What I'm arguing, then, is that as a principle, harassment needs fixing here-and-now while content issues can be discussed in our usual ponderous way, especially when the result is that we link to the harassment anyway - we need to be seen to be not evil. Despite the enormous number of words it took me to say that, I do think this is a pretty simple principle and one which I hope we can endorse. Thanks for hanging in there. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows where I stand, so I'll just go quick:
 * Links _ARE_ the encyclopedia. Without links, there basically is no WP:V.
 * In a content dispute, we should neither favor nor disfavor links based on our moral assessment of their content.  What I see above is a proposal to bias content disputes involving things we hate so that it's harder to insert things we hate than it is to insert things we like-- regardless of the encyclopedic considerations.
 * It is not consistent with NPOV to allow our emotional or moral judgments to affect the content of the articles. "Delinking" should apply to ALL links in the encyclopedia or no links in the encyclopedia.  To link to some, but not others, based our own POV is not consistent with NPOV, and NPOV is non-negotiable. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Alec, but you are simply wrong about your first point. We reference things from all kinds of sources, many of which are not available online at all or are available only with a subscription.  Most science journals do not permit public access to full text (hence FUTON bias) and great swathes of Wikipedia have no real references at all, which is not good but does not necessarily mean the articles are factually inaccurate or biased.  What matters is the content and the ability to verify it from reliable sources.  Nowhere in policy does it state that content must be verifiable from a link included there and then.  Quite the opposite.
 * Your comment about not biasing based on things we hate is, in my view, an excessively simplistic and inaccurate characterisation and flatly contradicted by most of the discussion above. Actually this is about respecting living people, as with WP:BLP; about not being evil and being seen not to be evil.
 * David has already cited one precedent that shows that there is no tangible degradation of the project caused by not actually hotlinking something which is judged by independent sources (not just us) to be vile.
 * So, I'm afraid you have just reiterated an absolutist position in a debate where people are trying to come up with workable, pragmatic guidance for the confused and well-intentioned. I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving this a bit more thought? Guy (Help!) 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He may be absolutist, but he's also right. (So I guess I'm absolutist, too.)  At root, the removals we're concerned with here are based on emotion, not logic.  Humans being the emotional creatures we are, compromises which respect widespread emotional leanings may occasionally be necessary, but it's not wrong to point out the illogic. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I believe it is factually wrong to state that "links are the encyclopaedia".  They aren't.  We could write a fantastic article without a single link.  It's also the case that we view links differently depending on the overall tone of the site.  A harmless site which is not especially relaible but has interesting content may achieve consensus as an external link, while something like Stormfront will not.  Not due to differences in reliability, but due to the fact that one is a hate site and the other is not.  One might I suppose have as a point of principle that both should go, but in practice we are humans and that's how links have always been assessed. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Links are the encyclopedia" is a canard. It was the rest of Joshua's argument I was agreeing with.  Sheesh. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia as we know it really couldn't exist without hyperlinks. The whole project is based upon the ability of large numbers of editors to quickly and transparently look over each others' sources.  Sure, you could make a Wikipedia-like project which only used deadtree sources, but it couldn't hold a candle compared to Wikipedia, and it'd be full of errors caused by editors not all having access to the sources. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a huge logical disconnect here. Wikiepdia can exist indefinitely with no links to sites that include attacks, because the vast majority of sources do not contain attacks, and the vast majority of subjects do not attack people on their websites. The few who do, through lapse of judgement or deliberate intent, well, if they get removed we talk about it and rapidly decide to put them back in.  And havingtalked about it, any edit war is forestalled, because a consensus exists and can be pointed to. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy is correct in that we could in theory construct an encyclopedia without any hard-links at all. However, doing so would be a tremendous disservice to our readers. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If people are doing that then I find that unfortunate. A link to Stormfront should be assessed based on whether or not is is compliant with WP:EL. The fact that Stormfront is a bunch of neo-nazis should not be relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly problematic that sites which are actively evil are less welcome than others. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Evil is POV. I think they're evil too, that doesn't mean my POV should get in the way. There are people who think that just about any organization whether it is evil. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not especially POV, no. I can find you a horde of reliable sources that say Stormfront is evil, and I'm pretty confident I will not be able to find any objective independent commentator who identifies it as harmless. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, if Adolf Hitler were alive today and had a webpage, would we link to it from Adolf Hitler? Note that we do link to the KKK's website from Ku Klux Klan.
 * POV attitudes aside, if someone or something is evil, that shouldn't affect the way we cover them. To do otherwise is prudery, and has no place in an encyclopedia.  —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course we would, and if it was removed then there would be a rapid editorial consensus to stick it back in. The problem all along has been people acting from principle and outrage, rather than just noting that, well, that was silly, and calmly agreeing what to do about it.  And we are, remember, talking about tiny numbers of articles.  Stormfront is linked in Stormfront (website).  But it's an inappropriate link in pretty much any other article.  The few people who thought it was a great source for the fact that millions of Jews did not die in the holocaust were not the kind of people with whom you can have a rational discussion.  You'll note that eve though I was the one whose home Don Murphy phoned, I was very much in favour of putting donmurphy.net back in that article.  is quite informative.  It also shows us why we need a guideline for the guidance of the bemused :-) My main point here is that if we reinforce the presumption to discuss rather than reflexively revert, we will probably not have anythign like the same problem. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So somewhere -- like, in this policy itself -- we need to distinguish between external links for reference (by which I mean, the corresponding homepages linked to from Michael Moore, Ku Klux Klan, and, in some parallel universe, Adolf Hitler), versus external links used as sources in assorted other articles. Here I somehow thought we were talking about the first case, but you're talking about the second.  Other readers are likely to make the same mistake I did.


 * I'd rather not disallow a source just because it's evil, but it will never be possible to disentangle "this is an unreliable source because it's written by a bunch of nonsensical kooks" from "this is an unreliable source because it's written by a bunch of evil, conniving (albeit articulate) bastards". So I'm not going to get too excited about that case.


 * I wouldn't use the words you did (I would never say it's "not particularly problematic that sites which are actively evil are less welcome than others", because I think it is problematic), but in the end I agree that the number of articles we might link from to stormfront.org, or kkk.com, or hypothetically AdolfHitler.name, is at most one apiece. But how do we articulate this distinction?  Should we try to cover links "as sources" versus "for reference" separately?  (This would be difficult, since "for reference" is not at all the right way to describe that case, and I'm not sure there's a good way.)  Or should we just make an explicit exception that it's okay to have a link to X's home page from our article on X even if X's home page wouldn't meet RS or NPA (or anything else) anywhere else? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the sole issue is official websites of the subjects. In other cases blatant attack sites are pretty much universally rejected as unreliable.  Nor would Moore's website be a source for anything not related directly to Moore. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is progress
We have come a long way from the days of trying to ban BADSITES from all MediaWiki projects anywhere. I guess Wikipedia is growing up after all. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)