Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Samuel Klein wrote: A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links might be handy. We have a few places were having a set of links as a first class member of the wikiverse would be useful * external links or further reading * a list of images related to an article (which may not all fit neatly in the article) * interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles about the same topic On the final point, the poster style of interwiki link to sister projects begins to look dated, at least to me. It obviously doesn't scale well; or in other words it puts the onus on the project linked to, to organise the material relevant to one WP topic, in such a way that a single link can carry the whole weight. Innovation is at least possible. That's an interesting point. I presume you mean wikisource here. For Commons and Wikiquote (I'm unsure about the other projects) it is fairly easy to have a corresponding page or category or both. If the Wikipedia article is a person who is an author, then a wikisource page is possible, and if the Wikipedia page is about a book or other published work that could be on wikisource, then again a single link, page or category is usually possible. But there are some articles where this system does fall down. I presume the place to put links to editorially selected wikisource pages would be in the external links, or as a courtesy link in a citation. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Carcharoth wrote: On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Samuel Klein wrote: A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links might be handy. We have a few places were having a set of links as a first class member of the wikiverse would be useful * external links or further reading * a list of images related to an article (which may not all fit neatly in the article) * interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles about the same topic On the final point, the poster style of interwiki link to sister projects begins to look dated, at least to me. It obviously doesn't scale well; or in other words it puts the onus on the project linked to, to organise the material relevant to one WP topic, in such a way that a single link can carry the whole weight. Innovation is at least possible. That's an interesting point. I presume you mean wikisource here. For Commons and Wikiquote (I'm unsure about the other projects) it is fairly easy to have a corresponding page or category or both. If the Wikipedia article is a person who is an author, then a wikisource page is possible, and if the Wikipedia page is about a book or other published work that could be on wikisource, then again a single link, page or category is usually possible. But there are some articles where this system does fall down. I presume the place to put links to editorially selected wikisource pages would be in the external links, or as a courtesy link in a citation. Yes, Wikisource is on my mind in particular, but there are a couple of points here. Some work could be done (perhaps I'm not up-to-date, though) with stacking those poster boxes more successfully: they are more eye-catching than really convenient. There are three kinds of template: poster, citation and attribution, and it is really more elegant to use the citation links in the external links section, if more than one is relevant. The Wikisource category system is not really developed enough to do the task right now; its dab system likewise (and it is supposed to disambiguate texts, really); and the Wikisource: namespace plays a surrogate role for a topic namespace (rather than being just project pages). But enough of our troubles. There does seem to be a possibility for a bit of lateral thinking here. If, say, the current external links and interwiki sections were done by transclusion from something separately maintained (a set of pages organised by both language and topic?), how could that be implemented, and how could it relate to efforts to make hard-copy bibliography more modular? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On 2 Apr 2010, at 11:21, Charles Matthews wrote: Carcharoth wrote: On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Samuel Klein wrote: * interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles about the same topic On the final point, the poster style of interwiki link to sister projects begins to look dated, at least to me. It obviously doesn't scale well; or in other words it puts the onus on the project linked to, to organise the material relevant to one WP topic, in such a way that a single link can carry the whole weight. Innovation is at least possible. That's an interesting point. I presume you mean wikisource here. For Commons and Wikiquote (I'm unsure about the other projects) it is fairly easy to have a corresponding page or category or both. If the Wikipedia article is a person who is an author, then a wikisource page is possible, and if the Wikipedia page is about a book or other published work that could be on wikisource, then again a single link, page or category is usually possible. But there are some articles where this system does fall down. I presume the place to put links to editorially selected wikisource pages would be in the external links, or as a courtesy link in a citation. Yes, Wikisource is on my mind in particular, but there are a couple of points here. Some work could be done (perhaps I'm not up-to-date, though) with stacking those poster boxes more successfully: they are more eye-catching than really convenient. I'm really not fond of the poster boxes in their current form at all. It's far too easy for them to clutter up a page. As a suggestion, what about something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-foot_telescope Look at the infobox. While you're at the page, also look at the bottom - that's my preferred way of dealing with external links. ;-) That doesn't solve the issue of multiple links being needed, but IMO it does make the links look a lot better and in a more relevant place. I would expect that most multiple links to Wikisource would/ should be in the references, though - although the same probably wouldn't be true for wikinews links. There are three kinds of template: poster, citation and attribution, and it is really more elegant to use the citation links in the external links section, if more than one is relevant. The Wikisource category system is not really developed enough to do the task right now; its dab system likewise (and it is supposed to disambiguate texts, really); and the Wikisource: namespace plays a surrogate role for a topic namespace (rather than being just project pages). But enough of our troubles. I think that's just Wikisource's growing pains; over time I think it will probably end up with more disambig pages and also topic pages. But perhaps that's just my viewpoint as I'm used to Wikipedia. There does seem to be a possibility for a bit of lateral thinking here. If, say, the current external links and interwiki sections were done by transclusion from something separately maintained (a set of pages organised by both language and topic?), how could that be implemented, and how could it relate to efforts to make hard-copy bibliography more modular? That sounds like a way of adding confusion to those editing a page, when they find that part of the page is stored somewhere else completely. Interwiki (as in language) links seem to be dealt with well nowadays by robots; expanding that to include wikisource links might be good. External links are best done as project-specific ones IMO, though. Mike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Michael Peel wrote: There does seem to be a possibility for a bit of lateral thinking here. If, say, the current external links and interwiki sections were done by transclusion from something separately maintained (a set of pages organised by both language and topic?), how could that be implemented, and how could it relate to efforts to make hard-copy bibliography more modular? That sounds like a way of adding confusion to those editing a page, when they find that part of the page is stored somewhere else completely. Interwiki (as in language) links seem to be dealt with well nowadays by robots; expanding that to include wikisource links might be good. External links are best done as project-specific ones IMO, though. Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the undivided editing box and simplicity. I'm not also not really cut out to be a strategy wonk - too much to do right now, at least. But the second decade of WP is only around nine months off, and I hear various ideas circulating. Some of what is up in the air may be the future. If I start thinking about the data structure that would support a bot putting in language interwiki links, it seems that (although it might be a bit untidy in practical terms) it is close to being something with interesting potential. If it wasn't private to a bot, but a WMF project in itself: wouldn't it provide a focus for all sorts of metadata collection, as well as collection of a web directory (Wikipedia doesn't do that, but it could happen elsewhere), bibliographical data, no doubt other things? Magnus Manske talks to me about such things every time we meet. We have got close to a standard footer organisation for WP pages (such as Works/See also/References/Further reading/External links/Attribution/Categories/Interwiki). It would take a bit of thinking of matters the other way round, but having other views possible in which the main body of the article was presented with a footer according to some preference options, only References being standard, sounds fairly interesting to me. This thread started really because WP:EL seems now to want external links to be minimal, driving people to place relevant links in References (for which they'd have to develop the article to justify the link). I understand where that kind of thinking comes from, but all stick and no carrot makes Jack a dull boy. Hence my interest in other options. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few years ago and it diminishes the utility of Wikipedia as a reference work. Fred Bauder I don't think there's such a consensus, site wide. I have seen articles where someone OWNs it and there is a local consensus. Keep in mind that we risk ending up with our articles web link farms which is are not maintained in any consistent manner. I support good links, and add them. But there's a downside there too. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com External links and further reading are content like any other content. They require maintenance and sound judgment. What I object to is the meataxe approach to editing with respect to external links and further reading as well as article content. We all understand the problem when it's done with article content. I agree that this is a similar problem. In theory, the 'external links' section of an article should grow and take shape in proportion to the article's size and maturity, not stay constant over time. We have been doing a good job of expanding footnote-style references and external links -- I spoke to a business school class yesterday where a student said isn't excellent citation one of Wikipedia's main attractions? -- but there is also value in links to general further reading. A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links might be handy. We have a few places were having a set of links as a first class member of the wikiverse would be useful * external links or further reading * a list of images related to an article (which may not all fit neatly in the article) * interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles about the same topic SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't think. Carcharoth On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Angela bees...@gmail.com wrote: I made this page a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela/Links_study Updating it for 2010 doesn't provide any evidence that there was a war on external links any time recently. Maybe there was one in 2006? Total links in the external links section of 8 articles (Russia, marketing, Star Wars, SEO, TVR, medicine, Jewellery, and Tamagotchi): 2010 = 48 2009 = 46 2008 = 40 2007 = 50 2006 = 81 2005 = 51 2004 = 50 2003 = 10 2002 = 2 2001 = 2 Angela ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Carcharoth wrote: That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't think. Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't think. Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights. I'm not at all convinced there's an actual problem here. Prospective useful links and references can (and should) go on the talk page. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't think. Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights. I'm not at all convinced there's an actual problem here. Prospective useful links and references can (and should) go on the talk page. - d. Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few years ago and it diminishes the utility of Wikipedia as a reference work. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:26 +0100 From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Carcharoth wrote: That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't think. Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights. Charles And why should links have any particular rights? External links should be justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be a recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they should add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've also seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they need any special protection? I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy specifically for links. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Matt Jacobs wrote: Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights. Charles And why should links have any particular rights? External links should be justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be a recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they should add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've also seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they need any special protection? The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there the distinction between may be removed and must be removed is quite important. And there is the right, not of the link but the editor adding it, to have good faith assumed: other things being equal, assume that the link was added to help develop the encyclopedia. The onus is not always on the editor adding to an article to justify additions: that is a very unwiki-like attitude, if I may say so. I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy specifically for links. For one thing, the page WP:EL is very bureaucratic as it stands; the good part of it is the maintenance and review section, where templates for tagging links regarded as potential problems are mentioned. Also, this discussion thread reveals fairly clearly that there are differing views on the matter. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few years ago and it diminishes the utility of Wikipedia as a reference work. Fred Bauder I don't think there's such a consensus, site wide. I have seen articles where someone OWNs it and there is a local consensus. Keep in mind that we risk ending up with our articles web link farms which is are not maintained in any consistent manner. I support good links, and add them. But there's a downside there too. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com External links and further reading are content like any other content. They require maintenance and sound judgment. What I object to is the meataxe approach to editing with respect to external links and further reading as well as article content. We all understand the problem when it's done with article content. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:33:36 +0100 From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Matt Jacobs wrote: Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights. Charles And why should links have any particular rights? External links should be justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be a recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they should add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've also seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they need any special protection? The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there the distinction between may be removed and must be removed is quite important. And there is the right, not of the link but the editor adding it, to have good faith assumed: other things being equal, assume that the link was added to help develop the encyclopedia. The onus is not always on the editor adding to an article to justify additions: that is a very unwiki-like attitude, if I may say so. I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy specifically for links. For one thing, the page WP:EL is very bureaucratic as it stands; the good part of it is the maintenance and review section, where templates for tagging links regarded as potential problems are mentioned. Also, this discussion thread reveals fairly clearly that there are differing views on the matter. Charles I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have reason to believe it is not beneficial to the article. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote: snip I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have reason to believe it is not beneficial to the article. But what if the editors can't agree on whether the link benefits the article? To get specific, I found a resource and was getting ready to add links to lots of articles, but pulled back after others didn't seem as excited as me about the resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_24#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_2#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive It now has 359 links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearchlimit=250offset=250target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britishpathe.com Back in January, there were 130 links (you will have to take my word for that, as posted in that discussion, as I didn't take a screenshot). So it seems the use of such links (to archived news reel clips) can spread without too much pushback or people worrying about spamming. But if someone had added 200 links in just a few days, that would have worried some people. Should they have been worried? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: High value links should always be provided. Can you provide an reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful additional resources shouldn't be provided? I'll gladly go and disagree with them. General Thoughts: The editors who feel most strongly about these issues congregate at WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and the related noticeboards and wikiprojects (WP:ELN, WP:WPEL, WP:WPSPAM, WP:COIN). Some of the work that the cleaners and spamcops do is _immensely_ helpful, clearing out the blatant SEO/spam links, and even worse items like the malware and shocksites. However, a few take the perspective and skills of a spamcop, and apply them to imperfect links and user-contribs, such as when an academic archivist goes around adding links to their university's collection to multiple articles, or when someone goes around fixing urls to a site after it gets restructured. A few vocal editors would even prefer that we only ever had a single Official site link in the EL section, and would like all the [[:Category:External link templates]] to be deleted. eg the current (basically biannual) discussion to eradicate all links to wikis, that aren't official sisterproject wikis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Using_Wiki.27s eg the latest (long) discussion concerning archivists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#What_we_want_and_what_they_want eg the most recent (October) discussion concerning links to archives of official websites at archive.org (wayback machine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_27#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org etc etc etc. There is definitely a small but active number of editors who have extreme views (as with any subjective issue). Sometimes they happen to be in the same place at the same time, which could give the impression of a gang or cabal engaged in a war. The only thing that can really be done, is to provide the counter-perspective, and hope that consensus results in something sensible. Each and every time. Thankfully, most editors have moderate views on these things. Sadly, we get tired of repeating the same arguments regularly. Small specific example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoff_Dyerdiff=350129846oldid=350126288 I wrote the original stub, so I _know_ those links were used during its creation (they're 90% interviews with the author). I added them back, and left a note on the editor's talkpage, but he was more interested in removing the single link that had been apparently spammed (which as-it-happens was to a very informative video interview with the author), so he re-removed them all. However, he did take my advice, and at least left a copy on the talkpage this time). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novaseminaryoldid=350145519 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoff_Dyerdiff=350145148oldid=350140311 I'll add them back eventually, all cited and tidy, but readers won't be likely to find them in the meantime... As has been said before: Most of these types of conflicts can be boiled down to [[m:Immediatism]] vs [[m:Eventualism]]. (imho) Immediatism is great for BLPs, and CurrentEvents, and dealing with unambiguous problems; but Eventualism is one of the core reasons behind Wikipedia's successes, a fact that is sometimes insufficiently recognized. Quiddity ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:21 PM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote: snip As has been said before: Most of these types of conflicts can be boiled down to [[m:Immediatism]] vs [[m:Eventualism]]. (imho) Immediatism is great for BLPs, and CurrentEvents, and dealing with unambiguous problems; but Eventualism is one of the core reasons behind Wikipedia's successes, a fact that is sometimes insufficiently recognized. Thanks, Quiddity! That was an excellent summary, and I hope some of the people posting here take the time to go and read those discussions (I remember some of those!). Those discussions do illustrate the philosophical differences here. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Matt Jacobs wrote: I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have reason to believe it is not beneficial to the article. But if they remove it from a generally anti-spam ideological point of view, or on the grounds of conflict of interest, then there is such a problem of good faith being disregarded. Quiddity has now gone into this in greater detail, and WP:EL is _very clearly_ drafted from an anti-spam perspective. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:16:48 +0100 From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: DoesWikipedia Suck? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote: snip ?I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their additions to an article when disputes arise. ?That's a pretty standard expectation in any collaborative environment. ?There's no lack of assumption of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have reason to believe it is not beneficial to the article. But what if the editors can't agree on whether the link benefits the article? To get specific, I found a resource and was getting ready to add links to lots of articles, but pulled back after others didn't seem as excited as me about the resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_24#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_2#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive It now has 359 links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearchlimit=250offset=250target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britishpathe.com Back in January, there were 130 links (you will have to take my word for that, as posted in that discussion, as I didn't take a screenshot). So it seems the use of such links (to archived news reel clips) can spread without too much pushback or people worrying about spamming. But if someone had added 200 links in just a few days, that would have worried some people. Should they have been worried? Carcharoth When a high volume of links to one place are inserted, I can understand why some people would tend to take a close look: spammers are a major annoyance. However, a spammer is usually not going to be able to make a solid argument for why those links belong, and it will quickly become apparent if the link offers little in the way of benefit to the articles. The slightly panicky anti-spam response seems to be more of a problem with poor judgment, and not easily addressed through rule changes. Sxeptomaniac Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:57:25 +0100 From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Matt Jacobs wrote: I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have reason to believe it is not beneficial to the article. But if they remove it from a generally anti-spam ideological point of view, or on the grounds of conflict of interest, then there is such a problem of good faith being disregarded. Quiddity has now gone into this in greater detail, and WP:EL is _very clearly_ drafted from an anti-spam perspective. Charles WP:COI is the most-abused of all the guideline/policy pages on WP, in my opinion. It should never, ever be used to win a content disagreement, yet it frequently is. Spam is a problem when the links are misleading, not directly relevant, duplicate more well-known or less commercialized sites, direct to very unreliable sources, etc. However, if an editor can't argue why the link is not useful, then they shouldn't be labeling it spam/COI. Perhaps WP:EL could stand to be edited, but I consider it more a matter of poor judgment than anything else. Sxeptomaniac ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Charles Matthews wrote: The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there the distinction between may be removed and must be removed is quite important. And there is the right, not of the link but the editor adding it, to have good faith assumed: other things being equal, assume that the link was added to help develop the encyclopedia. The problem with a phrase like may be removed is its implicit ambiguity. Those of us who read may in a potential sense expressing a possibility are offset by others who read may in a permissive sense. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: And further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the topic. Carcharoth That is why I despise the war on external links and further reading some editors seem to think is appropriate. I don't think I've seen much evidence of a war on external links ... what there is is, however, is pressure against an unfiltered flood of external links. Anyone capable of using Wikipedia is also capable of using Google, Bing, or any of a number of other search engines. Beyond a point adding links reduces the value that Wikpedia provides over these resources. Even if you held the position that the world needed another unselective source of links, Wikipedia isn't especially well structured to provide it: There is little to no automation to remove dead or no longer relevant things, no automation to find new worthwhile links, and a lot of vulnerability to manipulation by interested parties. I think that at its best Wikipedia should be directly including all the information available up to Wikipedia's coverage depth, linking only for citations, then it should have links to the most valuable external resources which go deeper into the subject than Wikipedia reasonably can. If you need a raw feed of sites related to some subject area this is what the search engines do well. Seems to me you are (precisely) rationalising a war on external links. Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_ you arguing? That trawling through the first hundred hits on well-known search engines will always produce those links? That is easy to refute. For many sites of high academic value, precisely no (zero) SEO is done. I can easily think of examples. Very good links can be very hard to find, unless you have a good reason to suspect they are there. Given your style of argument, which is that we should be relying on the utility of commercial entities over which we have no control at all, to help our readers find the further information that we know (because WP does not aim to give complete coverage) they will need, I would say that Fred's worries are amply justified. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_ you arguing? That trawling through the first hundred hits on well-known search engines will always produce those links? That is easy to refute. For many sites of high academic value, precisely no (zero) SEO is done. I can easily think of examples. Very good links can be very hard to find, unless you have a good reason to suspect they are there. High value links should always be provided. Can you provide an reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful additional resources shouldn't be provided? I'll gladly go and disagree with them. But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of an article typically has negative value for the following reasons: * Readers will be inundated, no one is likely to follow more than a couple so the very high value links will be lost in the less valuable ones. * Wikipedia editors are unlikely periodically review links in a large collection (supported by the high density of dead links, and the malicious sites I've found in prior scans of our internals links). * Long lists provide plausible denyability for someone attempting to profit by placement, as additions to link soup doesn't look suspect. * Someone looking for a large collection of assorted links on a subject can find a larger and more current list from any of the search providers. Given your style of argument, which is that we should be relying on the utility of commercial entities over which we have no control at all, to help our readers find the further information that we know (because WP does not aim to give complete coverage) they will need, I would say that Fred's worries are amply justified. I bothered making the argument here because I believed that Fred was likely mischaracterizing the nuanced position people have taking in trying to balance the value of additional links vs their cost as a simple war on external links, when no one was likely carrying on any such war: Just because someone has decided on a different benefit trade-off than you doesn't make their activities a war on all X. I wish there were a usable non-commercial search engine. But Wikipedia clearly isn't that. Wikipedia's value is in human editorial review. A search engine's value is in enormous scale automation, machine neutrality (not the google results are neutral, but it is resistant to many kinds of bias which wikipedia is not), and automated updates. Everyone on the internet already has access to high quality search engines. I just don't think that making Wikipedia into a poor search engine at the expensive of diluting the selectivity is a net positive for the reader. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: snip But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of an article typically has negative value for the following reasons: Sometimes, if you prepare a proper bibliography for an article (those notes people should write before they write an article, so they know the sources they are working with) you can end up dumping 50 or more links onto the talk page of an article for more thorough discussion and sorting through stuff before adding it to the article. It is that sort of helpful dumping that I think people don't want to see removed from articles. Or at least it should be removed to the talk page. I think what happens is that some people (those who get too involved with sweeping through many articles looking for external link farms) lose perspective and instead of moving the links to the talk page for better integration to the article, they just remove them completely. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_ you arguing? That trawling through the first hundred hits on well-known search engines will always produce those links? That is easy to refute. For many sites of high academic value, precisely no (zero) SEO is done. I can easily think of examples. Very good links can be very hard to find, unless you have a good reason to suspect they are there. High value links should always be provided. Can you provide an reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful additional resources shouldn't be provided? I'll gladly go and disagree with them. I have had a look around WP:EL and its Talk, and I believe it is clearly not the case (given the 20 reasons not to include a link, starting with a catchall) that the guideline is in the hands of those who have that as credo. See below for more. But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of an article typically has negative value for the following reasons: snip OK, reductio ad absurdum. Given your style of argument, which is that we should be relying on the utility of commercial entities over which we have no control at all, to help our readers find the further information that we know (because WP does not aim to give complete coverage) they will need, I would say that Fred's worries are amply justified. I bothered making the argument here because I believed that Fred was likely mischaracterizing the nuanced position people have taking in trying to balance the value of additional links vs their cost as a simple war on external links, when no one was likely carrying on any such war: Just because someone has decided on a different benefit trade-off than you doesn't make their activities a war on all X. But what I see around WP:EL is quite different. Basically it now stands, in relation to linkspam, as WP:N can be considered to stand in relation to cruft. But it has clearly gone further down the deletionist road, and (I presume, just as you jumped to sections of 50 extlinks) anyone who objects is supposed to love linkspam. It seems apparent that a working concept of justifiability has been introduced, analogous to notability; that the onus is on anyone adding an extlink is to show it is justifiable, and your third point is parodied (I hope it is only a parody) as Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article (WP:ELNO). What you wrote is I think that at its best Wikipedia should be directly including all the information available up to Wikipedia's coverage depth, linking only for citations, then it should have links to the most valuable external resources which go deeper into the subject than Wikipedia reasonably can. Obviously the word unique is just bad drafting - should be replaced by distinctive or something that doesn't mean if two web pages have the same essential content we can't have either as extlk. But deeper into the subject than Wikipedia reasonably can and what the article would contain if it became a featured article both make our criteria for justifiability be driven by a state of affairs that is not only hard to define, but actually in practical terms applies only to 1 out of 1000 articles, with no prospect of this proportion changing soon. In short, while no one can be for linkspam or including long lists of duplicative exlks, since Wikipedia is not a web directory, the guideline has gone over to necessary to inclusion by a general criterion (so worse than WP:N) and at the same time junked good sense and weaving the web at the basic, nodal level. Not good at all. I don't see the trade-off. What I see is that WP:EL is now a battery of arguments for winning arguments about what is linkspam, with complete disregard for the cost on the majority of topics, which are neither likely to be spammed seriously, nor enjoy the incorporation cycle whereby extlk content is written into the article in a timely fashion. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
There are other things to do short of that. 1. try to change the interpretation of NOT DIRECTORY and the EL policy to permit a section of links with more generous standards. 2. try to get a policy for adding a subpage for links to articles 3. run a mirror of the project, with links added, which is easier better than a true fork where the articles diverge. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I think the point is to use editorial judgment with respect to what external links and further reading are worthwhile. My experience is that very good links regularly get axed. And there is little you can do other than to fork the project if you don't like it. Fred Bauder On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_ you arguing? That trawling through the first hundred hits on well-known search engines will always produce those links? That is easy to refute. For many sites of high academic value, precisely no (zero) SEO is done. I can easily think of examples. Very good links can be very hard to find, unless you have a good reason to suspect they are there. High value links should always be provided. Can you provide an reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful additional resources shouldn't be provided? I'll gladly go and disagree with them. But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of an article typically has negative value for the following reasons: * Readers will be inundated, no one is likely to follow more than a couple so the very high value links will be lost in the less valuable ones. * Wikipedia editors are unlikely periodically review links in a large collection (supported by the high density of dead links, and the malicious sites I've found in prior scans of our internals links). * Long lists provide plausible denyability for someone attempting to profit by placement, as additions to link soup doesn't look suspect. * Someone looking for a large collection of assorted links on a subject can find a larger and more current list from any of the search providers. Given your style of argument, which is that we should be relying on the utility of commercial entities over which we have no control at all, to help our readers find the further information that we know (because WP does not aim to give complete coverage) they will need, I would say that Fred's worries are amply justified. I bothered making the argument here because I believed that Fred was likely mischaracterizing the nuanced position people have taking in trying to balance the value of additional links vs their cost as a simple war on external links, when no one was likely carrying on any such war: Just because someone has decided on a different benefit trade-off than you doesn't make their activities a war on all X. I wish there were a usable non-commercial search engine. But Wikipedia clearly isn't that. Wikipedia's value is in human editorial review. A search engine's value is in enormous scale automation, machine neutrality (not the google results are neutral, but it is resistant to many kinds of bias which wikipedia is not), and automated updates. Everyone on the internet already has access to high quality search engines. I just don't think that making Wikipedia into a poor search engine at the expensive of diluting the selectivity is a net positive for the reader. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
There are other things to do short of that. 1. try to change the interpretation of NOT DIRECTORY and the EL policy to permit a section of links with more generous standards. Good faith requires an attempt. 2. try to get a policy for adding a subpage for links to articles That is what they did on Citizendium. Fred 3. run a mirror of the project, with links added, which is easier better than a true fork where the articles diverge. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I think the point is to use editorial judgment with respect to what external links and further reading are worthwhile. My experience is that very good links regularly get axed. And there is little you can do other than to fork the project if you don't like it. Fred Bauder On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_ you arguing? That trawling through the first hundred hits on well-known search engines will always produce those links? That is easy to refute. For many sites of high academic value, precisely no (zero) SEO is done. I can easily think of examples. Very good links can be very hard to find, unless you have a good reason to suspect they are there. High value links should always be provided. Can you provide an reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful additional resources shouldn't be provided? I'll gladly go and disagree with them. But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of an article typically has negative value for the following reasons: * Readers will be inundated, no one is likely to follow more than a couple so the very high value links will be lost in the less valuable ones. * Wikipedia editors are unlikely periodically review links in a large collection (supported by the high density of dead links, and the malicious sites I've found in prior scans of our internals links). * Long lists provide plausible denyability for someone attempting to profit by placement, as additions to link soup doesn't look suspect. * Someone looking for a large collection of assorted links on a subject can find a larger and more current list from any of the search providers. Given your style of argument, which is that we should be relying on the utility of commercial entities over which we have no control at all, to help our readers find the further information that we know (because WP does not aim to give complete coverage) they will need, I would say that Fred's worries are amply justified. I bothered making the argument here because I believed that Fred was likely mischaracterizing the nuanced position people have taking in trying to balance the value of additional links vs their cost as a simple war on external links, when no one was likely carrying on any such war: Just because someone has decided on a different benefit trade-off than you doesn't make their activities a war on all X. I wish there were a usable non-commercial search engine. But Wikipedia clearly isn't that. Wikipedia's value is in human editorial review. A search engine's value is in enormous scale automation, machine neutrality (not the google results are neutral, but it is resistant to many kinds of bias which wikipedia is not), and automated updates. Everyone on the internet already has access to high quality search engines. I just don't think that making Wikipedia into a poor search engine at the expensive of diluting the selectivity is a net positive for the reader. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On 29 March 2010 10:58, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of an article typically has negative value for the following reasons: Yeah. 7-10 is IMO the absolute limit for non-reference links, and I can hardly think of an article that can reasonably justify more than three or four. (I'm sure someone will weigh in with counterexamples, I'm speaking in the general case.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
I made this page a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela/Links_study Updating it for 2010 doesn't provide any evidence that there was a war on external links any time recently. Maybe there was one in 2006? Total links in the external links section of 8 articles (Russia, marketing, Star Wars, SEO, TVR, medicine, Jewellery, and Tamagotchi): 2010= 48 2009= 46 2008= 40 2007= 50 2006= 81 2005= 51 2004= 50 2003= 10 2002= 2 2001= 2 Angela ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: And further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the topic. Carcharoth That is why I despise the war on external links and further reading some editors seem to think is appropriate. I don't think I've seen much evidence of a war on external links ... what there is is, however, is pressure against an unfiltered flood of external links. Some editors, though, do have a thing against external links. An example from my recent experience: edit-warring with an editor about linking 5 reviews and official sites on _[[Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise]]_. They apparently interpreted WP:EL as meaning that *if* a link could be used elsewhere in the article (such as a reception section), it *must* be so used or be removed. -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
