Wikiversity talk:External links

How about renaming this policy page to Wikiversity:External links and having it as an overview of what kind of link additions are ok, and what are spam (rather than a page devoted to just "spam")? Cormaggio ^talk 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have lengthened this policy from its previous 1.5 lines. I've also created an essay-like commentary on the issue of whether the licencing of external sites should play a role in the policy, which is not itself a part of the proposed policy, reflecting both sides of a short debate on IRC. --McCormack 10:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing Wikiversity Links from Wikipedia Links

In creating a course I want to:

1. Ensure the student follows all the links to the topics and subjects in this course, and
2. Wikilink many concepts to the relevant Wikipedia page, to allow optional further study by interested students.

The problem I encounter is that these links look the same, i.e. they have the same typographical style, and the student therefore is not guided toward the "follow this link to continue with the course" links as distinguished from the "follow this link if you want to research this topic in more depth in Wikipedia" links.

See: What Matters for an example.

I propose adopting a distinctive typographical style unique to the links that are within the same Wikiversity address space (e.g. within the root address of the course).

Is this a good idea? Is there a better solution? Can this be implemented? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to just produce a template to do so. Do you have a particular font or font color in mind? --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps forest green (#228B22) will suggest growth. Can this be done automatically by detecting the absence of a w: prefix in the link?

Also, is there some forum for establishing Wikimedia branding and sub-branding guidelines, including graphic treatment? If there were common elements that spanned all wikimedia projects, and distinctive elements that distinguished each project that would be helpful here. (I realize that many well-chosen common elements are in place. What are the sub-elements that distinguish the sub projects?) Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Many prefixes besides "w:" would need to be checked to only color wikiversity links. Easier is to check if no prefixes are used:

{{#ifeq: {{ padleft: | 21 | {{fullurl: {{{1| {{FULLPAGENAME}} }}} }} }} | //en.wikiversity.org/
| [[{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|<span style="color:#228B22>{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}</span>]]
| [[{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}]]
}}

I believe there are no style guidelines that apply to every wikimedia website, rather each wikimedia website defines its own style guidelines, for English language wikimedia websites the style guidelines are typically found at Project:Manual of Style on each project. Wikibooks goes even further with recommending that each book define a style guide of its own. You could define a style guide for What Matters by adding a subpage like What Matters/Style guide. -- darklama  13:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried using {{more on|wikipedia|page name}}? Another method might be to include the wikipedia  logo next to links, if you want links to be inline. -- darklama  14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia links are a slightly different color of blue than Wikiversity links. I brought this up earlier, but it was said that consensus may be needed to change the color to green. [1] - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Can of worms in policy

There are aspects to this policy that could invite custodians to make content decisions. Every provision has some sensibility, but if this becomes policy, the exceptions can be killers. I note these as potential problems for comment here.

• Good content belongs on Wikiversity, not at the end of a pipe leading from Wikiversity.

Often source material is copyrighted and cannot be copied here. It may be linked for study. The goal here is education, not building Wikiversity in itself.

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

Sounds like a great idea, however, in practice "misleads" can be in the mind of the beholder. A better approach, if someone wants to link to such a page, would be to explain the link here, and that explanation can include differing points of view, including warnings. We need to avoid the Wikipedian approach of Your Way or My Way, with no compromise possible.

• Links mainly intended to promote a website.

If the web site would be of high interest to someone interested in the subject of the resource where the link is placed, this could be acceptable. "Mainly intended" suggests that we read the mind of the user who places the link.

• Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Such as the New York Times? The real question with any link, here, should be utility to the student or participant, for learning and study. Ad support is a model for many organizations. If a site is so ad-laden that it is difficult to use, that's an argument against linking, but it should be a matter for participant consensus, not for policy based argument.

• Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

Such as to a peer-reviewed journal? Yes, if free access is available, such as to legal preprints. However, this page is about "External Links" as a general section. Still a journal on a subject could be linked from a resource here. The link should be placed in context so that users don't waste their time.

• Links to search engine results pages and aggregated results pages

It's clear that the policy is being written with Wikipedia-like articles in mind. There can be times in discussions where links such as tis can be useful.

• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.

As with many of these, there is a reasonably sound general principle, and the problem is when the general principle is then applied to specific situations which could be exceptions, except someone asserts that "this violates the policy." Policy should be written such that if one follows the policy and adds something permitted by it, one would be reasonably safe. However, it does not follow that a "violation" of policy is a harm. Harm is determined by the specific circumstances involved.

• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

The question should always be the utility to the participant in an educational resource. If some scientific or pseduoscientific theory of interest is found on a blog, it may be referenced here for study. There seems to be an assumption in the policy that the "blog or personal web page" is being cited as an authority, rather than as an object of study. So, again, the question is context, not an absolute yes/no.

• # Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Ditto. Preferably a link should be to a permanent version, so that one is not studying a moving target. Users can always look at the current version. Wikipedia articles, by the way, sometimes have very few editors, and often articles that have been heavily edited may then have, later, practically nobody watching them and content can go south even if it was once good. I'm not quite sure what "stability" means. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it's mediocre, sometimes it's truly awful.

• Sites with non-English language content.

Once again, the question is one of actual value, and who decides that? What a policy can do is to encourage those who monitor edits for "violations" to enforce the policy without regard for the sensibilities of the participant who has placed the link.

• On pages with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views.

Again, this is clearly coming from Wikipedia, where External Links sections should be balanced like that. Entire pages here may have a point of view. We have an overall neutrality policy, but we do that by balancing through *addition*, generally, rather than through exclusion. Again, the draft policy invites outsiders, not participating in the resource, to judge "balance," when even understanding points of view in a field can require expertise.

and just a few more, leaping out at me:

• The full list of external links on the page is excessively long.

Then put the links on a subpage. Or a few specially notable links on the higher level page, with the rest on a linked subpage. The rule should be that every link is considered useful by at least one editor, with good faith being assumed. If there is a problem with a link being to a biased or putatively misleading site, a warning could be placed with editor opinions, signed, if unsigned consensus cannot be obtained.

• Great site for unbiased information, the Truth! --Editor A
• Total fringe nonsense, beware, it's misleading! --Editor B

• The full list of external links on the page lacks balance of perspective or neutrality (some links should be removed to restore balance or neutrality).

We restore balance and neutrality by addition here, not by removal. The suggested policy sets up conflict, and we don't need to replicate here the conflict that is common on Wikipedia over these issues.

• If we are going to have an External Links policy, it will need to be much more carefully drafted. There is an assumption here that those removing links won't be participants in the resource. Hence the advice about not revert warring is warped toward tolerating removal rather than toward keeping links based on assumptions of good faith. Anyone who has worked as a WMF sysop is familiar with massive linkspam, and we need to respect and support the work of those who struggle against it, but we also must not allow the war against spam to take over and take priority over providing the best educational resources we can create.

• Wikiversity is critically different from Wikipedia, and it's important to celebrate and defend the difference. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am very interested in this area. I would like to see Wikiversity diverge significantly from Wikipedia in this policy, so that Wikiversity can develop a unique strength in its ability to create rich learning hubs full of useful educational resources. I am experimenting with different ways of doing this, e.g. ECG page. This page needs more development, but you can see two main sections for 1) active learning exercises created or curated on Wikiversity and 2) a curated collection of lots of links to other (non-active learning) resources on Mediawiki and other sites.

I highly recommend reading more about the future of curation in education. I think collecting links from all over the internet (including sources varying in quality from excellent/trustworthy to really dodgy sometimes!) can be extremely valuable for education. The more I look, the more wonderful resources I find that are very underused because people simply don't know they are there or can't find them quickly/easily enough. Wikiversity could find a really useful niche in being able to increase access to existing free education resources, as well as better highlighting where there is a lack of resources. Once these sorts of collections are available, Wikiversity users can better target areas of need for new resources, whereas if we try to keep only resources/links internal to Wikiversity there will be more duplication as we would have to start from scratch covering topics that are already well resourced elsewhere. Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully support both perspectives offered here. For me, the most useful approach to Wikiversity content is not simply providing information, but providing resources that show participants how to learn about a given subject for themselves. The use of external links is key to that approach, very similar to what User: Bron766 describes. On the other hand, as a temporary custodian, most of the requests I see for speedy deletion are based on a perceived abuse of external links.

From my perspective, a more streamlined external links policy might be more effective. Practically speaking, external links need to be consistent with Wikiversity's mission for the creation and use of free learning materials and activities. External links need to be to educational content, as defined by the learning project, and free, unless explicitly defined in the learning project as to why the link to non-free content adds educational value and/or perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave.

• I have participated extensively in the global blacklist process and in the wikipedia process. The vast majority of blacklisted links and sites are properly blacklisted. However, the problem arises when users come into conflict over whether or not a link is appropriate for a page. It's often related to POV disputes.
• The goal of fully free content is one underneath a number of global WMF wiki policies that can come into conflict with the goal of maximizing free education *here.*
• As I mentioned, peer-reviewed journals are commonly not free, unless one has library access. How one is going to have an academic learning situation without citing non-free content elsewhere is beyond me. Yes, there are steps we can take. It's ironic that, on Wikipedia, links to free content on cold fusion were removed, i.e., to legal pre-print copies hosted by lenr-canr.org, while links to paywall original journals, for the same papers -- same text --, were kept. You would not believe the arguments that were invented. And they would be demolished in one discussion, and that consensus was then ignored elsewhere, and the same participants would raise the same rejected arguments as if there had been no discussion. And when a participant is an administrator, and part of a substantial faction .... Apparently it depends on whose axe is being gored. Quite simply, an inflexible policy will be abused, guaranteed.
• The "explicit definition" you seek would be supplied in talk page discussions of a link, if a link becomes controversial. If it's not controversial, it should not be policy to remove a paywall link or link to a site that contains advertising, simply on that basis. Wikiversity, especially, has many pages that have been created and that are not being carefully watched. Spam links should be removed, and we are grateful for global sysops who remove them. That work is normally done as the links come in, added by Single Purpose Accounts (SPAs).
• What you have written about external links is generally true of all Wikiversity content. The use of an external link is a content decision. Qua administrators, we stay away from such decisions, deferring to editorial consensus, and, here, we give individual scholars great freedom to create resources as they see fit. That doesn't mean that we permit spam or misleading text.
• The danger I see here is that a tight policy will be abused by persons who are not involved with the resource in question, who have no interest in it, and no real knowledge of what would be of benefit to students, who are merely "enforcing the policy." And we get people like that, and they can sometimes gravitate toward being administrators. It's the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, related to the Iron law of oligarchy --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 11 October 2013

Discussion redux

I wrote this today, not noticing that some of the same was written above.... I am breaking this down into signed sections, so that each aspect of the proposed policy may be considered. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Links which are not allowed under any circumstances

Copyvio

• Links to sites which violate the copyrights of others.

Copyright law has been interpreted by the courts to prohibit such linking when it is done knowingly, with intention to evade copyright. Mere linking to a site which may contain some "copyvio" is not illegal, and it is clearly allowed by global policy. Indeed, the WikiMedia sites contain many copyright violations. If they are found, through a complaint from the copyright owner, they will presumably be removed as such, and OTRS enforces this. The claim that a site contains copyvio has been used in the past to maintain an abusive blacklisting. There was no evidence of actual violation, simply assumptions. For example, lenr-canr.org contains papers uploaded by authors, representing that they have the right to upload the paper. Academic publishers commonly allow such free distribution of author manuscripts, and only restrict the as-published version, with formatting, etc. The bare fact of hosting papers that are also subject to copyright -- in a different version -- was used to claim copyvio.

In another incident involving alleged copyvio on lenr-canr.org, there was a publication of an as-published version. I asked the site owner about this. He said that it was uploaded by the author, one of the most senior members of the entire research community, and he was not about to challenge the right of the scientist to upload the paper. Lenr-canr routinely notifies publishers, but publishers also routinely ignore such communications. So is that copyvio? Maybe. But it's not illegal, lenr-canr.org is like Wikipedia, they are immune from being found liable for copyvio if they promptly take a violation down on request.

So this section should reflect what must not be done: deliberate attempt to defeat copyright. What is commonly called "copyvio" is only "possible copyvio." We would not host this content. However, absent knowledge of actual copyright violation, we may link to it. This would similarly not damage a re-user of content from here, since, obviously, they would not be knowingly linking to copyvio. To repeat, in the case law, the only time a host was sanctioned, there was blatant and obvious attempt by the host to evade copyright by moving the actual hosting of illegal content off-site and then linking to it.

I will look at language to be used. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

• Links to sites that match the spam blacklist without being whitelisted.

This is not allowed because such links can make it impossible to edit the page. Obviously, these links cannot be added because of the blacklist, unless locally whitelisted. (I.e, a general site might be blacklisted here, and then a specific page might be whitelisted here. There is no global whitelist.) This as policy means that such links, if found, will be removed on sight, or turned into non-link references, which is kinder. Only if the reference is *spam*, or other vandalism, in effect, should they be completely removed.

Global blacklistings are done for many reasons, and they do not establish that a site is actually harmful. I have seen a global blacklisting when every single usage of the link was completely legitimate, and the blacklisting only occurred because the user adding the links had an apparent conflict of interest, i.e., his IP was that of the site offices.

The policy should make it clear that reference to a blacklisted site is not an offense in itself, the policy, in this section, is only referring to what must be done with blacklisted links, they cannot be allowed to stand as links. If you can actually add a link, it's not blacklisted -- or has been whitelisted. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided

This was, as explained, copied from Wikipedia, which has a very different purpose than Wikiversity. So some of these criteria made need different applications here.

Misleading or unverifiable

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

This, then, can lead to endless debate over content that is hosted elsewhere. If a site is considered to be misleading, any editor should be allowed to express that view, with the link, and this would only apply, then, to blatantly misleading sites, without possible redeeming value. If that Wikipedia policy were strictly interpreted, it would be prohibited to link to, say, political party sites, or do we think that everything they say is "factually accurate" and "verifiable." I don't think so. Rather, when they are linked, they are clearly identified as factional sites. So I would add to this, unless a warning about this possibility is maintained with the link. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Malware

• Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware on a visitor's computer.

This is miscategorized. These links should not be allowed, should be removed or modified on sight. That is, if there is a reason for retaining a reference to the site, it should still be disabled as a link, i.e, instead of having a URL that can be activated with a single click, the http:// from the beginning of the link should be removed, and the rest of the link can be shown. To follow the link, a user must copy and paste it into their browser address bar, this is unlikely to happen by accident, and the mention of the reference should include a specific warning. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Promotional

• Links mainly intended to promote a website.

This is fine, but this criterion should not be used to prevent good-faith linking by an editor in good standing. We also allow established editors -- more than a handful of edits -- to link to their own web site on their user page. Is that "promoting the web site" or "introducing the user." If there is possible redeeming value, such as the second possibility, we should allow the link. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Commercial

• Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format.

Sometimes an editor has the bookstore link handy, and not the other linking format. The kind thing to do is to edit the link, not to remove it. There is another situation that we might want to examine. A professor is recommending a textbook. Can the professor link to sites where an assigned book is sold? Suppose the professor has found one that is much cheaper than the others that might exist. Can the professor point that out?

These are questions for discussion, not assertions. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Contain much advertising

• Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

This is ancient wikicant. I saw it used to remove a link on Wikipedia to the best discussion site on low-carb diets on the internet, the information there was stellar compared to wikipedia. But it was a commercial site, supported by advertising to the market of those interested in low-carb diets. When I was first dealing with high cholesterol, I was grateful for the link in Wikipedia. What is an "objectionable amount"? It's highly subjective. Any user may remove a link if they feel that the link will harm users. So ... this is a criterion for "links normally to be avoided." This is not a strict prohibition. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sites requiring payment or registration

• Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

This is certainly problematic. If the site is of sufficient value, we may allow such links with disclosure. In this, as in other criteria "normally to be avoided," how the link is presented may make a difference. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Search engine links

• Links to search engine results pages and aggregated results pages.

These can be useful transiently. Basically, a student doing research on some topic might put this up as part of the work. For Wikipedia, it's assumed that links are going to be (1) sources for article text, or (2) external links for futher reading. On the other hand, such links are commonly used on Wikipedia on process pages and article talk pages. Context makes a difference! I would probably dislike such a link on a resource page, but it might be fine on an attached talk page or other context. As an example of a possible usage in mainspace, a student preparing a resource might put the link there transiently. However, I have come to prefer that such preliminary work be done in user space. My preference is not policy, mainspace drafting is still commonly done. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Social networking or discussion groups

• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.

This one used to drive me nuts. There have been certain on-line discussion fora where experts gathered. Yes, there was also a lot of garbage, but if one wanted to learn about a topic, asking a question there would produce a plethora of responses, some of which were truly knowledgeable, world-class expertise. Linking to such fora, where relevant and with proper disclosure, can definitely be educationally useful. Wikipedia is trying to avoid people being misled by fringe propaganda and the like. If a discussion group is heavily biased, that should be noted with the link, a warning against assuming rectitude. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Blogs or personal web pages

• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Again, these can be useful. This is Wikipedia policy and thinking. We can, on Wikiversity, study topics where all "recognized authorities" have a very different view than those involved in a field. Brick and mortar universities do this, it can be sociological research. Once again, it is quite likely that most sites in this category will not be considered appropriate. My thinking in reviewing the criteria is looking toward avoiding conflict over links. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Open wikis

• Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

These would likely be of transient use, that's the problem with these. Again, what's the utility? These criteria are not absolute, because it is understood that there can be exceptions. Generally, Wikiverity is substantially more tolerant than Wikipedia. However, behind some of our external link practice has been an attempt to drive content creation here rather than elsewhere. My view is that we should look more toward collaboration with other sites. If the other site has an open license like ours, we may generally be able to bring content created there, here, to make our site more complete. Again, how the link is presented could be crucial. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not relevant

• Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject.

This is simply a requirement that content be relevant to the article's subject. A link to a very general site, in an article on a specific subject, rather than to a specific page on the general site relevant to the subject, is disrespectful of users, wasting their time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-English content

• Sites with non-English language content.

This was my occasion for looking at this today. Wikiversity is an English-language site, but like universities in English-speaking countries, we can host materials that are not in English. Among other things, we can study other languages. We used to automatically delete resources not in English. Occasionally, now, we set them up as translation projects, linked from our language studies pages, these can be student projects, both for students of English who are familiar with the source language, and for students of the source language who are facile in English. Again, links to pages not in English should specify the language, so that users do not waste their time. However, if we are studying some topic where important source materials are in another language, it is possible to read them, Google translate does work for basic understanding.

The non-English Wikipedias commonly link to English sources. This as a policy for the English Wikipedia was "English-centric," after all, if it's important, it must be in English, right? Anyone who wants to learn a topic must learn English, anyway. Yes? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight

• On pages with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views.

This has been an endless source of conflict on Wikipedia. There are ways to handle the problem of balance without arbitrarily restricting the number of links. Here, we can simple set up subpages for links. At the higher level, there can be links to a link page for notable points of view, and these subpages are then organized and include links as are appropriate for that point of view. This is really about neutrality. The idea is to avoid an impression of "majority point of view" simply from the number of links. My view is that links should always be explained and, indeed, reviewed, by developers of resources. If we just wanted raw links, we can find them on Google... Rather, what do students and experts on a topic find useful? The categorization of knowledge and resources is crucial to learning. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

General discussion

Darklama just turned the section I covered above, upside down. I like it. I'll still want to review this more thoroughly, but the approach is certainly more cheerful! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

User pages

Does all or some of this apply to user pages in addition to main namespace pages? Is this just a proposed policy, guidelines, or official policy? Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It applies to all pages. It is technically a proposed policy, but the community has supported it as de facto policy for several years. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)