Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
  • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
  • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
  • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot.
If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Are links to archived copies of books ok?[edit]

See here - this is the 2nd time the editor has added it. @Ario1234: I don't know what others will say, but you should see this discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the book is on Internet Archive
"The Internet Archive is an American digital library with the stated mission of "universal access to all knowledge". It provides free public access to collections of digitized materials, including websites, software applications/games, music, movies/videos, moving images, and millions of books. In addition to its archiving function, the Archive is an activist organization, advocating a free and open Internet. As of 2022, the Internet Archive holds over 34 million books and texts, 7 million movies, videos and TV shows, 800 thousand software programs, 14 million audio files, 4 million images, 1 million media files, 2 million TV clips, and over 681 billion web pages in the Wayback Machine." Ario1234 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally no it's a violation of WP:COPYLINK. There's been a few conversations on here before and Archive.org is embroiled in an legal challenge around it, but does not actually have permission to have copies of these online. The thing is also we've had a few occasions of people just uploading books to there and then linking them. Archive.org can have a mission of making all this info free, but the fact is they don't have the legal permissions usually. Canterbury Tail talk 20:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if there were no copyright concerns at all (e.g., a 19th century book), editors normally list books under Wikipedia:Further reading instead of in the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canterbury, does not actually have permission to have copies of these online. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. is settled law now. Libraries do not require permission to make scanned books available for search and limited preview. The unsettled law is Controlled Digital Lending which is one of the options at IA if users 1) log into their registered account and 2) click through to a separate page to access it. -- GreenC 03:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreenC but this isn’t limited preview is it? Doug Weller talk 06:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No a simple free account can access the entire book as part of the CDL indicated above, which they don't have permission for. As a result we cannot link to it unless the copyright on that is very clear. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Permission is required? There is no law that says libraries must have permission to lend holdings. Just the opposite. CDL is based in long-standing existing library law, one copy one lend. It's a pretty conservative position. Google was the the radical change. If you recall, we linked to Google Books during the 10 years of Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., it was a direct link, no registration required. During that trial, there was no court injunction for Google to take the content offline ie. the judge did not find it a problem the content was online, even though Authors Guild had requested an injunction, it was denied, the content was allowed to stay online as an official ruling until the case was settled. Also, web archives such as Wayback Machine and archive.today also have unsettled copyright law. We need to be careful about being too reactionary when it comes to copyright law. -- GreenC 14:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreenC we've got two separate discussions. One is where such a link should go, and that's further reading IMHO. The other is the copyright status, and that's for another venue. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So in conclusion is linking to Internet Archive allowed or not? Ario1234 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not add it to the further reading section with other books. -- GreenC 03:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Raised at WP:CQ#Are links to the Internet Archive for books in copyright copyright violations?. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My "not a lawyer" opinion - what Canterbury Tail said. I don't believe the Hachette case has been settled yet, so I think the legality of content on IA is still under review. COPYLINK advises caution. Even if the internet archive gets clearance, that doesn't mean the content is no longer protected by copyright. It would mean that the way they are using it is adjudged to be fair use. Our own claim to fair use relies on several factors. One - that we are non-profit - is a factor we've chosen to downplay, because we encourage reuse of our content anywhere by anyone for any purpose. We encourage reuse commercially. We encourage reuse in different legal environments where non-free content is handled very differently. This is one reason why in our m:Resolution:Licensing policy the first position is that content should be free. Exemptions should be limited. I'd be more comfortable with such a link if it were in a citation. As it is, it seems to be a link to a book about the same topic of which we write, but not used transformatively in any way - we're just encouraging people to go read a copyrighted work for free on a website that has a (I believe still) dubious right to display it. The primary person liable for any copyright infringement would, of course, be the person who places the link here, but there is downstream risk for reusers, too. Probably not a strong one. But the case for fair use here seems weak at best. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question I have not looked at this, but if the user has any type of access to the book, then why do they link to the online copy? Why don't they just cite the book directly, and be done with it? Huggums537 (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Uh, nevermind. Don't know where I am these days. This is about external links, not citations. I'm outta here... Huggums537 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to study guides[edit]

I have noticed a few articles about novels contain external links to study guides such as Kafka's The Trial. Are study guides appropriate for wikipedia? Medarduss (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not feeling like a great match to me, @Medarduss, although I'm unaware of any previous discussions on the subject. I've removed the two linked at The Trial#External links. Now we can wait to see whether anyone objects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @WhatamIdoing. I guess I should probably have done that myself. Medarduss (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The usual rule at WP:ELBURDEN is that if a link is removed, it should stay out until there's a consensus (e.g., a quick discussion on the talk page) to re-add it. So whenever you see links that you're pretty sure are not good for the article, then you should feel free to remove them. But I'm also happy to see editors who balance that by asking for other opinions when they're not sure. You did good. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to Amazon site[edit]

Good Day

I would like to publish a page for an author (see draft link below), but many of his reference links point to www.amazon.com, which appears to be linked to the black and white spam lists. I ask for your kind approval to review this draft for inclusion. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kyle_Jantjies&action=submit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthweb (talkcontribs) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You haven't posted that page yet, so nobody can see it.
Why do you think you need links to Amazon.com? If it's a link to a book, then just take the Amazon link out, and leave in the other information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sport climbers and Instagram links in EL[edit]

I raised the topic at Portal talk:Climbing#Instagram links in External Links section but I'm reposting the discussion here following User:Zerosumnet's advice. The user has repeatedly removed Instagram links from sport climber articles (I've edited Natalia Grossman/@nataliaclimbs and Brooke Raboutou/@brookeclimbs), citing WP:LINKSTOAVOID, but I believe the IG links serve as WP:ELOFFICIAL:

  • These athletes generally don't have "official" sites, i.e. presence on the World Wide Web.
  • I'm not sure about other sports, but at least in sport climbing, Instagram is where athletes post competition updates and put out official releases. Their IG accounts are de facto official sites.
  • For the above athletes and others, the links are checkmark-verified accounts, not fan accounts.

Based on the above, they seem like a straightforward case of WP:ELOFFICIAL and the language, These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided applies here. Adeletron 3030 (talkedits) 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I interpret Instagram for some people as being their official site if there isn't another one that they have and run. While yes we avoid social media links, I think they can have 1 official link, and if that just happens to be a social media link then so be it. However if they have a website, that usually has social media site links in it, then any other social media etc gets culled under the WP:ELOFFICIAL.
I am however more concerned with the amount of "profile" links athletes have when the majority of them just repeat the same information. If a link cannot provide unique encyclopaedic information, not found in other links or the article itself, then it should be removed. We shouldn't have profiles from every possible organization if they don't tell us anything new. Canterbury Tail talk 15:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks and fair point: I think the {{Climber links}} encourages bloat and running afoul of WP:ELMIN (I think we can do without links to media sites, for example). Adeletron 3030 (talkedits) 15:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That template encourages violations of the "social media directory" rules. It should probably be modified substantially. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see this often in Indian film/television actor/actress articles. If they do have a website as an official page, I'll remove any social media links. If they don't have a stand-alone website, having a single social media link where they interact with fans / other interested people is helpful and for me meets WP:ELYES. Yes, there are some edit-wars on which one to use, but so far nudging towards the talk page, page protection and partial blocks have helped. Ravensfire (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Satoshi spam link on Lataro island entry[edit]

Hi, This is a genuine question, about an unusual situation.

Lataro, one of the islands of Vanuatu was recently leased by some guy, who decided to rename it “Satoshi island”, and turn it into a “Bitcoin Paradise” commercial platform (whatever that means). As a result, the entry for the island not only has the usual sections on "Geography", "History" (just like other islands of Vanuatu) etc., but also a link to https://www.satoshi-island.com presented as the island's “official website” (sic). That link has been repeatedly added on the page; yet the problem is that it is clearly a promotion for a commercial project of cryptocurrency. Does it really have its place on Wikipedia? I deleted the link as this was my understanding of WP policy, in line with other editors; yet it keeps coming back.

I'd suggest two separate entries: one about Lataro the island itself (with its geology etc.); possibly another one about that “Satoshi island” business venture (like there are other WP links on certain companies, provided they meet the notability criteria etc). If so, that spam link might go on the second page, but would not be polluting the entry on Lataro.

What is your take on this? -- Womtelo (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Womtelo, you might present this situation to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist folks. Edit warring to add promotional links is always a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, Thanks! I just followed your suggestion. -- Womtelo (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]