Wikiquote talk:External links

Comparison to Wikipedia etc.
Though I can accept most of this draft without too much objection, one statement that would indicate an extreme policy change strikes me as extremely unnecessary : "The wider array of general-purpose external links can be added to the Wikipedia entry, making their inclusion here redundant." I am all FOR redundancy of links to mind-expanding sources of information here, and am against any measures to absolute cut off such sources by such an attempt to narrowly define, constrain and contract the functions and options available at Wikiquote. If people come here seeking quotes it should also be a place where they should encounter links for further exploration and not need to be channeled into Wikipedia to do so. For the most part I am all for EXPANDING people's options, to the limits set by necessary rules, and not for constraining them with rules which serve little or no purpose beyond narrowing and diminishing the categories of thoughts, ideas, experiences and information available to people's minds. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 05:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC) As many people who work here regularly well know, I often copy many of the links available at Wikipedia, and often arrange them in a more reasonable and less haphazard way here, trimming a few that might be less useful generally, but for the most part retaining most of them, and I have always sought to encouraged others to do the same. The more links to valid sources of information and exploration there are the better — and I consider it improper constraint of educational opportunities to limit them or inhibit them in any needless manner. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 05:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) After re-reading the proposal I am inclined to strike the very premise of the policy statement as drafted: "Because of the specialized form of reference that Wikiquote provides, many external links that would be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia entry are inappropriate for inclusion in Wikiquote entries. Furthermore, most Wikiquote entries should have parallel Wikipedia articles on the person, media, or theme covered in the entry. The wider array of general-purpose external links can be added to the Wikipedia entry, making their inclusion here redundant." I am against the effort to over-define, over-refine and over-specialize the options available here — a constraint of links to quotations sites that provide little or no usable information is all that I can presently say that I fully accept — not the attempts to inhibit and constrain other options. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What use is it for us, as a collection of quotations, to have external links to sites that present little or no reliable information about the subject's quotes? General bio sites might not provide anything relevant to our purpose. I noticed that you recently removed external links from a page with the notation, "links to either commercial or illegal anti-commercial sites are discouraged here" - but there are a great many commercial sites out there hosting a modicum of biographical information about subjects as a draw to their advertising. BD2412 T 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment I made in an edit summary that "links to either commercial or illegal anti-commercial sites are discouraged here" was merely a succinct but in some ways unsatisfactory summary of customary procedures here, regarding many spam postings, and I certainly do not discourage links to commercial sites such as IMDb, or others which are clearly recognized as providing notable information on subjects. I have never considered myself or any other person to be an abject servant of others or such rules as they might wish to create, and always thought of the wikis as serving people, and their thirst for information, and that they should have minimal rules and restrictions necessary to preform such functions, augmented with such guidelines and directives as develop with experience, but are not presumed to be absolute, and have never endorsed such rules or attitudes as I consider an abomination — as would imply or insist that people should be made to absolutely serve and conform to edicts and imperatives created by any small group of people, no matter how well they might be esteemed in many ways, especially those who seem to generally have a penchant for narrowing human options rather than expanding them. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 07:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with links to imdb either, but you know that there are people who like to add spam links to Wikiquote to sell their products, connected to the page subject tenuously and tertiarily, and for whom the removal of said links will be met with a demand to show them where it is written that these links can not be included. Well, here is where it will be written. We all agree that there must be some restrictions on external links. Rather than disputing the need for a policy, lets work out the details of the policy so it keeps out the obviously bad and gives leeway to allow the good. BD2412 T 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably won't have as much time to deal with matters here so much as I might like this week, because other things have arisen which are keeping me very busy — but I just was inclined to object to some of the blanket wording used — I have always fought obvious spamming, and one can usually recognize it fairly easily; but I don't want links to sites that are clearly relevant and useful for others to explore the subjects of the pages entirely discarded or forbidden. I am all for inspiring people's interests in a diversity of subjects, and not overly constraining or confining people's options with rules and regulations that would absolutely forbid links to either obscure scholarly materials and sources or to very popular sites like Youtube and About-com etc. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 20:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

case in point
There is a discussion at Talk:Targeted killing regarding links to further readings on the topic of that theme. The pros and cons in that instance may shed light on the appropriateness and applicability of this proposal. ~ Ningauble 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cheers. BD2412 T 14:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Study guides, for example
We are beginning to accrue external links to study guides for literary works that are commonly assigned to schoolchildren. Many students check Wikipedia in the course of their studies, and some of them follow links to Wikiquote in search of further information. (A Wikiquote page may not be the most useful resource for completing their homework, but it might occasionally provide some inspiration or even conceivably inspire further reading.) There is no doubt that study guides serve a purpose, but I don't think these links suit Wikiquote's purpose. Frankly, I have qualms about referring our readers to cribs for the books they are reading (or are avoiding reading). What caught my eye recently was the addition of a link to a commercial site that renders its pages with as much or more advertisement than content, although in the aggregate it does offer substantial content. I really do not want Wikiquote to become an advertising directory for commercial sites. I notice that Wikipedia articles do not ordinarily link to this type of site for "further reading." Some Wikipedia articles cite study guides for opinions and analysis, which is not something Wikiquote needs to do. I don't mean to belabor the point, but to give an example of a class of links to things that our readers are generally able to locate without our assistance, and that do not seem to me to add value to our quotation pages. ~ Ningauble 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I much prefer links to noncommercial sites for further exploration of subjects, when they are available, and also generally have a strong distaste for links to sites with strong commercial motivations, but I would not seek to categorically exclude all such links merely because of this. IMDb is primarily a commercial operation, as well as many other sites which are generally accepted because the wide diversity of information that can be obtained from them. Despite awareness of potential abuses, there is notable information at the site in question, and on the whole I would rather permit the added link than insist it be removed. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark as policy
I have removed a controversial paragraph. The other two paragraphs received no objections (we all dislike spam) and are indeed just a corollary of What Wikiquote is not. I've added a sentence to introduce the concept without a mention of Wikipedia, but we can remove that too if unwanted.

Can we mark this as official policy now? It's annoying not to have a link to explain rollback of obviously unacceptable edits, and it's even worse to have a "draft policy" tag next to the statement that they are unacceptable.

If we can't agree on making this policy let's just move the last paragraph to What Wikiquote is not and redirect this title there. --Nemo 07:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)