Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Clerk notes - see related case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota. CQJ 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Taking the case. Currently reviewing details. CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Corrently Denis Diderot hasn't yet participated, but I hope he'll join the mediation soon, so we can form the complete consensus. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
I Think I'd have to ask, at the very least, that the links section carry an obvious and relevent disclaimer warning the reader that these sites are Unverifiable External Sites and the reader should use discression and caution in using them as resources. --
Barberio 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
The following links are offered as suggestions for further reading only and have not been used as sources in the article. |
I was happy with the disclaimer, since it points out that the following links are more unreliable and less NPOV than most external links but mostly because it seemed to satisfy the objections. I think the only diclaimer that is really necessary is that the pictures contain graphic imagery. Most people realise blogs, by definition, are POV. Currently some of the other links are labelled as Pro Israeli or pro Lebanese, which works better. -- Iorek85 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, wp:not, wp:el.
Specificaly, "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." and "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.".
Unless the article is citing something, then we have to adress it by our standards for a simple external link. And those standards are high, with good reason. There is no reason to overide the style guide in this case. Blogs and 'news agrigators' should not be linked to. -- Barberio 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It is beyond my comprehension that this cabal feels fine about deleting the scholarly, well researched pro israeli links without any good justification. The links i am talking about are the Historical and Investigative Research articles on the conflict. You obviously are disregarding wikipedias NPOV stance on the blogs, so how can you justify enforcing it with such vigor in the case of well sourced research articles that, like the blogs you kept, present a point of view. if either of the two, blogs or research articles, belong on an encyclopedic website, research articles should win hands down. the links i am talking about are these: Who Attacked Israel? , What is Hezbollah? , What Caused this War? , Understanding the US position , The Arab reaction, and what it means and Who is killing Lebanese civilians?
I've been asked to state my position on this issue, so here it is:
First the relevant quotes from WP:EL (the prefixed letters were added by me for easy reference):
A. Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should be dominated by or consist solely of a collection of external links. It is always preferred to use internal links over external links. However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers
B. 6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks.
C. 5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. [...] If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States
D. 2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
E. 9. Blogs, [...] should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.
The interpretation of these guidelines must be based on the fundamental Wikipedia policies, namely
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOR, and [[WP:V]. Thus, the issue isn't whether we've interpreted
WP:EL correctly. The issue is how
WP:EL should be interpreted according to these three policies.
Although the content on external websites obviously is outside Wikipedia space, the links themselves and the information about the links are inside Wikipedia. Therefore the selction of links and the information about links should be governed by Wikipedia policies.
When we're including external links in an article, we're clearly implying something about the links. We're implying that the liked websites will provide more information about the article's topic. If the links have headings and descriptions, then these headings and statements should be evaluated according to basic Wikipedia principles. If we say that www.trotskyites-united.org is the official website of Trotskyites United, then that statement should conform with all of these three policies.
Suppose there are three different groups who all claim to be the true Trostkyites United, and each group has its own website. Then we should normally link to all these factions, and not support any particular POV. Anything we claim about these websites should be verifiable. We should never do original research to determine the facts about www.trotskyites-united.com, www.trotskyites-united.com, and www.trotskyitesunited.org.
In this case, a number of editors, mainly anomymous, introduced links to various blogs. They were put under the header "frontline blogs" thereby suggesting that they reported directly from the war zone and that they constituted firsthand testimony. ("Blogs from the conflict area" would have been much more adequate. "Frontline blogs" smacks of war romanticism.) Since only a few blogs were included, there was a strong implication that these blogs were particularly reliable or relevant. This interpretation was also confirmed by comments on the talk page. A special section was added with collections of photos that supposedly portrayed the effects of military operations. The comments to the photos described the alleged context and expressed a very strong POV. (The words "supposedly" and "alleged" are used here in a completely neutral sense.)
I regarded this as a very clear violation of basic Wikipedia policies. The blogs were clearly not reliable sources, they expressed a strong POV, they were not selected according to NPOV criteria, and the claim that they really were "frontline blogs" had not been verified.
They were blogs (E), they contained unverified original research (D), some contained copyrighted material (C), they were not reliable sources of information like textbooks (B), and there were already a number of external links (A).
To illustrate the facts that the description "frontline blogs" may be misleading, let me quote from one of the blogs linked to in that section: ""Wow. This blog is apparently cited in wikipedia’s article on the Israel-Lebanon 2006 conflict as a “Frontline Blog”. Amusing, since I’m far from being frontline"
Hope this clarifies my viewpoint a bit. -- Denis Diderot 22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What should be linked to - 4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
selection of highly emotional, pov and propaganda images should not be promoted on wikipedia. there are dozens explanations on internet of situation these images where taken in. but none on linked, propaganda sites. images are aranged in a voluntary fashion portraying Israel as an aggressor and Lebanon as a victim. What we don't see on these images is a major player of current conflict - Hezbollah. They are neither being killed nor injured. What we do see are vicious Israeli children eager to kill. We don't see even a slightest hint on them being in shelter for days, but playing around military equipment is shown as a everyday life. Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example. not to forget, that neither israeli, nor international investigation is over. They are positioned as though none is needed. As a final truth. As an ultimate proof. We, btw, don't see even comparable pictures from Israeli site. (and we shouldn't, in my opinion). Does it mean that Israeli suffered no civilian (including children) casuality?
none of the blogs entries (not to mention specially created journals) can be trusted unless reference could be found in reliable sources. they do not represent any significantly important opinion. it's mostly personal emotions (+ propaganda) from powerless commoners. none of the blogs contribute in any positive way in shading new light on a conflict. they are fairly limited both in pov and covering current situation. for sure, more limited that even current text of an article. -- tasc words deeds 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Following on from the mistakes made during this mediation process, I'm going to have to ask for a new mediator before we continue this. Failure to notify those named in the mediation, editing the content of someone's comment, and acting more as judge than mediator are worsening the problem. This has been submitted via Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk and I request we pause mediation untill this is resolved. -- Barberio 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"I'm sorry if I violated any protocol by not informing you directly of my request for this informal moderation. I simply listed your name above as someone arguing for the inclusion of some links, and pointed to the section with your arguments."
"Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example."
"I see non-dead people?"
Greetings good editors. I'll be taking over this case, and archiving this page first. Bear with me for a bit, and hopefully this will be solved soon. Cheers! -- Keitei ( talk) 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mediator,
Please note the continued deletion of external links by tasc, as well as WP:V photographs (see here), on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. In this instance on the sub-article 2006 Qana airstrike, tasc deleted the very links discussed on this mediation page without resorting to either mediation or the talk page—the commented explanation is "rm propaganda." He has apparently violated WP:3RR, and is involved in numerous other disputes with other editors who complain about POV edits without explanation through talk or mediation. I would suggest that this continuing problem has repeated itself too many times, gone on too long, and should be stopped in accordance with whichever Wikipedia policies are deemed to be appropriate. AdamKesher 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Clerk notes - see related case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota. CQJ 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Taking the case. Currently reviewing details. CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Corrently Denis Diderot hasn't yet participated, but I hope he'll join the mediation soon, so we can form the complete consensus. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
I Think I'd have to ask, at the very least, that the links section carry an obvious and relevent disclaimer warning the reader that these sites are Unverifiable External Sites and the reader should use discression and caution in using them as resources. --
Barberio 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
The following links are offered as suggestions for further reading only and have not been used as sources in the article. |
I was happy with the disclaimer, since it points out that the following links are more unreliable and less NPOV than most external links but mostly because it seemed to satisfy the objections. I think the only diclaimer that is really necessary is that the pictures contain graphic imagery. Most people realise blogs, by definition, are POV. Currently some of the other links are labelled as Pro Israeli or pro Lebanese, which works better. -- Iorek85 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, wp:not, wp:el.
Specificaly, "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." and "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.".
Unless the article is citing something, then we have to adress it by our standards for a simple external link. And those standards are high, with good reason. There is no reason to overide the style guide in this case. Blogs and 'news agrigators' should not be linked to. -- Barberio 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It is beyond my comprehension that this cabal feels fine about deleting the scholarly, well researched pro israeli links without any good justification. The links i am talking about are the Historical and Investigative Research articles on the conflict. You obviously are disregarding wikipedias NPOV stance on the blogs, so how can you justify enforcing it with such vigor in the case of well sourced research articles that, like the blogs you kept, present a point of view. if either of the two, blogs or research articles, belong on an encyclopedic website, research articles should win hands down. the links i am talking about are these: Who Attacked Israel? , What is Hezbollah? , What Caused this War? , Understanding the US position , The Arab reaction, and what it means and Who is killing Lebanese civilians?
I've been asked to state my position on this issue, so here it is:
First the relevant quotes from WP:EL (the prefixed letters were added by me for easy reference):
A. Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should be dominated by or consist solely of a collection of external links. It is always preferred to use internal links over external links. However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers
B. 6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks.
C. 5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. [...] If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States
D. 2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
E. 9. Blogs, [...] should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.
The interpretation of these guidelines must be based on the fundamental Wikipedia policies, namely
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOR, and [[WP:V]. Thus, the issue isn't whether we've interpreted
WP:EL correctly. The issue is how
WP:EL should be interpreted according to these three policies.
Although the content on external websites obviously is outside Wikipedia space, the links themselves and the information about the links are inside Wikipedia. Therefore the selction of links and the information about links should be governed by Wikipedia policies.
When we're including external links in an article, we're clearly implying something about the links. We're implying that the liked websites will provide more information about the article's topic. If the links have headings and descriptions, then these headings and statements should be evaluated according to basic Wikipedia principles. If we say that www.trotskyites-united.org is the official website of Trotskyites United, then that statement should conform with all of these three policies.
Suppose there are three different groups who all claim to be the true Trostkyites United, and each group has its own website. Then we should normally link to all these factions, and not support any particular POV. Anything we claim about these websites should be verifiable. We should never do original research to determine the facts about www.trotskyites-united.com, www.trotskyites-united.com, and www.trotskyitesunited.org.
In this case, a number of editors, mainly anomymous, introduced links to various blogs. They were put under the header "frontline blogs" thereby suggesting that they reported directly from the war zone and that they constituted firsthand testimony. ("Blogs from the conflict area" would have been much more adequate. "Frontline blogs" smacks of war romanticism.) Since only a few blogs were included, there was a strong implication that these blogs were particularly reliable or relevant. This interpretation was also confirmed by comments on the talk page. A special section was added with collections of photos that supposedly portrayed the effects of military operations. The comments to the photos described the alleged context and expressed a very strong POV. (The words "supposedly" and "alleged" are used here in a completely neutral sense.)
I regarded this as a very clear violation of basic Wikipedia policies. The blogs were clearly not reliable sources, they expressed a strong POV, they were not selected according to NPOV criteria, and the claim that they really were "frontline blogs" had not been verified.
They were blogs (E), they contained unverified original research (D), some contained copyrighted material (C), they were not reliable sources of information like textbooks (B), and there were already a number of external links (A).
To illustrate the facts that the description "frontline blogs" may be misleading, let me quote from one of the blogs linked to in that section: ""Wow. This blog is apparently cited in wikipedia’s article on the Israel-Lebanon 2006 conflict as a “Frontline Blog”. Amusing, since I’m far from being frontline"
Hope this clarifies my viewpoint a bit. -- Denis Diderot 22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What should be linked to - 4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
selection of highly emotional, pov and propaganda images should not be promoted on wikipedia. there are dozens explanations on internet of situation these images where taken in. but none on linked, propaganda sites. images are aranged in a voluntary fashion portraying Israel as an aggressor and Lebanon as a victim. What we don't see on these images is a major player of current conflict - Hezbollah. They are neither being killed nor injured. What we do see are vicious Israeli children eager to kill. We don't see even a slightest hint on them being in shelter for days, but playing around military equipment is shown as a everyday life. Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example. not to forget, that neither israeli, nor international investigation is over. They are positioned as though none is needed. As a final truth. As an ultimate proof. We, btw, don't see even comparable pictures from Israeli site. (and we shouldn't, in my opinion). Does it mean that Israeli suffered no civilian (including children) casuality?
none of the blogs entries (not to mention specially created journals) can be trusted unless reference could be found in reliable sources. they do not represent any significantly important opinion. it's mostly personal emotions (+ propaganda) from powerless commoners. none of the blogs contribute in any positive way in shading new light on a conflict. they are fairly limited both in pov and covering current situation. for sure, more limited that even current text of an article. -- tasc words deeds 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Following on from the mistakes made during this mediation process, I'm going to have to ask for a new mediator before we continue this. Failure to notify those named in the mediation, editing the content of someone's comment, and acting more as judge than mediator are worsening the problem. This has been submitted via Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk and I request we pause mediation untill this is resolved. -- Barberio 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"I'm sorry if I violated any protocol by not informing you directly of my request for this informal moderation. I simply listed your name above as someone arguing for the inclusion of some links, and pointed to the section with your arguments."
"Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example."
"I see non-dead people?"
Greetings good editors. I'll be taking over this case, and archiving this page first. Bear with me for a bit, and hopefully this will be solved soon. Cheers! -- Keitei ( talk) 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mediator,
Please note the continued deletion of external links by tasc, as well as WP:V photographs (see here), on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. In this instance on the sub-article 2006 Qana airstrike, tasc deleted the very links discussed on this mediation page without resorting to either mediation or the talk page—the commented explanation is "rm propaganda." He has apparently violated WP:3RR, and is involved in numerous other disputes with other editors who complain about POV edits without explanation through talk or mediation. I would suggest that this continuing problem has repeated itself too many times, gone on too long, and should be stopped in accordance with whichever Wikipedia policies are deemed to be appropriate. AdamKesher 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)